Tsadok Goldtooth

Jim H's page

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber. Starfinder Society GM. 57 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 18 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:

This being the same price as the Alien Archives means that it has about 160 pages too?

I hope it's bigger than that and that they put some substance in it.

Jim


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Glen Parnell wrote:

The Hantu is deadly enough, combined with the traps/environmental effects at the end temple, to make reach... not necessary. I could have TPK'd the party I ran it for last night. I think you could almost give the scenario a hard mode by just giving it reach and combat reflexes.

One thing I saw missing from the Scenario - there are no explicit rules if they decide to destroy the crystal in area C3. I ruled that it stopped the debuff (which they all failed their saves against).

I agree the final boss is way overpowered -- even the lower tier boss would be too much for most higher tier parties. I ran this last night and it could have been a TPK. With high hit points, high armor class, and being incorporeal, the party was only slowly making headway against him while he was ripping them up. The only time he missed them was when he rolled a 1 and he averaged about 20 damage every time.

Had I played him to the hilt, the party's only hope of success or survival would have been to avoid him by investigating things in a different direction. Once they were fighting him, their best hope of survival would have been to scatter and run, then 1 (maybe 2) might survive.

If you're running this and want your party to have a chance, skip the wisps and hint at ways the could skip the warning/trap gem.

Jim


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Even a moderate gunner firing has more impact on the fight than the captain. Hand everyone a gun

I would agree, especially when you typically have a fairly small ship crew (4-7). You're generally better off with more gunners.

Obviously the importance varies with ship and situation.

However, INMSHO, the position importance is often something like:
- Pilot
- Gunner 1
- Engineer
- Gunner 2
- Science Officer
- Captain
- Gunner 3

If you're in combat and have multiple weapons, I wouldn't recommend tying a person up as captain unless you have 5+/6+ people or you're really having a hard time with DCs. Even in the latter chance, a moderate chance of 2-3 people hitting is better than a good chance of one person hitting.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Most of those seem reasonable.

However, it would vary a lot by ship. Some designers, races, or maintainers might intentionally, physically isolate some of these systems for safety and security.

Additionally, some of these systems (especially power core and venting) might have hard-wired safety controls that prevent extremely dangerous actions via remote access (e.g. via the computer vs. physical access). Some industrial controls systems have such today and circumventing them is harder than gaining regular access.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Something useful and non repetitive for the captain science officer and engineer to do would be nice.
Their actions seem just as repeatative as gunners and pilots, though the latter at least gets to chose from a list of maneuvers, but they’re still just making piloting checks

Agency: the ability to make meaningful choices that affect the outcome

Effect: what you do in the fight matters

The pilot has a lot of agency and a fair bit of effect on the fight. They ARE repeatedly making piloting checks. They are not JUST making piloting checks.

They are picking from huge list of maneuvers with different DCs and incomparable effects: you can't directly math out whether dropping a turn radius is better than +2 to your ac for the round. They position and turn the ship from round to round in a game of mini chess. Their choices are real and they matter. You can turn a damaged section of shield away from the enemy, or just set yourself nose to nose with them and blow each other away, or put yourself right in their flight path and force a flyby.

The gunners have a lot of effect but almost no agency. They shoot. Thats kinda it. If there's only one they might have an option to broadside, but even then you're going to want to avoid that -2 if you can with more gunners.

The science officer scan may help. After that they're not doing a heck of alot till level six where the +2 to hit is mechanically good, but but again, so good its the only real choice.

The engineer has a fair bit of effect (keeping the shields up).. but thats it. Diverting power anywhere else is such a small benefit that its not worth it to try overpowering everything.

The captain helps the biggest gun with a +2. (or demand if they're high enough level) Thats very little effect and very little agency. Yes, they can theoretically do other things but they're far less effective.

Certainly agency and affect are important. However, in the interest of speeding space combat, I think they could do away with some points of decision. For instance, they could effectively eliminate the captain's role because otherwise, you have to react to the possibility that he could jump in any phase.

I'd also suggest they change the situation where the ship gives a couple "pluses" that can be applied in different places. That creates another decision/discussion point that slows the game. It would be better if those pluses either applied to everything or just to specific positions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:


If presented with a "ramming" option, for example, and the whole table is on board with the idea, I'd personally probably inflict a random critical hit on both ships (unless there is an actual rule for this already; Starship Combat is still one of my weakest rules areas).

