Underwhelming Starfinder Feats


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Shaudius wrote:
Allowing readied actions to avoid a surprise round also completely negates any possible benefit Fast Talk could have.

How coudl it avoid a surprise round?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yeah, you can't ready an action outside of initiative.

If you are waiting for a triggering event to act, that would be a Perception or Sense Motive to act in the surprise round.


So...to flip things around, as food for thought:

Say your party is waltzing along, being generally observant, but unaware of any potential threats, and suddenly you get blasted by three rifle shots, taking a good chunk of damage.

Your response (and a reasonable one, I'd say) would probably be something like, "What the hell, GM?"

GM: "Oh, there were three enemies there, and each of them had readied an action to shoot as soon as they spotted someone."

You: "But we're not even in combat!"

GM: "Doesn't matter. They readied their actions."

You'd be right to call that BS, and any GM who tried to pull something like that, I'd say, is just being an ass. PCs readying actions outside of combat breaks things in exactly the same way, so I don't see how anyone thinks it's defensible.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Yep. And all the classes have rules for using their special abilities, some of which are attacks. I was arguing against the idea that there's actions you can only take in combat.

The fact that all classes have specific rules for using their spells and special abilities actually cuts against your point though. If the default position was that any ability spell or action could be used at any time they wouldn't need to spell out when they can be used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Shaudius wrote:
Allowing readied actions to avoid a surprise round also completely negates any possible benefit Fast Talk could have.
How coudl it avoid a surprise round?

Because of how readied actions work.

They are an "odd" function in that they allow you to act when you normally would be unable to act but do not, for example, require a reaction.

So, by the rules, if you could ready an action before combat, then combat starts, in the surprise round if your trigger happens, then you get to act because though you cannot act in the surprise round, you're not acting in the surprise round, you're acting in the round before the surprise and your action is simply triggering during the surprise round.

"During combat, combatants who are surprised at the start of battle have the flat-footed condition (see page 276). As a result, they take a –2 penalty to their Armor Class. Once a character has become aware and acted, she is no longer flat-footed due to being surprised."

From the CRB.

So basically... Your GM might allow it Rysky, you might allow it Rysky, but I wouldn't allow it, and I wouldn't play under a GM that allowed it save for very extenuating circumstances.


Shaudius wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Yep. And all the classes have rules for using their special abilities, some of which are attacks. I was arguing against the idea that there's actions you can only take in combat.
The fact that all classes have specific rules for using their spells and special abilities actually cuts against your point though. If the default position was that any ability spell or action could be used at any time they wouldn't need to spell out when they can be used.

The only class that has special rules for using their abilities outside of combat is the Solarion with their Revelations though, all others are just the the normal rules. Sorry if my previous statement seemed to be implying that lots of class abilities had special rules for using outside of combat.


HWalsh wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Shaudius wrote:
Allowing readied actions to avoid a surprise round also completely negates any possible benefit Fast Talk could have.
How coudl it avoid a surprise round?

Because of how readied actions work.

They are an "odd" function in that they allow you to act when you normally would be unable to act but do not, for example, require a reaction.

So, by the rules, if you could ready an action before combat, then combat starts, in the surprise round if your trigger happens, then you get to act because though you cannot act in the surprise round, you're not acting in the surprise round, you're acting in the round before the surprise and your action is simply triggering during the surprise round.

"During combat, combatants who are surprised at the start of battle have the flat-footed condition (see page 276). As a result, they take a –2 penalty to their Armor Class. Once a character has become aware and acted, she is no longer flat-footed due to being surprised."

From the CRB.

So basically... Your GM might allow it Rysky, you might allow it Rysky, but I wouldn't allow it, and I wouldn't play under a GM that allowed it save for very extenuating circumstances.

I actually wouldn't allow a Readied Action to circumvent being surprised in that way, and I think I said so earlier. For Readied Actions to work you have to be aware of the trigger occurring. If you're not aware the Readied Action doesn't go off.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

You can be aware of the triggering condition and not be able to act in the surprise round. That's what happens when the person you are aware of knows there is an invisible third party.

