Micheal Smith's page

Also expecting full parity with real-life is a bit of a fool's errand, that's not the goal or intention of either PF2E or SF2E.

Not expecting that at all. Just expecting something that doesn't seemed half baked (keep it pg) There current interpretation of auto fire is dumb. In all of the first edition Starfinder I played and I PLAYED A LOT. Autofire never was useful as it was currently written and was ever even thought of after the first reading. I get what they were trying to do and that is fine. But throw the other option in there as it does have purpose. And can be added in game and balanced.

The other issues is just more or less nick picking. Again lack of understanding proper terms. Words have meaning for a reason. A bipod does not do what they say it does. Ill leave the example at that

Think of this as constructive criticism.

The Doylist reason for the bipod is that kickback provides an incentive for ranged characters to have a higher strength (being comparable to the propulsive trait for bows), but the developers know that the -2 penalty to hit with one would make their use prohbitive to lower strength characters. So they needed some way for a low strength character to control a high recoil gun. They called the workaround a bipod when the kickback trait was created for guns in PF2, and for cross compatibility's sake I don't think it will change now.

Sure I get what they are trying to do. But that is what a Foregrip is called. The 2 items have 2 separate functions. Why was the bipod usage left out? There should totally be 2 options in the game.

Micheal Smith wrote:

So I am looking at several things. And just understanding Paizo's logic.

Auto Fire - Why does this only work at a cone effect. What if I want to full auto into 1 target? I fail to understand this logic. Are we only basing this on how Hollywood portrays this? Because somehow it looks cool? Why can we add a mechanic to allow for single target?

It's simple to incorporate. Sure the math may be need to be tweaked but the concept is there. 3 action activity, you then enter auto fire mode and continuously make attacks each round. So you have to make an attack roll each round to stay on target, this incorporates the concept of recoil. Each round you could take a -2 penalty attack to account for this.

Close. All you are missing is the MAP penalty. Instead of a cumulative (or maybe non-cumulative?) penalty for subsequent rounds, you have a -5 penalty for the second attack and a -10 penalty for the third.

Because as far as I can tell, any weapon with the Auto-Fire trait also allows for single-target Strike actions. You can certainly make three Strike actions each round if you feel like it. I don't recommend it since there is usually something better to do than make that attack with a -10 penalty, but it is available.

The reason for using the Multiple Attack Penalty instead of a per-round penalty is because combat usually only lasts 3-5 rounds. The amount of damage done by being able to make 3 Strike actions of damage each round with only a -2 penalty on later rounds is too much for the game balance to handle. So the accuracy penalty from kickback needs to be accounted for during each round.

Put part of the concept is your effectively only attacking one a turn so MAP wouldn't be a consideration in this instance. The idea of Auto Fire I am proposing is the ability to unload a full magazine and get extra effect for it. I understand what MAP is for and how to balance that.

The current Auto Fire is just plain stupid and based on some stupid Hollywood concept that is neither effective or entertaining.
The concept of being able to focus all the fire into one object vs just shooting it three times is to maximize the damage. For example I would rather have my M-16 full auto and dump the whole magazine in to an armored vehicle verse semi auto. In this case I want to get as much lead down range as fast as possible. So with this concept you would have the penalties of more recoil and the barrel getting hotter with the payoff of increased damaged in a shower period or more damage to a specific spot, like an armored door.

So I am looking at several things. And just understanding Paizo's logic.

Auto Fire - Why does this only work at a cone effect. What if I want to full auto into 1 target? I fail to understand this logic. Are we only basing this on how Hollywood portrays this? Because somehow it looks cool? Why can we add a mechanic to allow for single target?

It's simple to incorporate. Sure the math may be need to be tweaked but the concept is there. 3 action activity, you then enter auto fire mode and continuously make attacks each round. So you have to make an attack roll each round to stay on target, this incorporates the concept of recoil. Each round you could take a -2 penalty attack to account for this. the benefit is the damage out put goes up. So every round you get to add the weapon damage plus an extra die. Then we can incorporate muzzle heat. After x amount of rounds it becomes temporally inoperable. Each round you will expend that weapons expendable rounds x2 (what ever mathematically makes sense)

So in this case we will look at the machine gun
1d8 P - 20 Rounds, expend 1

I spend 3 actions to go focused auto fire -
Round 1: No penalty to hit 1d8 spend 2
Round 2: -1 Penalty to hit 2d8 spend 2
Round 3: - 1 Penalty to hit 2d8 spend 2

After 3 rounds the weapon has overheated needs a round to cool down.
Damage output 3 rounds 5d8 expending 6 rounds
Normal output 3 rounds 3d8 expending 3 rounds

Could do cumulative damage, r1 2d8, r2 2d8, r3 3d8 with cumulative penalty to hit.
Could incorporate ability to help bypass DR as you are focusing on one thing.
Could add automatic x (x is the amount of ammo the weapon expends when going full auto. Keep it simple.