For ramming, I'd suggest something like the following:

- Have the ship trying to ram do a piloting check with a moderately high difficulty and much harder for a big ship than a small ship. If they succeed, it's a solid hit. If they fail, but are close it's a grazing hit. If they fail, they miss.
- Calculate the "closing speed of the ships." If they're going pretty much head on, it's A + B. If A is chasing B, it's A-B. If it's some other angle, you might do (A+B)/2.
- Calculate the "damage points" as 25-50% of the (starting) hull points of the ship actually (intentionally) ramming.
- If it was a solid hit, the damage is (closing speed + damage points)/2
- If a glancing hit, damage is (closing speed + damage points)/4

Note, this could cause massive damage, but that's what one should expect from two ships colliding at high speed.

For example, say you have a tier 2 Drake going speed 10 ram a ship head-on that's going 8. Closing speed is 18.

Damage points is 50% of the Drake's 55 HP, so 27.

If it's a solid hit, each ship takes 45 damage to the facing shield. That would almost cripple the Drake and possibly its target. NOT a tactic to be undertaken lightly, but if you're desperate ...

Jim


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Micheal Smith wrote:

Well, I think that was a first. A complaint about there being TOO man weapons. My problem isn’t there are too many weapons but more that’s a lot of the weapons in each category almost seem identical with a slight change.

The whole concept of this book isn’t for CLASS OPTIONS. It is for equipment. The beauty to Starfinder, is we can get a WHOLE book just on starships. More deck layouts weapons etc. Also could realistically get a whole book on Computers if they decided that they want to delve deeper into computers.

The Pact Worlds I felt could have had a lot more player options. Without the aid of Player Companions (thank god) unless they dedicate a whole book to Class options I feel they need to put more Class Options in books like the Armory. I understand that Starfinder is still very new but you have to also introduce new Class options.

I was disappointed with the lack of feats in this book. I felt this really was a good time to introduce some weapons. Either way, the best book to date. Can’t wait to see what the next book will have.

You're right there are a lot of weapons in each category that seem almost identical. That's because in appears they basically said, "We need a few dozen weapons in each group spread across the tiers." So, they just inched up in the dice and/or special effects and then made up adjectives for them.

It really just seems a bit 'over the top' with little real benefit.

I also noted the very cheap "Pathfinder Backpack" (aka Handy Haversack). That could contribute to real silliness -- why choose which weapons to use -- carry all of them.

I get that equipment was the focus of this book, but it was a bit disappointing. Compare it to your "Ultimate Equipment (UE)." UE is 400 pages and weapons make up only 31 pages (probably about 50 if you count magical weapons) of that, so about 15%.

Armory is only 164 pages and weapons tables and explanations make up 60 pages of that (about 35%). While that means there are a HUGE number of weapons, it means we got a WHOLE lot less of other stuff.

Perhaps part of my frustration is that the (seeming) overemphasis on weapons that are almost identical suggests that the primary focus of the game is poring over the books to find the exact optimal combination of skills and weapons to do the most damage in every situation, role-playing be hanged.

I was also hoping that they'd introduce (physical) shields -- riot shields, etc. They keep adding swords and axes to a world where you could get shot before you get within 50', so they obviously want melee to be a big part of the game. So why not shields? Does that make it seem to "medieval?" But axes don't?


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
And by difficult enemy you mean a level appropriate enemy right? Since as far as I've seen in the math a "full bab" class is sitting at about the 50% mark for all their primary attacks against an enemy equal level.

\

I found it quite reasonable. I like having the option of multiple attacks even if they become less likely.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

A few quick observations from playing the Doomsday playtest part #1:

- The rule book is NOT well or intuitively organized. I noticed this a bit in character creation, but I had the time to find stuff. During the game, everyone was spending time flipping all through the book looking for rules. In part that was because we didn't know the rules but we all felt that things weren't where anyone would reasonably expect them to be.

- Cantrips (e.g. telekinetic projectile) seem overpowered. That's pretty good damage and can be used many times.

- The poison seemed awful tough -- that's what nearly killed our players several times. Perhaps this was just because SO many things in there had poison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I was very excited to get the Armory (especially since Paizo screwed up my subscription and it took me over 3 weeks, 4 e-mails, and several phones calls to get it).

Now that I've gotten it and perused it, it is interesting and I'll definitely dig more.