Grand Lodge

I have a feeling that if every time I opened a door or started a conversation with my 10 dex Dwarf I said "I ready an action to swing at the first person who attacks me" so I could always go first in combat my GM would kill me.

EDIT or better yet! Use Direct Control as my standard. My drone gets to move and attack first every time.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Surprised Improved Unarmed Strike isn't on that list.

The feat doesn't remove the archaic property from unarmed strikes nor does it allow you to deal lethal damage. The two things absolutely vital to making a weapon viable.


quasiconundrum wrote:

So...to flip things around, as food for thought:

Say your party is waltzing along, being generally observant, but unaware of any potential threats, and suddenly you get blasted by three rifle shots, taking a good chunk of damage.

Your response (and a reasonable one, I'd say) would probably be something like, "What the hell, GM?"

GM: "Oh, there were three enemies there, and each of them had readied an action to shoot as soon as they spotted someone."

You: "But we're not even in combat!"

GM: "Doesn't matter. They readied their actions."

If you failed to notice the snipers before they noticed you then yeah, you would get shot, that's kinda how sniping works.

Conversely I don't see how that scenario plays out differently if you don't allow RAs outside of combat and the PCs still fail their Perception checks (other than giving the players a meta-awareness that something is about to go down).

GM: "Roll Perception and Initiative."

Players: *fails Perception*

GM: "You see nothing and don't feel in danger at all, what are you doing now?"

Players on their turn: "Uh, keep walking I guess?"

GM on their turn: "As you make you way on down shots ring from snipers."


KingOfAnything wrote:
You can be aware of the triggering condition and not be able to act in the surprise round. That's what happens when the person you are aware of knows there is an invisible third party.

?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

That's why Perception is rolled by the GM.


Peat wrote:

I have a feeling that if every time I opened a door or started a conversation with my 10 dex Dwarf I said "I ready an action to swing at the first person who attacks me" so I could always go first in combat my GM would kill me.

EDIT or better yet! Use Direct Control as my standard. My drone gets to move and attack first every time.

That's not that bad, since you have to be aware of the person and they have to be up on you, someone uses reach or range or just doesn't bother attacking you and that doesn't quite work.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
You can be aware of the triggering condition and not be able to act in the surprise round. That's what happens when the person you are aware of knows there is an invisible third party.
?

What is confusing to you?

Your player readies against visible enemy. Invisible enemy begins combat and triggers surprise round. Visible enemy is aware of all parties and acts in surprise round.

Does your player get to take their readied action when the visible enemy triggers it?


KingOfAnything wrote:
That's why Perception is rolled by the GM.

I personally don't like taking rolls away from the players, and even if I did they would have still rolled Initiative as well.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
You can be aware of the triggering condition and not be able to act in the surprise round. That's what happens when the person you are aware of knows there is an invisible third party.
?

What is confusing to you?

Your player readies against visible enemy. Invisible enemy begins combat and triggers surprise round. Visible enemy is aware of all parties and acts in surprise round.

Does your player get to take their readied action when the visible enemy triggers it?

The way that was phrased confused me, sorry.

*scratches head*

Can you give a more detailed example? What is the readied Action? How is the Invisible enemy triggering combat? And how is the Visible enemy able to take part in the surprise round? Did the Invisible have ordesr to shoot anyone that turned hostile?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
quasiconundrum wrote:

So...to flip things around, as food for thought:

Say your party is waltzing along, being generally observant, but unaware of any potential threats, and suddenly you get blasted by three rifle shots, taking a good chunk of damage.

Your response (and a reasonable one, I'd say) would probably be something like, "What the hell, GM?"

GM: "Oh, there were three enemies there, and each of them had readied an action to shoot as soon as they spotted someone."

You: "But we're not even in combat!"

GM: "Doesn't matter. They readied their actions."

If you failed to notice the snipers before they noticed you then yeah, you would get shot, that's kinda how sniping works.

Conversely I don't see how that scenario plays out differently if you don't allow RAs outside of combat and the PCs still fail their Perception checks (other than giving the players a meta-awareness that something is about to go down).

GM: "Roll Perception and Initiative."

Players: *fails Perception*

GM: "You see nothing and don't feel in danger at all, what are you doing now?"