This is what autofire is meant to do. Pump as much lead into one thing, to inflict as much damage as possible as quickly as possible. Put the target down as fast as possible with out care for ammo. Again this DEF needs to be fine-tuned.

-------

Bipod - Why is this only available for weapons with the Kickback trait? Again what is the logic or reasoning? Do they actually understand what a bipod is and the actual use? Because this functionality and concept is not a bipod. My problem is the lack of knowledge on what things are. Bipods are used typically in prone and kneeling stances to mount the weapon to a surface for increased control over muzzle fire.
A fore grip is used to stabilize weapons with recoil control. Sometimes you can get the 2 integrated into 1 item. I personally don't care for that option. Both are super easy I am sure to incorporate and make both work.

Foregrip - should be this. and the bipod should be there to mount to stabilize shots.

-------

Why don't we have a sight attachment (red for or holo) - I mean they do have a purpose vs using iron sights. We had it in first edition Starfinder.

Wow what a joke. So what if I have no desire to want to play the pathfinder system, because of the disaster it has been. I just want to play starfinder. So now I have to shell out more money for books that I don’t want to playtest a game that I have some interest.

2E was not ready to come out and they released it. Starfinder desperately needs to be over hauled because it’s in a worse shape then 2E. When the best feats still reside in the core rulebook after 7 years.

All I have seen in the last 2-3 years is give us money money money for sub par mistake ridden books. I have very little hope for Starfinder 2E.

It’s obvious no one at paizo understands how full auto should work. And I was hoping in 2E it would have been corrected.

While this is MUCH needed I am disappointed it is following the crap we got with 2nd Edition.

Starfidner was something I wanted to love and play all the time. The more and more time passed the less and less I even wanted to try. Most of the best feats are still in the Core rulebook. Too many of the feats abilities are so situational or they are 1 time use till you need to take a 10 min rest just made it very difficult to get motivated to play. I have a nanocyte an if the make the save against my knack then I can't use them on the enemy again till I take a 10 minute rest. So I never get to use them. It's just not fun and like why even take this ability?

Second Edition Pathfinder is atrocious overall. The best thing about it the Action economy. This is what is needed its simple and to the point. But then we look at the feats an OMG too many feats. So much to keep up with. You have skill feats, general feats, class feats ancestry feats. It becomes a nightmare trying to remember it all. Especially if you don't play regularly. I do love all the customization but it really is way to much. Do away with the skill feats. Most of them are situational and all. It really is a lot of things to keep up with. I have to be the right proficiency then the right feats for the right situation.

I was hoping they would have fixed Auto fire but they didn't. Huge disappoint. Please understand that this is not how automatic fire works all the time or even at all. Hollywood clearly gets it wrong. I can fire full auto and point it at one thing and should be able to. It is an easy fix. You give a boost of damage. Then give a penalty to not fire it in a cone. Each round of full auto increases damage and the penalty. Then you could go so far as to incorporate the concept of overheating weapon. So it can be fired for x amount of rounds. I just want to be able to full auto fire into 1 target not a whole group of targets. WHICH IS TOTALLY POSSIBLE. You gave and archetype to do this but it was mediocre. Our GM always just had it drop prone then stand back up. PLEASE PAIZO fix this. You then give each gun with auto fire a value of how many bullets are fire per round while in automatic.

Ex.
I have an automatic gun that holds 100 rounds. While in auto mode each action (3 actions to use this mode) it fires 20 rounds.
Full auto action is a 3 action activity. You fire full auto at one target you expend the full auto usage each time you take this action. You take a -1 penalty to the attack. Multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to this attack (obviously). Add one additional die of damage (x if the weapon deals 1d8 you add another d8). For every consecutive round you you use this activity you increase the penalty by 1 and the damage by 1 die of damage. After 3 rounds the weapon overheats and when done firing, can't before for a round. If more than 3 rounds is used it become inoperable for 2 rounds. Of course the numbers can be tweaked. Maybe just do extra d6 of damage. I just want something like this that is meaningful.

We struggled for a while to get 2E on the table and now it is a dead game to us. We ultimately reverted back to 1E. There is just too many feats, I don't who thought this was a good idea. But it is simply just terrible. I like the class design. Problem is Paizo has this thing of making certain choices better than others and some options are never chosen because they are just bad.