However, the sheer number of weapons of every type and level just seems silly. I could imagine the creators sitting around in a circle saying, "OK, we need 15 weapons in this group -- what random adjectives should we use this time?"

In particular, I'll bust a gut if, in some adventure the box text says, "You're in a small town XYZ. If you need to buy any weapons or equipment you can." Because it would take a store the size of Ikea to stock all those weapons.

They should really be limited in some way. For example, some could be rare and only available in huge places (like the station). Some could be super duper rare except on the planet they come from.

They also should NOT all be compatible (every one that uses batteries using the same one).

Anyway, so the sheer number of weapons is silly. More than that, it took up a HUGE percentage of the book.

I would have liked a lot more equipment or options of OTHER kinds.

In particular, I would have loved to have multiple options for things that I could put on my mechanic drone, lots more computer options, perhaps more options that would aid on a starship, etc.

Jim


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

What stuff in Armory is legal for society play and when?

Said another way -- how many of the 5,000 weapons can be used?

Jim


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
medtec28 wrote:

It seems like there is a lot of onus on the GM to make a boring dredge exciting. It seems like they made gunnery too hard in most cases. And if the shot misses, the whole turn was wasted.

This is why you avoid having "the shot" and make it "the shotS". Even in a four person party you have pilot engineer gunner gunner. You absolutely HAVE to break the captain science officer engineer pilot gunner paradigm .

Starship combat can be fun but not for two hours, which is how long its going to take you with one gunner on an SFS ship.

Embrace the autonomous collective. Small crews work better with more hands on the shovels and less supervisors. You don't need a captain. I can't guarantee it will make starship combat fun but it will make it less onerous with a chance of fun.

I agree. In most situations, you need (at least) 2 gunners.

I think having a captain is often a complication (since they can pretty much decide to act at any time) with little benefit. I'd agree that it's usually better to have that character be a gunner.

The only required position in starship operations is pilot (unless you're just floating). If it's combat, you need gunner(s). Everything else is situational.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

We can argue forever about how to interpret the instructions in the guide but the extent of discussion and confusion on this issue makes it blindingly obvious that something needs to be done. The form isn't clear unto itself and the words don't make it clear. If they did, this discussion thread wouldn't exist or would only have 1 question, 1 answer, and 10 "yep, that's right" comments.

The best solution is probably to change the chronicle sheet so it makes this clear.

The alternate (or additional) solution is to change/expand the text in the Society Guide so that it clearly shows (with highlighted field numbers) what goes in those fields, as it does for most other fields.

Jim


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

In general the starship combat is OK, but not great.

I found their decision to have 4 (uneven) shield/weapon arcs very strange (since you're using a hex map. Why not 6 arcs (one for each face) or 2 (front and back)? 4 arcs is just a bizarre choice.

Combat can move slowly. I think this is, in large part, because it's designed so that everyone participates. This gives the crew a lot of choices and those all take time.

If the captain actual gives general (strategic) guidance for the round that can help, though each position can ultimately do what they want. Additionally, the positions could briefly say what they need to (hopefully) cut down discussion throughout the phases. For example, a gunner on a FWD gun might say, "Get me in arc and I'll blow him out of the sky" or the captain might say, "Engineer, get us more shields if you can."

As GM I try to move it along by a few things:
1) Try to set the stage up front by saying something like, "We've got several distinct phases. I'll try to step through them smartly to keep this moving. Try to keep any guidance/direction brief and preferably at the start of the round"

2) Trying to drive/facilitate the phases with questions:
- Does anyone move positions?
- Captain, when are you acting?
- No one in engineer so no engineering
- Science Officer, are you going before or after the pilot?
- Pilot, roll off. Ok, you go first -- move.
- Ok, gunnery -- shoot

3) If the ship gives 1 or more pluses, just let people use them when it comes to their roll or have someone allocate at start. Otherwise, that can turn into a whole discussion, "Wait, should I use that +1 here or should we save that for the pilot?"

Those steps help, but you don't want to dictate so it can still get really slow sometimes, especially if the crew is debating.
--------

A few things I'd like to see them change in any updates:
- Critical hits do double damage (it gives more variability and excitement and moves things along).

- Simplify the critical damage to just "damaged" or "destroyed."

- Shift to either 6 arcs or 2. Note, you could have 2 shield arcs, but have 4 (or 6) weapon arcs.

