KitKatHexe's page

On the matter of bulk, I would say the answer is "applying a conversion of 1 Bulk = 5 to 10 pounds is inappropriate". Basically, that isn't a hard and fast rule and never was, it was a guideline for estimating the Bulk of small objects. For large objects that go well past what an ordinary character could be expected to throw in their backpack, the weight equivalent is probably logarithmic.

Issue with that is the fact that Strength is *not* logarithmic and directly correlates to how much bulk you can carry.

welp. Better get to building my gates. and that extrasolar way station. let's see gonna need at least one in the pact worlds, one on Vesk Prime, and one planted somewhere hidden near New Thespera...

Private use of course. can't be having random space goblins showing up at a secret outpost in azlanti space and drawing attention.

The biohacker pregen has been updated to reflect the newly-released errata for the biohacker's Genetics field of study.

That was the update? Damn. thought it was the Precog Pregen.

EDIT

After running space combat with the RAW rules (and each player with their own fighter ship (including an VI), my players got much more happy with the RAW rules.

So I think we will stick to them for the time. :)

That's good to hear. House-ruling the wide, sweeping changes may have ended up alright but doing it all at once would likely have turned into a nightmare for both you and your players.

1. With "role hierachy" I mean the order of the crew actions (Engineering > Helm > Gunnery). So the players are free when in their ships turn they take their actions. Maybe I wasn't clear here.

2 - 5 - These are connected:
I see your point with the "reactionary tactical movement" and from a wargame design POV you are right.
My problem with these points is that they disconnect the Starship combat from the normal combat. It almost feels like you are playing a different (war)game while doing starship fights. And this is something which I don't like as it feels artifical.
So my approach is to try to bring it closer to SF normal tactical rules.

The biggest point here is the reversed initiative order.
This initiative system make sense if you do the "damage last" system and it's used in several wargames (e.g. Battle-Tech).

But if you choose is to highest first and damage will be applied directly, you are much closer to the normal SF tactical combat with out sacrificing any tactical depth (we use this system in normal combat and you have tactical depth there).

I also want to stay away from the "role initiative evey turn" simply because in my experience the players pilot almost always wins the role.
So initiative is roled once, but there is a special action/maneuver which allows a pilot to get the upper hand and force a reroll. Of course this have some "cost" to it (not sure here if it should be "all action" or a Resolve Point).

I understand that you don't like this, but I tried to explain why I think these changes could improve the starship combat system (which is the worst part of SF in my opinion) and make it more fluent and understandable for players.

Just going to have to say that you NEED to play the actual starship combat before homebrewing or house-ruling, it is INTENTIONALLY different from normal tactical combat. Overall the starship combat feels appropriately like a proper dogfight, and what you suggest effectively turns it into something more akin to the mech rules found in Tech revolution than the intended experience.

This is all coming from someone who has both played and ran starship combat, it's extremely dependent on the repeat initiative checks and the damage resolving at the end of the phase. their is a reason why the length of a round in starship combat is left vague. there are even several item descriptions one might use to determine the length of a starship round, but they all result in different numbers. all of this is in service to Paizo's GOAL of keeping starship combat and tactical combat separate.

Huh. You can put an armor upgrade slot on an arm. You specifically can stick six of these on a skittermander.

Does that seem nuts to anyone else? One of the big lures of higher level armor is 1 extra slot, skittermnders can walk around with more armor mods naked than a tank in powered armor can fit in their rig....

From the hidden truth:

"UPGRADE SLOT GRAFT
Starfinder Alien Archive 4 p.147

Level: 5
Price: 2700
System: See Text

Androids can gain the benefits of certain armor upgrades by simply installing them into their bodies. This augmentation usually consists of a metallic recess in or attached to a chosen system (an arm, foot, hand, leg, or at the base of the spinal column). Regardless of whether you are wearing physical armor, you can install any one armor upgrade into this slot that could be installed into light armor. Regardless of the system, you can have only one upgrade slot graft installed."

"Regardless of the system, you can have only one upgrade slot graft installed." You could only have one of these even if you are a skittermander with six arms, if it didn't say this then even a normal human could have nine of them. Two in the hands two in the arms two in the feet two in the legs and one of the spinal column. (Which would make the skittermander even more egregious at 17 armor upgrade slots)

Going to transplant the reply I gave to E-div over discord, in case anyone else finds it useful.

"Personally I'd say that if it says all arms/all legs, if an astrozoan takes that augmentation it utilizes two of their limbs.

I'd also say that for the purposes of augmentation a limb can count as either an arm or a leg but not both, so you can have one arm or leg augmentation installed into it, but you can't have one arm augment and one leg augment in the same limb.

Part of me also wants to say that when an astrozoan takes on a form that has fewer limbs, they can pick the appropriate number of leg and arm augmentations that are able to fit into that form that they can continue to utilize, regaining usage of the others when they return to their natural form.

Though that part is up for debate."