Players on their turn: "Uh, keep walking I guess?"

GM on their turn: "As you make you way on down shots ring from snipers."

This is not a real example of play.

Initiative is rolled when the snipers start firing, not when they ready their actions to fire. Please use honest examples to prove your points.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
You can be aware of the triggering condition and not be able to act in the surprise round. That's what happens when the person you are aware of knows there is an invisible third party.
?

What is confusing to you?

Your player readies against visible enemy. Invisible enemy begins combat and triggers surprise round. Visible enemy is aware of all parties and acts in surprise round.

Does your player get to take their readied action when the visible enemy triggers it?

The way that was phrased confused me, sorry.

*scratches head*

Can you give a more detailed example? What is the readied Action? How is the Invisible enemy triggering combat? And how is the Visible enemy able to take part in the surprise round? Did the Invisible have orders to shoot anyone that turned hostile?

The details are not particularly relevant to the example. It is sufficient as a possibility to show your concept breaks down.

Readied an action to shoot the visible enemy.
Invisible enemy attacks the players.
Visible enemy and invisible enemy share a telepathic link.
Invisible enemy made the decision, and was not acting on orders, but giving them.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
quasiconundrum wrote:

So...to flip things around, as food for thought:

Say your party is waltzing along, being generally observant, but unaware of any potential threats, and suddenly you get blasted by three rifle shots, taking a good chunk of damage.

Your response (and a reasonable one, I'd say) would probably be something like, "What the hell, GM?"

GM: "Oh, there were three enemies there, and each of them had readied an action to shoot as soon as they spotted someone."

You: "But we're not even in combat!"

GM: "Doesn't matter. They readied their actions."

If you failed to notice the snipers before they noticed you then yeah, you would get shot, that's kinda how sniping works.

Conversely I don't see how that scenario plays out differently if you don't allow RAs outside of combat and the PCs still fail their Perception checks (other than giving the players a meta-awareness that something is about to go down).

GM: "Roll Perception and Initiative."

Players: *fails Perception*

GM: "You see nothing and don't feel in danger at all, what are you doing now?"

Players on their turn: "Uh, keep walking I guess?"

GM on their turn: "As you make you way on down shots ring from snipers."

This is not a real example of play.

Initiative is rolled when the snipers start firing, not when they ready their actions to fire. Please use honest examples to prove your points.

Um, I agree, that's everyone else's reasoning, that Initiative starts before hostile actions, readied or otherwise, commence. Mine is that Initiative starts when hostile actions do occur. Quas post was a view of how I play, whereas mine was a view of how everyone else* was playing.

*That you cannot take combat actions outside of combat, which I disagree with.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
You can be aware of the triggering condition and not be able to act in the surprise round. That's what happens when the person you are aware of knows there is an invisible third party.
?

What is confusing to you?

Your player readies against visible enemy. Invisible enemy begins combat and triggers surprise round. Visible enemy is aware of all parties and acts in surprise round.

Does your player get to take their readied action when the visible enemy triggers it?

The way that was phrased confused me, sorry.

*scratches head*

Can you give a more detailed example? What is the readied Action? How is the Invisible enemy triggering combat? And how is the Visible enemy able to take part in the surprise round? Did the Invisible have orders to shoot anyone that turned hostile?

The details are not particularly relevant to the example. It is sufficient as a possibility to show your concept breaks down.

Readied an action to shoot the visible enemy.
Invisible enemy attacks the players.
Visible enemy and invisible enemy share a telepathic link.
Invisible enemy made the decision, and was not acting on orders, but giving them.

Not really.

Readied action to shoot the visible enemy... when?

When the Visible enemy attacks? Nothing's interfered with that.

When the Invisible enemy attacks? The PC is not aware of the Invisible Enemy so they can't pick this as a trigger.

When they are attacked? If the Visible enemy attacks then it goes off, if the Invisible enemy attacks it does not because they are not aware of them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
quasiconundrum wrote:

So...to flip things around, as food for thought:

Say your party is waltzing along, being generally observant, but unaware of any potential threats, and suddenly you get blasted by three rifle shots, taking a good chunk of damage.