- Change to 5 distinct phases:
1) Position and guidance -- characters move positions and make quick requests. Captain states when he's acting.
2) Engineer
3) Science Officer
4) Helm
5) Gunnery

- Add a limit on how far away (from the launching ship) a seeking weapon works or how many rounds it runs. As it is now, you could launch a missile at a ship and have it literally follow them across the entire universe (as long as it doesn't hit, maintains target lock, etc.).


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Belafon wrote:

1. The Remote Hack is specifically meant to work against computers without using a normal access path. Think of it like an advanced TEMPEST attack. Sending and receiving data via the unintentional leakage of EM signals.

2. I would probably use the same guidelines as blocking Sense Through (p264-265) So 10 feet of wood or plastic, 5 feet of stone, 1 foot of common metal, 6 inched of lead or starmetal), or any force field would prevent a remote hack. For other materials, use the closest similar listed material. And of course you (as the GM) could just decide that a particularly critical system has been shielded with a thin layer of anti-hacking shielding (RF blocker).

I agree:

Remote hack isn't special if it only allows you to connect to devices that you could already connect to (as pretty much everything is going to be wireless).

You're also right about shielding. Sensitive systems could easily add protections to protect against this (as some systems do today).

Characters at my table where talking about building a Faraday cage just the other day ...


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

When is this supposed to be available? I'm not seeing a date anywhere.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Starglim wrote:
SFS Additional Resources

So, the races are NOT legal in society play then?


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I apologize if I'm missing it, but is there a clear ruling on what from the Pact Worlds book is allowed in society play?

It must be here somewhere, but I'm not finding it.

Jim


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Metaphysician wrote:
It does provide for running Eoxian PCs. Most Borai come from Eox. :p

You are quite correct. I didn't pay that much attention to those. I was still hoping for ghoul or zombie PCs ...


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Stonesnake wrote:

Does Paizo’s new Starfinder Pact Worlds live up to the hype? Check out our extensive review of Paizo’s latest hardcover!

Extensive review of Pact Worlds

I enjoy the book, but it is primarily a resource for home campaigns.

I was disappointed that it didn't include info on running some kind of Eoxian PC, yet included 6 other new races. I'm anxious to see an option to run a ghoul or a zombie (if done well).


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I guess my thought is kind of a "happy medium." They're adults and have basic skills so that they can reasonably function as adults. If an android does that, it's probably a loss for the company. However, if the android is willing to work for free for a year or two in exchange for food, lodging, more training, and maybe transportation, then the company might make up the cost.

In part the company may also hope for later profits if the android needs "repairs" or upgrades that the company offers -- guaranteed compatible with your DNA.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Is it stated somewhere that all androids are 'born' as babies? I envision some basically grown as bodies until adulthood, then a consciousness is put in them, along with some memories/training. So, the android is then 'born' (becomes conscious) as an adult. In that scenario, they could just leave, but they might choose an option where they work as an 'intern' with the manufacturer for a few years to get more training and skills.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

That's a reasonable way of looking at it, though if the drone just took 15 damage, it probably has a whole bunch of parts that need repaired to amount to that 15 damage.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Oh, I certainly don't think it's game-breaking, but the spell description confuses the issue with its max bulk comment.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Does mending act as a healing spell on mechanics' drones?

I've heard it discussed 3 ways:
1) Yes, they're constructs and perhaps it's even designed for them

2) No, they exceed the bulk limitations of mending

3) Sometimes -- it might work on small, spy drones, but not on larger drones

I tend to like option #1, but I'd like to know if there's a clear answer, especially for organized play.

Option #3 sounds terrible since it would likely drive everyone to smaller drones.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gary Bush wrote:


As for distance, it is undefined. We can't ram another ship. So it would be a judgement call for the GM.

One thoughts on the ramming. I know the rules currently say you can't do it and generally it'd be a bad idea.

However, years ago I played a lot of Star Fleet Battles. That, too, had a rule that the speeds and distances involved prevented anyone from ramming. I developed some rules for a race that, due to race-specific technology, COULD ram and created the ramming rules for that. Steve Cole, the SFB driving force, initially rejected the idea and the race, but later published my rules (almost verbatim) as an optional rule in the monthly newsletter.

So, who knows, maybe someday we'll have an option to ram ....


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nixitur wrote:

That's... not really at all how they work. Countermeasures don't require more Computers checks and they don't make hacking harder. The only exception is the Firewall which does exactly both of those things, but only for parts of the system.

