Metaphysician's page

I'm a little behind, but I just finished fully reading Tech Revolution. IMO, it might be the best Starfinder book yet published. In particular, the last section of the book, "A Galaxy of Tech", is an amazing glimpse into the flavor of life in the world of Starfinder. More than just providing locales or adventure seeds, it gives the texture of a lived in place that brings the setting to life.

Could we maybe have more stuff like this in every book? *ahem*

So, going back and catching up on the GEG while waiting for Tech Revolution to arrive ( what can I say, I haven't been running Starfinder lately and had some other books to read ), and in the section on the properties of civilizations, they listed Castrovel as an example planet for Lawful Neutral. This has me doing a double take, as it doesn't seem to fit with any of the lore for Castrovel. Sure, the Formian civilization is absolutely Lawful Neutral. . . but the Formians are only one of the three dominant civilizations on the planet, and neither the Lashunta nor the Elves are anywhere near LN.

So. . . why? Did the writer forget about the overall setup of the planet, thinking it was Planet of the Ants? Did they have a rather weird opinion about Lashunta and/or Elven culture? Did they poorly explain how to handle planetary Alignment for places that lack a single dominant culture?

So, I have finally decided to try and continue my Starfinder game via the internet and Roll20. I am in several D&D games on the platform as a player, and have several experienced Roll20 GMs to question for advice, but that still leaves me with a few Starfinder specific questions:

1. Is there any way to import characters generated in Hero Labs Online to Roll20, and if so, how?

2. Are there any specific quirks or features of the charactermancer for Starfinder that would be useful to know, that people only familiar with 5e would miss?

3. Is this a fools errand, and should I basically just use basic tokens and maps, manual dice rolls, and document files containing character sheets in another window?

Thanks in advance. If anyone is curious, I will pass along comments and notes from the game when it gets running.

I mean, yes. Its a Tier 20 Supercolossal vessel, of course its powerful. However, I did some quick wargaming with it, and even against the other Tier 20 sample vessel, it utterly obliterates them. The ability to turn all weapons from all angles against a single target for a turn is just ridiculously effective, even if it immobilizes the ship and costs a -2 penalty to attacks.

Now, granted, the Driftmaven isn't just a giant vessel, its very heavily hinted to be a major investment and resource for Triune herself, possibly even an avatar. It makes perfect sense that this would be a "bonus boss" level opponent ( also, why are you fighting Triune in the first place? ). Still, it does make me wonder what kind of fleet you would need to put together to actually stand a chance of winning against the Driftmaven.

1. Overall, I really like the way the book is generally designed: a toolbox, giving means for GMs to solve problems or enact ideas, rather than proscriptions on How Things Are Done. Even the most mechanical elements tend to be written in the manner of "Here are guidelines for how to do X", with some provisos about when to make modifications. Hopefully this constitutes a general trend against Rules As Written.

2. Both squadron and armada play offer some very useful options, though I feel like any given campaign should really only ever use one of them. Very important to ask your players whether they want their space adventures to be "fighter squadron", "lone tramp freighter", or "big capital ship possibly commanding other ships".

3. Relatedly, has anyone tried playing around with the armada rules to accommodate "single PC ship" play, where the players control one "armada" that consists of a single Capital unit representing their flagship? Obviously, the numbers and power of the opposing fleet would be *much* lower than in a traditional battle, but it might just be worth it for the simplification.

4. There are a ton of setting fluff and plot seeds to be found in the shipyards. The best kind of rules/equipment guide is the kind that does not skimp on setting fluff and plot seeds.

5. Yes, the "sensor use on planets" rules are borked, and should be ignored. Nothing is perfect.

So, while reading my copy of the SOM, I got to the Training Interface Module option for ship building, which essentially provide ways to convert character-scale abilities into new ship-scale options and bonuses. This seems like a thing that has long been in demand, and I expect them to become pretty ubiquitous on ship builds. You can only have a maximum of four, but that still lets a party of four pick four particular abilities to use in space combat, and for a pretty cheap cost.