Your response (and a reasonable one, I'd say) would probably be something like, "What the hell, GM?"

GM: "Oh, there were three enemies there, and each of them had readied an action to shoot as soon as they spotted someone."

You: "But we're not even in combat!"

GM: "Doesn't matter. They readied their actions."

If you failed to notice the snipers before they noticed you then yeah, you would get shot, that's kinda how sniping works.

Conversely I don't see how that scenario plays out differently if you don't allow RAs outside of combat and the PCs still fail their Perception checks (other than giving the players a meta-awareness that something is about to go down).

GM: "Roll Perception and Initiative."

Players: *fails Perception*

GM: "You see nothing and don't feel in danger at all, what are you doing now?"

Players on their turn: "Uh, keep walking I guess?"

GM on their turn: "As you make you way on down shots ring from snipers."

Bit late but: after the keep walking but before the snipers pull the trigger the GM *should* call for initiative, and during the surprise round that follows the PCs get shot.

The fact that most GM's I know tend not to do that isn't how combat works. That's basically saying: I skip surprise rounds for cinematic purpose and to invalidate PC abilities that work during surprise rounds.


Damanta wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
quasiconundrum wrote:

So...to flip things around, as food for thought:

Say your party is waltzing along, being generally observant, but unaware of any potential threats, and suddenly you get blasted by three rifle shots, taking a good chunk of damage.

Your response (and a reasonable one, I'd say) would probably be something like, "What the hell, GM?"

GM: "Oh, there were three enemies there, and each of them had readied an action to shoot as soon as they spotted someone."

You: "But we're not even in combat!"

GM: "Doesn't matter. They readied their actions."

If you failed to notice the snipers before they noticed you then yeah, you would get shot, that's kinda how sniping works.

Conversely I don't see how that scenario plays out differently if you don't allow RAs outside of combat and the PCs still fail their Perception checks (other than giving the players a meta-awareness that something is about to go down).

GM: "Roll Perception and Initiative."

Players: *fails Perception*

GM: "You see nothing and don't feel in danger at all, what are you doing now?"

Players on their turn: "Uh, keep walking I guess?"

GM on their turn: "As you make you way on down shots ring from snipers."

Bit late but: after the keep walking but before the snipers pull the trigger the GM *should* call for initiative, and during the surprise round that follows the PCs get shot.

The fact that most GM's I know tend not to do that isn't how combat works. That's basically saying: I skip surprise rounds for cinematic purpose and to invalidate PC abilities that work during surprise rounds.

My apologies on that quasi example, I should have listed it as a Surprise round.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For the sake of our sanity, let's no do out of combat combat.
Surprise round exist for a reason.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Damanta wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
quasiconundrum wrote:

So...to flip things around, as food for thought:

Say your party is waltzing along, being generally observant, but unaware of any potential threats, and suddenly you get blasted by three rifle shots, taking a good chunk of damage.

Your response (and a reasonable one, I'd say) would probably be something like, "What the hell, GM?"

GM: "Oh, there were three enemies there, and each of them had readied an action to shoot as soon as they spotted someone."

You: "But we're not even in combat!"

GM: "Doesn't matter. They readied their actions."

If you failed to notice the snipers before they noticed you then yeah, you would get shot, that's kinda how sniping works.

Conversely I don't see how that scenario plays out differently if you don't allow RAs outside of combat and the PCs still fail their Perception checks (other than giving the players a meta-awareness that something is about to go down).

GM: "Roll Perception and Initiative."

Players: *fails Perception*

GM: "You see nothing and don't feel in danger at all, what are you doing now?"

Players on their turn: "Uh, keep walking I guess?"

GM on their turn: "As you make you way on down shots ring from snipers."

Bit late but: after the keep walking but before the snipers pull the trigger the GM *should* call for initiative, and during the surprise round that follows the PCs get shot.

The fact that most GM's I know tend not to do that isn't how combat works. That's basically saying: I skip surprise rounds for cinematic purpose and to invalidate PC abilities that work during surprise rounds.

My apologies on that quasi example, I should have listed it as a Surprise round.