So, no, characters do not know a computer has countermeasures. Non-firewall countermeasures also only trigger if you fail to break into the computer, but even then, you don't know that countermeasures have been activated.
Once you have successfully hacked into a computer, I would think that you know which countermeasures it has. Otherwise, the ability of the Mechanic's Expert Rig doesn't really make sense. But apart from special abilities (like Expert Rig), you couldn't just turn them off either. You definitely don't know the countermeasures before hacking and you don't know them if you fail.
Speaking about the Mechanic, that last part (knowing countermeasures if you fail) is a Mechanic Trick which also grants them the ability to deactivate one of them if they fail. That does require an additional check, of course.

Also, computers can not hack. Apart from very specific things like the Feedback countermeasure or the Hacker’s Curse Trap, I would never, ever allow computers to hack other computers. 'cause if you allow that, you basically make the Mechanic's defining ability (hacking at range) completely useless because computers and range upgrades are...

I guess I lumped defenses and countermeasures together (in part since in computer security today we often call those defenses countermeasures). As far as hacking back, one listed countermeasure is a virus, which can affect the computer you're hacking from. Having the computer actively hack back might upset game mechanics, but it's certainly the way technology is going today -- there are many discussions that we'll all have to have computer defenses with strong AI because a lot of the attacks will have strong AI and human won't be able to keep up.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I don't recall a specific rule on this, but I'd probably say they need to do an initial computer check to orient themselves to the system. If they barely succeed, they might know it has something, but not exactly what. If they succeed by a lot, they'd know the details.

In any case, they'd need multiple computer checks (or much harder computer checks) to get around the countermeasures. Depending on the countermeasure, if they fail, the system might fry itself, set off alarms, delete data, totally encrypt the data, or even try to 'hack back' at other computers (i.e. the PC's in the area).


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Again, I'm trying to rehash scenarios or discuss specific tactics -- I was clarifying an inaccurate rules interpretation.

Perhaps some other other term would be clearer, but it's essentially changing the current balance of the shields to something else. And, one of the two options is to balance everything equally.

Remember specific scenarios as conveniently as you wish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

If you say so. In any case, I think we're all in violent agreement that it should be clarified so no one misconstrues it in the future.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Micheal Smith wrote:

So you skipped the WHOLE STEP 3 process.

Step 3: Determine how much Fame the character earned over the course of the scenario. A character can typically earn a maximum of 2 Fame per scenario; 1 Fame for each success condition completed. Enter the number of Fame earned in the shaded Fame Gained field (L) and initial the adjacent box. Repeat this process for the character’s Reputation and update the field for the appropriate faction (X). If the character gained any Infamy during the session, record the Infamy gained on the Infamy line (Y).

It clearly states enter the amount of Fame earned in the shaded Fame Gained field (L) and initial the adjacent box. THEN IT STATES Repeat this process for the characters Reputation and update the field for the appropriate faction (X).

I agree with you Arc Riley. It needs to be cleared up. I will bring this up with Thurston.

Sure, it says 'repeat,' but you're then working with a very different field (W&X vs. L) so the 'repeat' isn't really clear. If you stuck too hard to that 'repeat' you'd be trying to initial next to each field in X (because that's part of the process they're telling you to repeat).

Getting it clarified is a good idea. Hence the question in the first place.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gary Bush wrote:
Flagging to move to rules forum.

Good call. I wasn't, at first, aware of that forum.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Thurston Hillman wrote:
Absolutely, PCs can split shields wherever they wish. The stats provided in the starship sheets represent a roughly even distribution, just because we need to have some numbers on the base sheet.

I agree, and having those default shield allocation values in the guide (and a few adventures) makes it a tad bit easier for people doing starship combat for the first time -- one less thing for them to think about at first.

However, once a crew is familiar with the mechanics, they may find that in many situations some other allocation makes more sense to the combat at hand.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

That would be nice. If they're not going to do that, then simply clarifying the wording or adding example numbers to the guide would clarify


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Again, just clarifying the rules on this because they're not clear. FWIW, many current missile systems DO have limits on how many missiles they can keep guiding and many other starship combat systems DO have limits on how many missiles a given launcher/ship can control.