Nonetheless, the thought occurs to me: what would happen to gameplay balance and efficiency if you *didn't* need to purchase TIMs? They just were a free upgrade the PCs could apply to a ship to allow them to better use their personal capabilities. Effectively this would mean they cost nothing, and the party has access to all of the options for which they qualify. There certainly are practical concerns ( its a long list, and a full group of PCs likely would have a *lot* of extra options ), but would it break anything?

So, reading the playtest, I noticed a seeming-absence: unarmed attacks. Yes, there are weapon options such as Hammerfists, where you specifically design a mech around punching enemies to death. However, there is no rules reference for what happens if your mech that *isn't* designed around such decides to punch, kick, ram, headbutt, or otherwise physically assault a nearby enemy. Which, seeing as mecha weapons tend to either be disarmable or ammo dependent, feels like a bit of a lack.

So, having read the entry on the Szandite Collective. . . I can't be the only one who thinks this whole society screams "Eloritu!" with the subtlety of a great big hundred foot tall neon sign, right?

So, some random thoughts and plot ideas:

1. While a lot of the stuff amongst the Szandite is tied to the number 7, several are instead connected to the number 11. 11 isn't already linked to Eloritu; could it represent a deeper mystery they are intended to reach eventually? Or is the numerological 11 perhaps a rival force or nemesis at work?

2. There are two known instances of the number eight at play, regarding szandite-gifted worlds. One is a planet that disappeared from the connection for unknown, possibly calamitous, reasons; the other has no known active intelligent life, though there might be some in hiding. Could Eloritu perhaps have a dark side, where things that try to break the numerological secret perfection get "removed"?

So, reading through Near Space, and looking at Daegox 4. . . okay, the first thought I have is that the Daegox Corporation absolutely does *not* meet the minimum ethical standards for a prison operation. "Send people to the prison planet" is certainly genre appropriate, but the fact that children of prisoners are also prisoners, into perpetuity? Not so much, such that anyone with a "G" in their alignment should not be doing business with Daegox.

Now, this is not actually a problem for the setting. There are plenty of governments and other organizations which would find no moral issue with sending Daegox their castoffs and condemning countless unborn generations too. As long as one keeps in mind that this means the Daegox Corporation is terrible, this can work fine. However, aside from the moral issues, it also brings up a *pragmatic* issue: population growth. The more time passes, the more the "inmate count" of Daegox 4 will grow, especially since the environment of Daegox 4 mitigates against high rates of prisoner violence. Eventually, the count of Daegox 4 residents who are native born will vastly exceed any plausible prisoner intake rate. That is a lot of prisoners for the corporation to have to manage, even with their various means to keep involvement down, and would seem to make the whole thing way too expensive to be worth it.

. . . assuming, that is, that Daegox's long term goal *is* "Make money by running a prison". What if "take prisoners from other governments" is not actually the long term goal? Rather, the Daegox Corporation has a long term goal of "Colonize planets". By running a prison, they get colonists for their new colony, and get *paid* to accept them. Newly acquired prisoners are, of course, feisty and problematic, but that is why the system is designed to encourage good behavior via transfer to looser, semi-self governing portions of the "prison": its designed to transition the majority of prisoners from "inmate" into "subject". Advance forward several generations, and you have an entire populace that is acclimated to living under a broadly authoritarian regime, and for whom that's normal and workable.

Long story short: Daegox's multigenerational prison sentences aren't utter callousness. They are the secret point, so that Daegox Correctional Services can transform into The Daegox Empire.

So, as the rules are currently written, effectively a Mechanic and their Drone have three actions between them ( until suitably high level, anyway ). If spent purely on movement, this means either the Mechanic can do a double move action, while the Drone only takes a single move, or the Drone can take a double move action, and the Mechanic only moves once. Either way, one of the two can only cover half as much distance.

The result of this is that, out of combat, a Mechanic has three options:

1. Travel at roughly half the speed of everyone else in the party

2. Abandon their Drone

3. Carry or have someone carry the Drone ( the feasibility of which is entirely dependent on the type of Drone )

Is this crippling of the Mechanic's strategic movement the rules working as intended, and if so, why? If not, how are the rules for Drones supposed to work to avoid crippling non-combat movement?