You shouldn't be in initiative at that point. No one arguing with you would say that it should be a surprise round until combat starts.

How it actually goes:
GM: "Roll Perception"
Players: *fails Perception*
GM: "You see pretty lights on the town and spy a rare candy in the storefront."
Players: "Uh, keep walking I guess?"
GM on their turn: "As you make you way on down shots ring from snipers. Roll Initiative."

No ready actions needed outside of combat. You don't start combat until you are ready to start combat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It's a surprise round.
One side is aware, the other is not.
There's no way you can twist that.


Just to clear up any potential confusion about what I was getting at, as others have said, the very existence of the surprise round precludes anyone readying actions outside of combat in order to get the jump on enemies. That is literally what the surprise round is, and why it's in the rules.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
You can be aware of the triggering condition and not be able to act in the surprise round. That's what happens when the person you are aware of knows there is an invisible third party.
?

What is confusing to you?

Your player readies against visible enemy. Invisible enemy begins combat and triggers surprise round. Visible enemy is aware of all parties and acts in surprise round.

Does your player get to take their readied action when the visible enemy triggers it?

The way that was phrased confused me, sorry.

*scratches head*

Can you give a more detailed example? What is the readied Action? How is the Invisible enemy triggering combat? And how is the Visible enemy able to take part in the surprise round? Did the Invisible have orders to shoot anyone that turned hostile?

The details are not particularly relevant to the example. It is sufficient as a possibility to show your concept breaks down.

Readied an action to shoot the visible enemy.
Invisible enemy attacks the players.
Visible enemy and invisible enemy share a telepathic link.
Invisible enemy made the decision, and was not acting on orders, but giving them.

Not really.

Readied action to shoot the visible enemy... when?

When the Visible enemy attacks? Nothing's interfered with that.

When the Invisible enemy attacks? The PC is not aware of the Invisible Enemy so they can't pick this as a trigger.

When they are attacked? If the Visible enemy attacks then it goes off, if the Invisible enemy attacks it does not because they are not aware of them.

Player readies action to Shoot Visible Enemy if Visible Enemy draws a weapon, but fails Perception and thus does not know about Invisible Enemy. Invisible Enemy attacks Player, initiating a Surprise Round. As Player failed Perception, they do not get to act in Surprise Round. Visible Enemy is in on the plan and knows Invisible Enemy's actions, and thus does get to act on Surprise Round. Visible Enemy draws their weapon... which triggers Player, who now gets to shoot Visible Enemy, despite not being supposed to be able to act in Surprise Round?

Grand Lodge

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

I have a feeling that if every time I opened a door or started a conversation with my 10 dex Dwarf I said "I ready an action to swing at the first person who attacks me" so I could always go first in combat my GM would kill me.

EDIT or better yet! Use Direct Control as my standard. My drone gets to move and attack first every time.

That's not that bad, since you have to be aware of the person and they have to be up on you, someone uses reach or range or just doesn't bother attacking you and that doesn't quite work.

Completely circumventing my character's weakness of a +0 initiative bonus and guaranteeing I go first almost every combat that isn't an ambush is not bad? Seems cheesy as heck and I'm sure any GM I play with would not allow it.

The vast majority of combats begin with the opponents aware of each other (even if they don't see them, they hear fighting in the next room, alarms have gone off, etc). All this talk of invisible NPCs and surprise round is the exception not the rule.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I enforce a "no readied actions outside of combat" rule for Pathfinder, because when I didn't, I really would have players tell me they were "readying" an action all day long, every day.

On the other hand, I do tell them that, in a tense or dramatic situation, I might ask people to roll for Initiative just so I know what order events are happening but that that doesn't mean they *have* to engage in combat (such as the "hostages are being held at gunpoint and Diplomacy may or may not work" scenario).


The discussion on "Readied actions in combat" is A: More at home in the Rules Questions forum and B: Wildly off-topic for this thread. I'd strongly suggest you make a thread and discuss it there instead.


I second that
this was intended for the discussion of feats afterall


Alright, let's ignore the edge cases where players are in a surprise round and use OoC readied actions to act in the surprise round. While I don't think this situation is as impossible as some seem to think (players WILL find ways to explain how they're 'aware' of incoming surprise attacks enough to justify a readied action going off) it's easy enough for the DM to deny.

