Jim H's page

This and other events prove that good society play can be had virtually, as well as in person. I hope this event convinces Paizo to offer, or encourage, a great deal more virtual play. Further, I hope they will have a virtual PaizoCon every year, even if they also have a physical one.

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

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

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

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.).

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.

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?

When you run a scenario the first time, you receive table credit and can apply the Chronicle sheet, 1 XP, 2 PP, and max gold to one of your characters (following the rules on pp. 39-40 of the Guide to PFS Organized Play).
/QUOTE]

I just GM'd my first adventure. Am I correct that I can apply that chronicle sheet to a character that also has a chronicle sheet for PLAYING that same adventure?

It has been mentioned countless times before but if someone's build is winning combat:

1. The party isn't dying at least.
2. You have time for more roleplay and storytelling which often is minimal.

Having number caps would be ridiculous. The game is all about context. That 25+APL AC cap would get you mauled by a dragon even if it was normally good enough.

I disagree with the proposal as well.

However, I somewhat disagree with your points:
- If someone's build is winning the combat (regularly) then that player is "winning" but it may not be much fun for everyone else.
Imagine:
Player 1 "Miss"
Player 2 "Miss"
Player 3, "Hit -- 5 damage"
Player 4, "I've got 3 attacks, all hit because I've got +15, 59 damage"

- While quick combats should theoretically leave more time for roleplay and storytelling, in my experience those dedicated to a hyper-optimized "munchkin" build are rarely focused on such. They tend to be focused on rule-lawyering and how they can further strengthen their characters.

Similarly, to the point that a specialized character will have big weaknesses elsewhere ... That's true, but those areas of weakness are rarely focused on. That's largely the GM's fault but such players/characters don't tend to say, "Oh, I can't do X" because my god/patron/principles forbid it.