Mazmord's page

Finoan: Thanks again! That further helps clarify things for me.

Baarogue: "lock DC" is not explicitly defined in either of the locations I mentioned; hence my question. I wasn't sure if maybe "lock DC" was a known thing I just hadn't encountered yet in this vast game, defined in some other location. Because if it's only implied in this location, then its phrasing could be improved to make clearer whether "lock DC" is "the Thievery DC of [the structure's] lock", or that +5.
Do you get some personal benefit from bringing needless rudeness into things? Because it sure doesn't help anyone else. Least of all a new person looking to learn the hobby.

In either case, the lock DC with the very hard adjustment is higher: 27+5 = 32 which beats either the 20 or the 30 for either type of portcullis.

Thanks for the reply! I'm inclined to agree with the result of 32 Force Open DC. This part is what's tripping me up the most:

It'd be unambiguous to me if it instead said:
"when lifting a portcullis, use the lock DC +5 or the DC from the table, whichever is higher."
(Better still would be "Thievery DC +5 or the", but space is limited in that sidebar.)

Unless "lock DC" is "Thievery DC +5"?

When looking for a Force Open DC, GM Core pg. 93 has this to say:
"The DC to Force Open a structure uses the Thievery DC of its lock but adjusts it to be very hard (increasing the DC by 5)."
and
"when lifting a portcullis, use the lock DC or the DC from the table, whichever is higher."

GM Core's Force Open DC table shows:
- Lift wooden portcullis: 20
- Lift iron portcullis: 30

The Remastered GM Screen's Force Open table shows these DCs, and footnote:
- Lift wooden portcullis: 20*
- Lift iron portcullis: 30*
* Use the Thievery DC of the locking mechanism +5 if it’s higher.

It looks like the Screen potentially makes the Force Open DC of locked portcullises 5 higher than GM Core does. The last statement from GM Core seems to make an exception to the general Thievery DC +5 it just stated, specifically in the case of lifting portcullises.

I'd guess the "exception" I'm reading from the last statement in GM Core is not the intent. But if not, why would that statement be there at all? Which makes me think the GM Screen just mixed the two statements together by mistake. But then why would that footnote only be on the portcullis rows?

So, if there's a locked iron portcullis with a Thievery DC of 27, is the Force Open DC 30 or 32?

Would these also fit the smaller softcover book? Or would they be too large and overlap awkwardly?

Looking at the two alien stat blocks (gremlin and wolf), I'm encouraged that all the necessary information to use each of them at a table seems to be present in one place. If every stat block is more like this, my group may return to Starfinder.

I ran us through Skitter Shot, then Dawn of Flame 1 of 6, and we liked it overall. But the single most glaring issue, and the reason I stopped running Starfinder after DoF 1, is how much prep time I had to burn "rendering" stat blocks. For example, a stat block for an enemy that's in play for just a few rounds of combat might have:
1. Details on its bonuses to attack (which differ from what they'd be if I just stuck the listed equipment on something with the listed attributes).
2. A player race, which I have to then look up the features for.
3. A player class, which I then have to go learn the features of for the given level, including making choices on which options at different levels were taken.
4. Sometimes also spells, to look up and learn.

With all that, I found that even mid-tier grunts in some combat were taking a great deal more time to prepare to run than even the infamous spellcasting NPCs in D&D 5e. I was spending (super roughly) 60% of my total prep time just mushing items 1-4 together into a "rendered" stat block so I could have one place to look in the middle of combat to know how something worked. And that 60% of total time was time that just wasn't necessary to run D&D, Soulbound, Shadowdark, 13th Age, etc. So, for the time being, I've abandoned running Starfinder due to the huge time sink and low payoff for how much play time is enjoyed vs. the time spent "rendering" stat blocks. Ultimately it's 0% more play time vs. other systems from the double-ish total time to prep.

Er, ramble-rant short: I really hope all other Starfinder 2e stat blocks are like the two we've seen so far. No one-or-two-word references to whole other stat blocks or chunks of rules that have to be found and merged just to roll dice, or know what-all features something has available to it. I dread seeing something like "lashunta solarian" at the top of a stat block, and knowing those couple words have greatly multiplied the amount of pre-game "homework" I have before me.