A more common issue is players using OoC readied actions before normal combat to gain a better position in the initiative than they could otherwise.

Player with +0 to initiative: "I ready to attack anything that threatens us in the next room."

*door opens, players and enemies become aware of each other, initiative is rolled*

*Player with +0 to initiative gets a 7 on initiative*

*Enemy with highest initiative attacks*

Player with +0 to initiative: "My readied action is triggered, so I attack immediately after the enemy attacks and move to that place in initiative."

In fact, it's a good tactical idea for the entire party to do this any time they breach a room. If you roll higher than the enemy, you lose your readied action but it doesn't matter, you go before them as normal. But if you roll poorly, you can always jump up to right after the quickest enemy.

As far as I can see, there's nothing to stop players or NPCs from using OoC readied actions to override low initiative rolls. This is straight up exploitation of the initiative rules, and the only logical result of allowing readied actions out of combat.

If you allow your players to do it, you must make your NPCs do it, and then the start of every combat becomes a mess of triggered readied actions, initiative becomes meaningless, and the game is needlessly complicated.

The initiative system may be overly simple, but throwing it out the window so players can ready actions out of combat is not worth the hassle.


I'm underwhelmed by Far Shot. Small arms and up can get ranges of 80 or more fairly easily. Grenades target grid intersections and so a lower AC. That leaves spears and starknives that will see use from this often, and maybe a couple of the short range small arms. And even with these, weapon focus will apply the same benefit within the first 2 increments and a benefit when you aren't so far away. And maybe with melee attacks. And this assumes someone with throwing weapons isn't moving closer or being advanced upon. I get that this is more a consequence of the range of the game than the feat itself, but I still find it rather underwhelming.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
I'm underwhelmed by Far Shot. Small arms and up can get ranges of 80 or more fairly easily. Grenades target grid intersections and so a lower AC. That leaves spears and starknives that will see use from this often, and maybe a couple of the short range small arms. And even with these, weapon focus will apply the same benefit within the first 2 increments and a benefit when you aren't so far away. And maybe with melee attacks. And this assumes someone with throwing weapons isn't moving closer or being advanced upon. I get that this is more a consequence of the range of the game than the feat itself, but I still find it rather underwhelming.

The issue with grenades is that all penalties, including range, apply to the DC to save for half damage. So it matters quite a lot for them.

I also think long range engagements are realistic, even if few DMs and almost no published adventures choose to use them, when exploring planetary wilderness.


Xenocrat wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
I'm underwhelmed by Far Shot. Small arms and up can get ranges of 80 or more fairly easily. Grenades target grid intersections and so a lower AC. That leaves spears and starknives that will see use from this often, and maybe a couple of the short range small arms. And even with these, weapon focus will apply the same benefit within the first 2 increments and a benefit when you aren't so far away. And maybe with melee attacks. And this assumes someone with throwing weapons isn't moving closer or being advanced upon. I get that this is more a consequence of the range of the game than the feat itself, but I still find it rather underwhelming.

The issue with grenades is that all penalties, including range, apply to the DC to save for half damage. So it matters quite a lot for them.

I also think long range engagements are realistic, even if few DMs and almost no published adventures choose to use them, when exploring planetary wilderness.

Actually they aren't realistic.

According to the FBI and the Military the average engagement is about 14 yards. Meaning most real life "firefights" are fought at around 42 feet. Vehicles get larger, but even military engagements rarely go beyond 100 feet.

The Exchange

To follow up on HWalsh, go,for a walk in the wilderness one day and look just how far you can actually see with any clarity and certainty o landing a shot.

There's a hell of a lot of cover and concealment around in general.

Even in urban environments there's a ton of things to break line of sight and deflect projectiles so that the preferred engagement range is close.


Wrath wrote:

To follow up on HWalsh, go,for a walk in the wilderness one day and look just how far you can actually see with any clarity and certainty o landing a shot.

There's a hell of a lot of cover and concealment around in general.

Even in urban environments there's a ton of things to break line of sight and deflect projectiles so that the preferred engagement range is close.

