I am playing a mobile rifledin <rifle wielding Paladin-esk> character. I liked the thought of going first and being able to jump, duck and dodge over and through combatants that maxed out my initiative upped my ac the best i could and added as much land based speed as i could. I still like the idea of having a lot of land based speed that when i was able to i went and payed for cybernetic implantthat boosted my land speed to the horror of a couple of the people in my group who tried to convince me to not do so. Mostly it came down to you might move to far from the group and trigger an ambush. To which i replied i wont be running ahead of the party the movement will be for ini combat use for getting into cover or dashing out and flushing out hideing enemies then dashing back to cover. I also pointed out that if i wanted to wear some of those nicer heavier armors they wouldn't hinder my speed too much.
So what are some pitfalls <or thought> that you see with having high land based speed (50/+)?
More move is always good as long as you're not dumb with it. Just keep in mind that the augmentations are an enhancement bonus to your speed, which has 2 effects
1) it won't stack with other enhancement bonuses, namely haste.
2) Sometimes something gives you something based on your base land speed, like master swimmer or master climber. Your bionic legs won't help you with that but the fleet feat would.
More land speed is good, to a point (especially if your character wears heavy armor). The Minimal Speed Suspension is pretty inexpensive, so most characters should probably pick it up by about 5th-7th level, anyway.
Once you get to higher levels, the flight spell or a forcepack tend to be better options. Personally, it's probably not worth ever getting the Complete Speed Suspension; the only possible exception being a solarian that frequently uses the Blazing Orbit/Black Hole combination.
I think mobility is good, if you are using it the right way.
Example of a good use of mobility:
The Engineer and the Operative are fleet of foot and quick thinking, while his soldier and mystic party members are more static with heavy weapons and spells, the Engineer and the Operative often act as a distraction while the Soldier sets up his big gun to decimate the foe.
Durring combat in an abandoned military complex the party is pinned down by malfunctioning security drones and the Soldier can't get a chance to set up. The operative notices a inactive defense turret but can't get to it on her own.
The Engineer is more durable than the Operative and can get the turret online so the party forms a quick plan to have the nimble Operative create a distraction for the Mechanic to dash to the Turret and start it up.
The Soldier and Mystic agree and take cover, ready to blast the drones when the Operative gives them an opening while the Mystic prepares to cast a spell to better help his more fragile companion survive the few seconds longer she needs to.
The next round the Operative dashes out away from the Mechanic blasting away at the drones to draw their fire, which is sucessful.
The mechanic and Soldier then move, the soldier, though he is rushed and not the most accurate lays down suppressing fire while the Mechanic dashes for the Turret systems and manages to just get them turned on and targeting the drones in time.
The next round the drones are decimated by fire from all sides and the party survives.
Admittedly that is a bit contrived, but that is a solid example of how mobile characters can help immobile characters in tough spots with solid planning and coordination with the party, which I think is the key thing here, you must always use your mobility to the benefit of the party, make plans and execute in tandem with the others.
A bad example would be the Operative instead of planning out the assault with the Mechanic just running out to try and draw fire before the mechanic is ready and getting gunned down by well trained laser fire.
That is an excellent use of mobility, but has not much to do with actually playing Starfinder...
I disagree, that example was based on an encounter I had as a player in a Pathfinder game, which I would argue is a lot more restrictive when it comes to the ability to play a mobile character.In that game were were facing a group of Drow who were keeping our slower characters at bay with a cloud effect poison and screening off a flank with some minions. I was playing a Monk at the time who was absolutely fast at 120+ movement speed with the ability to kick a target where I wished thanks to Unchained style strikes. In that fight I signaled to my party that I was going to open up a hole for them because unlike the others I could slip past the minions without provoking AoOs. When I did I kicked one of them into the Posion Cloud and killed him which opened up enough space for my party to then take out the others and surround a large creature that was just behind the poison cloud.
The only differences between that encounter and my Starfinder example are a) the exact actions taken to breach the front line. In Pathfinder I breached the Front Line and then removed part of it to open up space, in Starfinder the Operative breaches the front line and draws fire to open up space. Then b) the exact actions taken after the breach was successful. In Pathfinder the party rushed forward now free of any threat to the non tanky members (Even then we didn't have a true tank) and routed the remaining foes and killed their big creature. In starfinder the Mechanic used his mobility to reach and turn on an environmental asset in the turret while being covered by the soldier, who could use the harry action with a certain feat to give the Drones negatives to hit in a cone effect, which is a valid action. The end result is the same, both parties route the enemy through more or less the same tactic, breach the front line with a mobile character, then execute a follow up.
Edited, for original post sounding way more jerk-ish than I intended.
What I'm trying to say is that your example:
Is good tactically.
Is narratively excellent.
Proves the point of it never being bad to have someone with some extra speed.
My problem with it, though, is that it reads like a book instead of an example of SF play.
For example, the soldier in your scenario is neither slower nor less accurate because of a heavy weapon. In all likelihood, the soldier is probably the most accurate, highest damage, highest HP, and highest AC in that party. He doesn't need 'time to set up' to fire his weapon.
The way you handled the PF example, with your PF characters, also seems pretty well done. However, the differences between PF and SF are so many, and so varied, that throwing your PF example in here doesn't really mean much.
Example that was given to me as to why it's bad extra Mobility is that you might head towards a cover and there would be suddenly monsters there for reasons, because my character doesn't have eyes* insert sarcasm here* and did not take a action to use perception to look behind the cover ahead of time. In which case my character would drop explosive present in their lap before moving away to a different cover position.
I guess my answer to that would depend on why your character doesn't have eyes.
If you used to have eyes, and now your using some other method to perceive the world, then yeah, I can see how your GM would want you to make an effort.
If you're playing a race that naturally perceives the world without eyes, then unless that cover was farther than you could 'see' when you started moving, you shouldn't need an extra perception action.
I guess if they were actively using stealth, then you'd need a perception roll, but that shouldn't cost you an action. You should just get one, then it's pass/fail.
If they were in a spot where you couldn't see them, because intervening cover, then I could see you needing to make a check to listen or something. But if you couldn't see them, then they couldn't see you either, I'd think. I don't know, I'd need more details, and in the end, it's the call your GM made so it's right unless the GM says he messed up.