Alternately, most missile systems intended for ship-to-ship (or air-to-air) combat DO have a finite range that the missile can get from the launching ship before it simply dies, whether due to missile range or some safety to prevent it just 'going rogue' and crashing into something other than the target. For example, if friendly fighter were to engage a target over the US and the target is able to outrun the missile, the missile will NOT keep following the target 1000 miles back to its base.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Again, more interested in clarifying that a ship crew DOES have this option than in the application of the tactic.

As far as tactically, it would probably be more prudent to 18/12/12/8 or some such (note that the default load out is uneven -- with 15/10/10/15 -- it's not 13/12/12/13).

The entire point is, AT THE MOMENT COMBAT BEGINS, the crew has the option of splitting the total shield points (50 in this case) out however they want among the 4 shields as long as they abide by the restriction (Shields Pg 302) that no quadrant can be assigned less than 10% of the total number of shield available.

Heck, if they start out facing AWAY from the enemy and just plan to run, they may want to allocate them F5/P10/S10/A25. That might be the best plan tactically for any number of reasons -- if they either have no weapons, if they fear the arrival of reinforcements from the same place the enemy came from, or ir their weapons are longer range than the enemy's and they just want to keep the enemy from getting close enough to use their shorter range (but more numerous) weapons.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm not suggesting it's necessarily a great idea (especially if done to this degree). I'm just trying to clarify the rules on this.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

That certainly sounds reasonable.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Thank you very much


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yes, thanks for that.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Critical Damage (page 321) says to roll randomly to determine which system is hit (life, sensors, weapons, engines, power core). But what happens if your target simply does not HAVE the system you roll (say Life support on an Eoxian or weapons on something unarmed)? In that case, is the critical hit just 'lost' or do you reroll until you get something that exists?

Similarly, if you hit weapons, you roll randomly to determine which arc is affected. But, what happens if you roll, say, aft arc and they have no weapons that can shoot in the aft arc? Is your critical hit then, essentially, lost to no effect or would you roll another arc?


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

One question on filling out the chronicle sheet, more for consistency than anything else.

Regarding the Reputation section of the chronicle sheet (the bottom), the Guild Guide says:
"Each player should also list the factions for which her character earned Reputation during the adventure (V) and her current Reputation with those factions (W)."
<and>
"repeat this process for the character’s Reputation and update the field for the appropriate faction (X)."

So initial (pre-adventure) reputation for a faction goes on the left side of the slash.
Should the right side of the slash be the reputation earned for that faction during the adventure or should it be the final reputation (initial + earned) for that faction (akin to the Initial and Current Prestige fields on the PFS chronicle)?


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Wanted to clarify/validate a couple things regarding starship shields in combat.

In particular:
1) Balance (Helm Phase) says, "You can balance the shields, redirecting power from one quadrant to protect another. With a successful Computers check (DC = 15 +2 × your starship’s tier), you can shift Shield Points (SP) from the shield in one quadrant to the shield in another quadrant, including to depleted shields (after rebalancing, every shield must have at least 10% of the total current SP). Alternatively, you can add up the
SP from all the remaining shields and evenly distribute them to all
four quadrants, putting any excess SP in the forward quadrant."

So, say your ship has 50 shield points with a default load out of 15, 10, 10, 15.
Does that mean that you could move up to 10 points (all must retain at least 10% of the 50) from your aft shield to your front shield, giving you 25,10,10,5?
Alternately (if evenly distributing), you'd get 14, 12, 12, 12?

2) Divert (Engineering Phase) says, "... Evenly distribute the restored Shield Points to all 4 quadrants (putting any excess points in the forward quadrant."
That seems pretty clear, but what happens if you have two damaged shields and two full?
A) Are those shield points then split among all 4, with all the ones going to the damaged shields being lost? <or>
B) Are the shield points then only split among the 2 shields that aren't full?


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Interesting. I thought when you had to do a gunnery check vs TL to fire the 2nd, you'd find the launcher's targeting already tied up with the previous missile.

Thanks


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Critical Damage (page 321) says to roll randomly to determine which system is hit (life, sensors, weapons, engines, power core). But what happens if your target simply does not HAVE the system you roll (say Life support on an Eoxian or weapons on something unarmed)? In that case, is the critical hit just 'lost' or do you reroll until you get something that exists?

Similarly, if you hit weapons, you roll randomly to determine which arc is affected. But, what happens if you roll, say, aft arc and they have no weapons that can shoot in the aft arc? Is your critical hit then, essentially, lost to no effect or would you roll another arc?