Exactly!

I had a Rifts GM once who liked doing, "Long Range Encounters" all the time. Every encounter was 1200 feet or longer minimum. I finally got sick of it and explained, "That isn't how combat works."


HWalsh wrote:
Wrath wrote:

To follow up on HWalsh, go,for a walk in the wilderness one day and look just how far you can actually see with any clarity and certainty o landing a shot.

There's a hell of a lot of cover and concealment around in general.

Even in urban environments there's a ton of things to break line of sight and deflect projectiles so that the preferred engagement range is close.

Exactly!

I had a Rifts GM once who liked doing, "Long Range Encounters" all the time. Every encounter was 1200 feet or longer minimum. I finally got sick of it and explained, "That isn't how combat works."

I dunno man. The endless, featureless plain of battle is a time honored staple of lazy GMs everywhere!


Xenocrat wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
I'm underwhelmed by Far Shot. Small arms and up can get ranges of 80 or more fairly easily. Grenades target grid intersections and so a lower AC. That leaves spears and starknives that will see use from this often, and maybe a couple of the short range small arms. And even with these, weapon focus will apply the same benefit within the first 2 increments and a benefit when you aren't so far away. And maybe with melee attacks. And this assumes someone with throwing weapons isn't moving closer or being advanced upon. I get that this is more a consequence of the range of the game than the feat itself, but I still find it rather underwhelming.

The issue with grenades is that all penalties, including range, apply to the DC to save for half damage. So it matters quite a lot for them.

I also think long range engagements are realistic, even if few DMs and almost no published adventures choose to use them, when exploring planetary wilderness.

Didn't know the bit about grenades, thanks!

As for range, we haven't seen many long range encounters work. Either they ended with the side that showed a slim chance of losing just retreating behind terrain/smoke or with the enemy closing the gap into melee. Generally the range of fights quickly becomes manageable. It also helps that some fights take place indoors or in environments with a lot of obstacles (alien forests, caves, back alleys in a city, etc) so the max range is small.


Xenocrat wrote:


The issue with grenades is that all penalties, including range, apply to the DC to save for half damage. So it matters quite a lot for them.
Paradozen wrote:

Didn't know the bit about grenades, thanks!

Yep, I missed that rule and it's actually really important, so thankyou for pointing it out Xenocrat :)

Paradozen wrote:
As for range, we haven't seen many long range encounters work. Either they ended with the side that showed a slim chance of losing just retreating behind terrain/smoke or with the enemy closing the gap into melee. Generally the range of fights quickly becomes manageable. It also helps that some fights take place indoors or in environments with a lot of obstacles (alien forests, caves, back alleys in a city, etc) so the max range is small.

For me - even if 90% of fights still start in charge range: it doesnt actually matter. The systems of melee and ranged are easier to mix now that precise shot is baseline.

It doesnt matter to me if there's long range firefights or not: I just care that ranged attacks work out of the box, without feeling like the rules are stacked against them.


HWalsh wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
I'm underwhelmed by Far Shot. Small arms and up can get ranges of 80 or more fairly easily. Grenades target grid intersections and so a lower AC. That leaves spears and starknives that will see use from this often, and maybe a couple of the short range small arms. And even with these, weapon focus will apply the same benefit within the first 2 increments and a benefit when you aren't so far away. And maybe with melee attacks. And this assumes someone with throwing weapons isn't moving closer or being advanced upon. I get that this is more a consequence of the range of the game than the feat itself, but I still find it rather underwhelming.

The issue with grenades is that all penalties, including range, apply to the DC to save for half damage. So it matters quite a lot for them.

I also think long range engagements are realistic, even if few DMs and almost no published adventures choose to use them, when exploring planetary wilderness.

Actually they aren't realistic.

According to the FBI and the Military the average engagement is about 14 yards. Meaning most real life "firefights" are fought at around 42 feet. Vehicles get larger, but even military engagements rarely go beyond 100 feet.

LOL. Yes, I am very surprised that FBI stats find that crimes and defensive actions in urban areas with pistols happen at close range.