( Note: all the above also applies to Creature Companions, as they use the same action economy rules. )

I recently saw a copy of the aforementioned book in a FLGS, and it looked to be the first substantial 3rd party supplement I've encountered in the wild. How is it, quality wise? Are its critter writeups 'mechanically congruent' with official Starfinder? Do they have good quality lore and fluff? Do they fill in useful niches within a game? Does the book have generally good production values ( paper/binding quality, editing, art )?

Basically, do you recommend the book?

( Note: when I say 'mechanically congruent', I mean in the sense that it follows similar design principles and benchmarks to the official material. I have in the past encountered third party material for various games wherein the designers clearly had radically different ideas of concepts like "balance" and "complexity" than the creators. Its a black mark in my eyes, as regardless of overall quality, it makes inter-compatibility a pain. )

The title really says it all. At your game table, what house rules have you invented or adopted, and what is your logic behind using them?

Some examples from my game:

1. Fully Automatic weapon attacks do not use an entire clip of ammo. They only use 2 shots per "target".

My reasoning is. . . basically, fully automatic is pretty niche in utility in my experience, and I don't want to discourage its use even further. What's more, its kind of silly to always use every shot, no matter how few targets you are spraying or how many shots are in your magazine. "2 shots per target" doesn't unbalance anything, and it doesn't add a huge amount of work load.

2. In vehicle combat, the "attacking while moving" penalty only applies to targets that are not also moving using vehicle scale/chase rules, mainly individuals on foot.

Here, logic came after experience- I ran a vehicle combat, and the first encounter went *horribly*. Four PCs, one allied NPCs, six enemies driving three dune buggies, all within spitting distance, and nobody could hit anything. Eventually several of the PCs just started *jumping* between vehicles and killing people in melee, which while cool, was not exactly the intended sole solution. In retrospect, I think the penalties were meant to keep "drive by" attacks on infantry from being too powerful, which is a fair deal ( vehicle speeds mean its very easy for a car full of people to begin and end their turn outside engagement range ), but not relevant to two trucks full of combatants driving alongside each other.

I have a Starfinder subscription, and received notice that the subscription tried to submit payment for the order, but was rejected by the credit card. Turns out this was because I received a new card with updated expiration date between the last subscription item and the upcoming one. I went into my account and updated my credit card. Is there any way to confirm that the subscription purchase will now properly re-check for valid CC?

1. Can a Drone make an unarmed attack, using the standard unarmed attack rules? If so, is it considered proficient?

2. Can a Drone equip a wearable magic item?

Starfinder adds an array of new deities to the setting, and often new context for the old. Where do you imagine the planar realms of the various new deities like Yaraesa and Talavet are located, and what are they like? Do any of the old deities have substantially changed realms?

Basically, what kind of uses and changes do you envision for the planes in the year XXXX?

No, this is not a mechanical question of how to convert a spell from Pathfinder to Starfinder. :p

So, I recently got a copy of the Planar Adventures supp. Its good stuff, and useful for my Starfinder game even if I have to do the "what is it like 5000 years later" stuff myself. However, the thing which really drew my eye was the spell Anywhere But Here. Which, in summary, is just like Plane Shift, except its lower level. . . and the destination is chosen at random.

Has anybody considered using this, or a similar random plane shift, effect in their Starfinder game?

So, the next adventure I run is going to center around an investigating challenge: the players have a certain amount of information, and they need to take this information and ferret out enough clues to determine. . . well, if not the truth, at least enough of the truth to point to the next major plot location. *ahem* To support this, I have a list of existing clues they have, as well as a list of relevant NPCs and organizations they can investigate. . . plus some enemy stats for if various encounters lead to a fight.

What I am having to improvise is how to actually rate the difficulty and XP for the overall scenario, since functionally, the whole scenario is one singular challenge "scene", just spread across multiple sites and interactions. The usual ways I use to approximate such don't *really* work for this. Its awkward to treat it like a non-combat encounter with a singular hostile NPC, because its so indirect. Its also not possible to treat it as a trap, because it does not and should not depend on a single pass/fail "either you succeed or you eat damage and lick your wounds, then continue" challenge. It also really shouldn't depend on a single dice roll in general.

