Is it okay if I bother you with some questions of how you run the Cloaking Field Stealth checks?
Not to challenge you at all, nor change anything here, simply because it appears a lot in the APs that I ran and am playing, and I am trying to figure out how the rules actually apply.
So I'd be happy to have your view on it (and the other players) and run by what I've learnt recently (at least I think I've learnt!).
As far as I can tell, it is supposed to be used essentially as a Hide in Plain Sight, with the added bonus if you do not move of granting +10 Stealth.
Basically it lets you make a Stealth check to Hide no matter what, as far as my reading can tell, and doesn't do much beyond that.
So, here is my question as to what you guys think.
The following is what I've been led to think, now, re. Cloaking Field, after discussions w. players/GMs (so I've amended my way of running it):
• I agree that you can use the Cloaking Field to try and hide, even when right in front of someone--
Cloaking Field:
While the cloaking field is active, you can use Stealth to hide, even while being directly observed and with no place to hide.
• But to do so uses a Move action (a Move action spent for the check, or as part of your Move)--
Stealth:
You can attempt a Stealth check to hide either as a move action (if you are planning to stay immobile) or as part of a move action.
--meaning that it is not a "free" action to Stealth.
• When you attack using Cloaking Field, you appear--
Cloaking Field:
Attacking doesn’t end the cloaking field, but it does end that particular attempt to hide.
--and must then re-Stealth (using a "move"), even in plain sight, since your field is still active.
• And, if you use Trick Attack, you have to "move" (or not move) before you attack (but cannot move after, since it is a Full Action with the move part first)--
Trick Attack:
As a full action, you can move up to your speed. Whether or not you moved, you can then make an attack with a melee weapon with the operative special property or with any small arm.
--so you cannot attempt a Stealth check after your attack w. Trick Attack.
• Probably not (?) even if you have Shot on the Run--
Shot on the Run:
If you have the trick attack class feature, you can take your movement from trick attack at any time during a trick attack (see page 93) with a ranged weapon (instead of only before).
--since it seems that taking your movement at "any time" means before or after, not splitting it up (?).
Or do you think you can use part of your move / attack / use part of your move (and do two Stealth checks? Even if you only do part move twice, not two Moves?).• Anyhow, w/o Shot on the Run maybe changing things, w. Trick Attack & Cloaking Field, you "move" (or not), make a Stealth check, then attack and appear, and cannot move any more (so you are at least pinpointed) and thus cannot re-Stealth.
Except for--
Stealth - Sniping:
If you have already successfully used Stealth to hide from a creature that is at least 10 feet away, you can briefly pop out of cover or concealment and make a single ranged attack against that creature. As long as you can reenter cover or concealment, you can attempt a Stealth check to hide again as part of that attack with a –20 penalty.
--meaning that if you use a Ranged attack (not Melee) you can re-Stealth at -20 in the spot you end in (to be pinpointed and get 50% concealment).
The if you have already successfully used Stealth to hide from a creature that is at least 10 feet away seems to mean 10 ft. away at the end of your move + attack, but maybe it only means one that is 10 ft. away at the beginning and not at the end (?).So, according to this, I've changed how I run Cloaking Field, as follows:
• "move" (or not) + Stealth check (using the -10 penalty if moving more than half your speed)
• Attack
• re-Stealth at -20 if Ranged attack (only, not Melee) and 10 ft. away from enemy (not using an extra penalty for moving before since it's a new check while not moving)
Sorry for the long post, but I see a lot of Cloaking Field enemies as a DM, and have a player in my tabletop AP campaign with it, and so am still trying to sift through all the info' & advices we pooled, to see if this interpretation of the rules seems good.
Gentle prod...
No, GM.
I hope all is good with him, and that he's just recovering from super cool end of year partying!
I PMed, but it's been over a week with no posting from him.
It's way past the "1 week rule" (which I imagine is still the rule?), so whenever people want we can ask for a replacement GM, yes.
I'd ask in the Forum thread, but fine with how you all want to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi guys, I'll be able to pick up this game where you left off, but I need a bit of time to read through and make sure I know what's what. I should be able to jump in tomorrow (absolute worst case, the day after).
Are all of you still watching the thread? If you could do a check-in to let me know you're here that'd help, otherwise I'll send a few PMs.
I think, like me, we're all hoping nothing bad happened to Fireclaw, but thankful for you stepping in, GM Elinnea.
All right, I think I've got it all sorted out. I also added the link to the slides on this alias for easy access. Now, go forth and do combat!
Quick reminder for Eric: the playtest surveys will be taken down tonight (really tomorrow morning) so make sure to go give feedback on the vanguard if you haven't yet. The official playtest period is over but you can keep playing the character until we finish this game.
Yes, I filled out the survey already, so that is done.
Thanks a lot for the reminder, and for picking us up!
First computers check: passed
Spoiler A: Computers revealed and passed
Spoiler B: Life Science revealed and passed
Spoiler C: Athletics revealed and passed
Spoiler D: Perception revealed, not yet passed (Pangea has made an assist to add +2 to someone's roll)
Spoiler E: Not yet revealed
By the way, thanks all for hanging in there for this series of actions. I know it's a little confusing, but I was trying an experimental method to use nested spoilers to show cascading skill checks in pbp. I have some ideas now for how to make it more clear if I need to do something like this again. :)
I love it!
Pretty bad in space combat.
Only 2 mediocre ones:
Engineer
+13 Engineering
Gunner
+13 Gunnery
So stick me on last gunnery spot I guess
While you're finalizing starship roles... I have some comments before we start, to make sure everyone's on the same page.