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

One other related question, in SFS, are players required to start combat with the default shield default loads shown on the Drake/Pegasus (15/10/20/15 Drake, 10/10/10/10 Pegasus) or can they split them out however they want as long as they abide by the restriction (Shields Pg 302) that no quadrant can be assigned less than 10% of the total number of shield available?

That is, if you have a Drake (2) and start combat facing the other guy could you say, "Our shields are at 35/5/5/5" to start? [NOTE: Yes, that would be playing dangerously, but if you're confident you can always wind up facing their front, you might want to do this]


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Pg 303 and 320 briefly discuss tracking weapons, but it's pretty brief. A few questions:

1) If you fire a tracking weapon and it hasn't yet impacted the target, can you fire another missile/torpedo from that launcher or is that launcher (and/or its sensor) "tied up" with the first missile/torpedo? If you CAN fire another missile, does that mean you could theoretically have 5 missiles (for weapons with lim fire 5) from the same launcher all trying to chase the target until/unless they lose TL?

2) Additionally, is there a max 'range' on tracking weapons (like, say, 3 rounds) or will they keep following a target the entire length of the solar system as long as they never lose TL?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Wanted to clarify/validate a couple things regarding starship shields in combat.

In particular:
1) Balance (Helm Phase) says, "You can balance the shields, redirecting power from one quadrant to protect another. With a successful Computers check (DC = 15 +2 × your starship’s tier), you can shift Shield Points (SP) from the shield in one quadrant to the shield in another quadrant, including to depleted shields (after rebalancing, every shield must have at least 10% of the total current SP). Alternatively, you can add up the
SP from all the remaining shields and evenly distribute them to all
four quadrants, putting any excess SP in the forward quadrant."

So, say your ship has 50 shield points with a default load out of 15, 10, 10, 15.
Does that mean that you could move up to 10 points (all must retain at least 10% of the 50) from your aft shield to your front shield, giving you 25,10,10,5?
Alternately (if evenly distributing), you'd get 14, 12, 12, 12?

2) Divert (Engineering Phase) says, "... Evenly distribute the restored Shield Points to all 4 quadrants (putting any excess points in the forward quadrant."
That seems pretty clear, but what happens if you have two damaged shields and two full?
A) Are those shield points then split among all 4, with all the ones going to the damaged shields being lost? <or>
B) Are the shield points then only split among the 2 shields that aren't full?


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I had to repeatedly read the rules section on this after this discussion. In controlling your drone, you have two options -- limited AI or Master Control.

In Limited AI:
Mechanic = Move AND Std action (allowing a full action)
Drone = Move OR Std action

Master Control:
Mechanic = Std Action
Drone = Move AND Std Action (allowing a full action)

In either case, the mechanic/droid combo essentially gets an action and a half. One of the two gets a full action, while the other gets half an action (only Move or Std).


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Stonesnake wrote:

For those looking for a starship combat tutorial of two low-level starships going one-on-one (the 4 PCs in one ship against a single NPC starship), we have posted a tutorial around an hour and a half in length. We through nearly all the rules and should be a nice primer for anyone wanting to learn the basics of low-level starship combat.

You can listen to the combat tutorial here:

http://rollforcombat.com/podcast/011-spaceship/

And you can view the images for the combat and the starship sheet here (search for "Episode 011 - Hippocampus Stats" if you can't find it):

https://discord.gg/2yy4vAG

In general, I like the game, but I've come to the conclusion that I hate the firing/shield arcs in spaceship combat. Two primary reasons for this:

1) You're operating on a hex map in space combat. It makes zero sense, therefore, to have ship oriented to a square grid (with 4 sides). The ships should have 6 shields and 6 potential firing arcs (though most weapons should be able to fire in 2 adjacent arcs (e.g. Fwd and Rt Front).

2) If you're going to have only 4 arcs, then the way the arcs are divided is strange. The Port and Starboard arcs each cover 1/3 of the ship, whereas the Front and Rear arcs cover only 1/6 of the ship each. It is, therefore, insipid to have so many ship designs where the main weapons have arcs of Forward and Aft and, thus, have EXTREMELY limited firing options. This tendency contributes to the sometimes slow pay of starship combat. Rather than the way they're divided now (along the 4 (corners) of a square ship marker), the arcs should be divided down the LF, RF, LR, and RR hex sides. This would, at least make all 4 arcs similarly sized, covering 1/4 of the ship.

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>