Most casualty producing military engagements in my personal experience happened at ranges between 500 and 20,000 feet. (Machine guns, drones, and artillery.) But the only time I participated in a small arms (plus one M203 grenade launcher) engagement we were about 200 ft from the guys shooting at us. It was night and everyone had cover from waist high walls, so only the grenade accomplished anything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So wait waist high walls are a thing. darn gears of war I judged you to harshly.


Yeah, there's definitely a difference between military engagements and urban crime settings. The situations you tend to see in RPGs are more often closer the the urban crime setting than military, but there's definitely room for both.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
So wait high walls are a thing. darn gears of war I judged you to harshly.

Rooftops in Iraq. I think they're mainly to keep kids from walking off the edge. Plus they're a lot shorter than me, so maybe they approached chest high for many.


Makes sense.

Shadow Lodge

HWalsh wrote:
According to the FBI and the Military the average engagement is about 14 yards. Meaning most real life "firefights" are fought at around 42 feet. Vehicles get larger, but even military engagements rarely go beyond 100 feet.

I think the difference between game and reality is more that one guy could easily shoot you multiple times while you're attempting to charge across the 42 feet between you to whack him with your stick. There's a reason the military doesn't carry swords anymore.

In starfinder rules, it is possible to close a 60 foot gap before your opponent can react to shoot at you once (you beat him in initiative, he could even be ready for you and have his gun in hand).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
According to the FBI and the Military the average engagement is about 14 yards. Meaning most real life "firefights" are fought at around 42 feet. Vehicles get larger, but even military engagements rarely go beyond 100 feet.

I think the difference between game and reality is more that one guy could easily shoot you multiple times while you're attempting to charge across the 42 feet between you to whack him with your stick. There's a reason the military doesn't carry swords anymore.

In starfinder rules, it is possible to close a 60 foot gap before your opponent can react to shoot at you once (you beat him in initiative, he could even be ready for you and have his gun in hand).

In real life it's 20 feet. According to law enforcement, if a person is within 21 feet, they can hit you before you can react.

The reason guns are used instead of swords is not actually as cut and dry as you think. Human bodies are incredibly frail things. It doesn't take much to drop us.

Guns give better range, do (on the whole) far less damage (but more than enough), and require far less training to use.

Or, to be blunt, they are easier, weaker, and less expensive (due to needing less training) to use.

I used to laugh at this one show called, "Deadliest Warrior" because they had a doctor to inspect injuries.

Whenever there was a gunshot, he'd say, "Well, this is going to incapacitate." "Without medical attention, this is going to be lethal." And it depended on bullet placement.

Then someone would whip out a melee weapon. The same doctor would look at a sword slice that dumped all of a person's innards out in one hit and be like, "This guy's dead."

Guns are also terrible for accuracy in general. According to statistics, even in the military, only a fraction of the rounds fired actually hit their targets. There are, of course, exceptions, but that's the generality.

Guns are better for long range stand offs.


HWalsh wrote:


Guns are also terrible for accuracy in general. According to statistics, even in the military, only a fraction of the rounds fired actually hit their targets. There are, of course, exceptions, but that's the generality.

To be fair to the military, the fact that probably around 90% of bullets fired aren't meant to hit the target at all (suppressive fire) probably skews the results pretty heavily.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Guns are also terrible for accuracy in general. According to statistics, even in the military, only a fraction of the rounds fired actually hit their targets. There are, of course, exceptions, but that's the generality.

To be fair to the military, the fact that probably around 90% of bullets fired aren't meant to hit the target at all (suppressive fire) probably skews the results pretty heavily.

Possibly, but from what I have seen, experienced, been informed of, the main reason for it is that "stand offs" even in the military are increasingly common. Two groups, not super far away from each other, are behind cover and are basically popping up, taking a shot, then dropping back down. It makes it very hard to aim, or be hit, you see this even among police "shoot outs" where people are shooting and moving and ducking.

Even in police videos we see officers missing multiple times at ranges of 20-30 feet. Commonly only 1 out of 6 bullets actually hit the target. Turns out shooting a moving target, who is aware of you, while you are also moving, is very hard to do.

101 to 150 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Underwhelming Starfinder Feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.