Does anyone have any good tips or guidelines that they have used for established the framework of such an adventure?

So, a random idea I had: every heroic class gets a baseline armor bonus derived from their class, to represent their intrinsic ability to duck and dodge attacks. This bonus is either equal to half their level ( the weak version ), or to their BAB ( the strong version ). As its an armor bonus, it has no effect when wearing armor, unless you happen to be wearing armor considerably short of your level.

The main effect, thus, is to make heroic characters less utterly fragile in cases where they are deprived of their armor, while still leaving a strong incentive to wear armor ( having half your +AC is still better than having none, but its a far away from having all of it ).

Thoughts? Consequences?

So, for the next adventure in my campaign, my PCs are going to be going to Verces, and investigating a number of terrorist groups. Why. . . is not important for this question. Rather, I'm curious about ideas or suggestions for differentiating the groups 'Remakers' and 'NextStep'.

Both are radical transhuman terrorists who believe in the creed "Evolution does not need consent", and so do various acts of involuntary transhuman alteration. However, what makes them two groups, rather than just one? Do they have any differences in their exact beliefs? Differences in their preferred tactics and strategy? Or are they essentially similar, but have internal political differences that keep them separate ( read: their leadership don't like rivals )?

I realize that there is no canon answer ( unless there is, in which case, please point the way! ). I am looking for ideas to harvest, so any thoughts or suggestions are good. Or even if they aren't, they might inspire other good thoughts or suggestions, ahem.

Additional Spells ( Feat ): The character gains an additional set of spells added to their "spells known" list, equal to their character level. These may be distributed in any way the player chooses. Two Level 0 spells count as one Level 1 spell. Each spell chosen must be an eligible choice, based on their class and any other relevant conditions. On achieving a new level, this set of additional spells may be reconfigured.

So, thoughts? Balance issues?

So, in my recent session of Starfinder, I discovered an interesting problem. Now, by default a Mechanic drone only gets one action per turn, and can use this to either move or attack. Their Mechanic can give them one of their actions, letting them do both, but this costs the Mechanic either their move or their attack.

The problem arose because the adventure involved my PCs breaking into a prison, and then fleeing as quickly as possible once the alarm went off. At which point my Mechanic player discovered that she could either run for 60 feet of movement, and have her drone follow only 30 feet, or let her drone run 60 feet and only move 30 feet herself. This proved a bit of an issue when the scenario required maximum movement from all parties!

Now, I can kind of see how this arose. The drone needs some kind of action limit to keep from being broken, and if most fights occur in a fixed location, tactical mobility isn't really a problem ( either the Mechanic or the drone or both will want to find as fixed a location as possible ). I don't really feel that "running encounters" involving chases or escapes are *that* rare and unthinkable, however. And in situations like that, it is a rather harsh penalty on the drone Mechanic that no one else suffers, being reduced to an effective full round movement of 45 rather than 60. That there currently exist no good rules for PCs carrying drones ( or anything and anyone that isn't equipment ) doesn't help.

So, possible solutions? The one I am currently contemplating is a mild house ruling of the drone action mechanics. Simply put, the baseline for drone actions would be "Can take a single attack action or a *full move* action", with a Mechanic taking control upgrading to the normal result ( move + attack or full attack ). That way, a Mechanic doesn't need to donate actions for their drone to hightail it.

So, I got my PDF copy of Alien Archive 2. So far it looks fun.

One thing stood out to me, though: the Uplifted Bears. As a playable race, they. . . kind of get everything. Extra senses, skill bonus, enhanced movement, natural weapons, limited telepathy, and a few things I'm probably forgetting. Sure, they have a few minor downsides, but it feels like they are less a jack of all trades and more a master of all trades. Thoughts?

So, I have a PC whose interested in drones, and so I have been paying close attention to the drones in the Armory book. In doing so, I spotted an odd rules case. Specifically. . .