My preference for running starship combat is this:
1) I’ll roll both “initiative” piloting checks, and move right away if I have to go first, or wait for the pilot to go first. I use colored arrows to indicate where I moved that round.
2) You can post in any order, but put your rolls under a spoiler so they don’t influence others. If you don’t spoiler, at least act in good faith and don’t use results that are supposed to happen after you go.
3) Be clear about whether you’re using one of the ship’s computer bonuses.
4) At the end of the round I’ll get it all to make sense somehow, and then roll piloting checks to start the next round.
With regards to all the info I dumped into the slides:
1) I copied the tier 8 drake info from the SFS guide; I think at least one of you was slotting a starship boon that would alter the stats. You should add that info yourself so we can all refer to the correct numbers.
2) You got a lot of details about the King Xeros. It’s there for you to strategize or exploit weaknesses, etc. If it’s too much detail and you don’t want to deal with it, it’s ok to ignore. Just know that you have a right to the info.
3) You should look at slide 2 - science, gunner, and engineer roles have special abilities that you earned by doing well on the skill checks. So don’t forget those options.
Lastly, here’s a cheat sheet for starship combat roles that I totally stole from somebody else so there you go!
Paging the rest of the crew. :)
It looks like earlier in the scenario it was like this -
Pilot: Buzz
Gunnery: Pangea, Goose
Engineering: Gear
Science: Mordack
To make it simple we could stick with the same roles, unless you have reason to change.
|
Recommendation for science officer: Use the code for the leader Aldroxis's handmade biotech shield system, allowing science officer PCs to attempt a DC 20 Computers check as a helm phase action. By succeeding at that check, a science officer can immediately reduce the King Xeros's Shield Points in a single arc by 48 for 1 round.
Might be a good idea to drop the shield on the Xeros as we fire on it.
You're waiting for me...
I'm sorry for my unannounced absence. I had a hectic weekend and am just now getting caught up. An update will be posted imminently.
For my own sanity, if you're making a check against your starship's tier, could you include the DC so it's obvious whether you passed or not? For example -
Here's what the core rulebook says when it talks about crit damage and turret weapons. I've never been 100% sure how to apply it.
"Randomly determine one arc containing weapons; condition applies to all gunner actions using weapons in that arc (a turret counts as being in all arcs)"
To me that sounds like the turret will be affected regardless of which arc gets the effect - so a glitching aft arc means that the aft weapons as well as both turret weapons take the -2 penalty. A glitching starboard arc would only affect the turret weapons, because there are no fixed starboard weapons on the Drake.
I would like to make sure - is that how you read it as well? Of course I will follow the same rule if the enemy takes a crit to weapons as well.
For what it's worth, that is how I run it when I GM.
If you do a crit' to any arc, I apply it to the weapons in that arc + the turret.
So I read this as you did.
One thing though, you say:
A glitching starboard arc would only affect the turret weapons, because there are no fixed starboard weapons on the Drake.
But if I remember correctly, and I think you actually posted it:
Randomly determine one arc containing weapons
So I never counted an arc w/o weapons in the random arc to be hit by the crit'.
ie. if no weapon in starboard arc, I would not count it in the random arc maybe hit...
|
FWIW, I agree with your interpretation Re: Turret weapons being vulnerable to glitching in *any* weapons arc.
------------------------------------------
I realise that this is just a personal view, but I find Starship combat to be the *least* enjoyable aspect of Starfinder (which is a shame, because I otherwise really like the system), particularly in the PbP format, where it can feel like a slow-motion train wreck.
Running the math, I don't see how we can believably 'win' this combat (short of a string of unbelievably lucky crits), especially since we just ran out of missiles; can we just declare it a loss, and move on?
I sadly have been thinking about posting that I dislike Starfinder space combat too.
I really like how they worked to make it a group experience (and not have 1 or 2 people piloting and shooting while the others wait around) but it is rather clunky and tedious...
Also, I was thinking that if the turret is glitching too, that means, as you said, that my +15 becomes a+13, so probably a 17 to hit.
I'm fine with declaring it a loss (or moving on if people want).
Also I am going to run this game (for the Paris tabletop SFS crowd) tomorrow, so will read and prep today (delayed as much as possible, having thought we'd probably finish, but with the GM change it didn't work out), so I will no longer take part in voting/making decisions etc. re. what we do, where to go.
|
|
(Just to be clear: I am *not* complaining about losing the starship combat - I mean, that is the luck of the dice, after all. I just don't see the point in drawing out the inevitable, when you can see it coming... we have been outclassed by the King Xeros, fair and square!)
That said, I would be more than happy to be proved wrong ;-)
I sympathize with the frustration with starship combat, especially in pbp. I still haven't quite figured out the best way to make it smooth and/or enjoyable in this format. I'm willing to call a combat early if it becomes clear who will win, rather than drag it out.
However, I also wouldn't call this one just yet. You've actually done more damage to the King Xeros than it has to you, both in absolute HP damage and proportional to its total. Let's do another round or two at least and see how it goes.
Maybe coordinate like that, either I help you or you me, Goose, whichever is best, and we only spend the 1 RP also. W. target lock etc., (and we have a thing we can do to lower shields 1 round + the RP thing)
To put all we have to land one big impact attack each round
I like the strategizing, but I'm afraid the King Xeros just had some incredibly lucky rolls, and your ship is down to 5/100 HP. I would call the combat over at this point, if nobody objects. There's still one more section of the scenario after this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously though, look at Goose's last gunnery roll. 46 damage on 10d6, that's incredible! And it only would have worked on the aft arc where the shields were destroyed the turn before. It's great when everything comes together.
I'll make a post tomorrow to start the boarding of the King Xeros, I just need to catch my breath after that intense dogfight. ;)