1. Purchaseable drones are items, with item levels

2. They also specify that they use the traits of level 1 mechanic drones, except where specified.

3. Item crafting normally grants the benefit of "treat the item level as two higher for purposes of hit points, hardness, and saves"

4. . . so, what happens with a drone?

Does the drone just gain no benefit from being crafted? Does it uses the standard item rules for hit points and such, instead of the drone rules? Does it do something else?

So, I have a PC Mechanic who would love to have a tool as a melee weapon. Now, this itself I find no trouble at all. Take a suitable melee weapon, like one of the batons, and add a "functions as a toolkit" property to it. Bam, done, the only thing that changes is the price ( total price of weapon and toolkit plus maybe a 10% surcharge ).

However, lets say I wanted to make a device that functions as such, but is fully technomagical with various extra properties. How much item level, and/or credit cost, would each or all of these ideas be worth?

1. "Treated as a magic weapon"

2. "Mending, at will"

3. "Unseen Servant, 1/day"

4. "Make Whole, 1/day"

5. "Increased damage against technological constructs" ( if so, how much? )

So, I have a subscription order for Starfinder Armory, and it shipped last week on Monday, the 31st. However, tracking via UPS shows it as having been sent to a facility in Washington State ( the opposite side of the country from the delivery address ) on August 1, and it hasn't moved since. Has the book accidentally been shipped to the wrong address, or is this a normal part of UPS shipping? Tracking data shows no sign of departure from said facility, which I'd normally except to see if it were being shipped cross country.

So, last session, I ran a game on Akiton with use of the vehicle rules. You know, wasteland, caravan, raiders on buggies. It went fine, except for one thing: the attack penalties for attacking from a vehicle were simply too harsh. Nobody could hit anybody on much less than a 19, until they were actually engaged and started jumping between vehicles.

So, two questions:

1. Does the attack penalty actually apply in chase rules, where its vehicle vs vehicle, or did I misread and its only supposed to apply in vehicle vs foot?

2. Assuming I did read the rule correctly- can anyone think of a problem with simply ruling otherwise anyway? I understand why you want the penalty for shooting at people on foot, since otherwise "drive by shooting" becomes too powerful. That logic doesn't apply with two vehicles of similar speed fighting each other with the chase rules.

So, in another thread, the idea was brought up that poison goes straight to hit points. This seems to be based on the idea that "Hit Point Loss" is something different than "Damage".

So, rules question: does *anything* in the current rules bypass Stamina? Is the idea of something bypassing Stamina even supposed to be a part of the game at all? Or is it a universal rule that, whenever a game mechanic effects hit points, no matter the reason, if you have stamina, stamina goes first?

. . .specifically, with the replacement book I received after the initial book had binding problems. Its the same deal as last time, with detachment of the binding from the pages. It took a little while longer to happen, due to handling the book with kid gloves, but its still happened again.

Something I just noticed in Alien Archives, pretty much resolves the old dilemma about how to adjudicate the android race's Constructed property, vis a vis stuff like healing magic. Specifically, it provides a slightly updated version of the Constructed property under the Synthetic graft. Its basically the exact same as in the CRB, except it adds a clause to the first sentence.

"For effects targeting creatures by type, synthetic creatures count as both their actual creature type and constructs (whichever type allows an ability to affect them for abilities that affect only one type, and whichever type is worse for abilities that affect both creature types)."

So, it seems that "invalid target" is, indeed, *not* considered to be a 'worse' effect.

So, I saw a thread where it was pointed out: Insight bonuses do not stack. Thus, by RAW, the various class-based skill bonuses, Skill Focus, and Skill Synergy cannot stack. Question:

1. Is this intentional, or an oversight? I can see arguments both ways, but note that, if its intentional, it makes it a *lot* harder to actually keep up with/justify the NPC skill curves.

2. If so, what happens to a feat that is obsoleted? Say a Mechanic takes Skill Focus ( Engineering ) at Level 1. Do they get the feat refunded several levels later? Is it purely wasted, and if so, why should this be the rule?