Wow, lets double the price of the the rule books PDF. I already struggle to get any more Paizo product on the table anymore. I was really excited with 2E and then saw the disappointment it has become. Too many balancing issues, another topic for another time.

Also I have found that the pdf's tend to be subpar. Several of the Starfinder core books have an issue with the way the inside book (the solar system) pages are. Its a single image and therefore a problem for the rest fo the page. Half of the time I can't even copy all of the text because of formatting. Then there is the issue of all the 'f' being omitted anytime I copy an pasted.

Or when I buy the character sheet pack pdf with issues and then basically told we won't fix the issue.

Not to mention you cannot print Starfinder character sheets on a Mac or iOS devices. this is really disappointing.

Starfinder has been dead with our group to to majority of the best feats still in the core rule book. Overall disappointing. Why buy the pdf when I can buy the pocket edition for the same price.

I have been trying to push this but with the price hike this basically just made it that much harder to sell. Especially with basic editing errors. Very disappointing this is.

This price increase will only be acceptable if the quality and lack of mistakes go down. Simple misspelling of words is really unacceptable. Spell checker does exist. I understand copy and paste but there need to be a BETTER quality control. When it states you need a bachelors to be an editor and this is what we get. Contradictions and ambiguous text is just plain lazy. Give an example, so many other systems do so. I need justification to pay more. I understand inflation but why am I having to pay more for the same sub par quality?

Just my 2 sense. I have tried promoting and getting the product out there but this makes it harder. Just saying.

I'm not overly interested in forcing pf2e to mirror 1e when introducing classes. I'll leave you to that

Im fine with that. It shouldn't mirror 100% but should have similar concepts/roles. Completely changing it to something else I feel is not right and would be a disaster. I mean Microsoft did that with Windows 8.

2E did that as a whole and I feel it was a mistake. We are taking a system people are used to an have known for 10+ years and then just drastically changing it to something completely new.

That was one thing I liked about PF1 Kineticist, was the versatility and felt it captured the essence of what each element should be,

Verzen wrote:

YuriP wrote:

I think that want's the people want from old PF1 Kineticist is a stronger blaster.

It's easily to notice when the most people say "What we need to have a stronger and with better action economy Kineticist? Do you need Burn? So just put Burn into it! We just want the Kineticist stronger as they are PF1".

No one really have love for Burn here. What most people wants is a solution.

..I love burn

My favorite rpg mechanic is hp for power.

Sure there are SOME people that liked burn, but don't conflate people saying they liked the PF1 Kineticist with them saying they love PF2 burn. Myself I loved the class but could never play it for long because I just hated burn so much [and the no burn archetype was SO, SO bad].

That is typical Paizo design though We put out multiple options but there is always that one option that is significantly better than all the other options. And we get more added options that so horrible they are borderline non playable. I already see that with 2E. I see in Starfinder more than anything. And it is beyond annoying and then trying to GM with that is a huge turn off. Its like The Operative, all I see are ghost because it is still by far the best option.

I like the idea of using hit points as a resource. You are using your own life energy to power your abilities. I think their should a restriction on how many hps you can spend at one and overall. Or you are immune to loosing hit points fro x amount of time. I loved burn in 1st and having to managed can I afford to spend the HP's now or should I be more conserving.

Losing hps vs spending them are different. But that then begs the question of book keeping

Though on having Burn spells (focus points) but got thinking an thought seems similar to impulse feats.

I think of Avatar and think by caring elements around or what is around you and using that vs the current concept. I think that would be significantly a better option. An may be easier to build around.

Also I am not well adjusted to 2E as I have found and seen too many issues with the system, so I cant truly come up with an idea that fits in the system. The Kineticist actually renewed interest in 2E. This was by far my favorite class but felt they screwed the overall concept up.

As for burn itself I don't see it being a good thematic ability. I like the concept of it.

Lets look at this:

Up till level 6, there are only 5 things:

A speed increase (+5, +10)
A weapon enhancement (turning on a crit effect, and a once a round damage bonus)
A +1 armor bonus.

For the armor bonus and the weapon effects, that is no more complicated than a shield fighter or a weapon mechanic. (Did you calibrate your weapon? Are you using overload? Did you position your shield?)

As far as speed changes, again, not really different than a character with jump jets (with the advantage that evolutionists don't have to track rounds of power consumption.)

This isn't like a 1E barbarian, where raging changes your str and con, and then you have to figure out all the stats that changes.

As for the drawbacks, there really isn't any "calculating" that needs to be done? It is just "do you have EP?" "do you have 3+ ep?"

There is calculations involved. Your EP is changing EVERY around. Your either gain and/or spend. Then you have to go an recalculate those abilities.

The barbarian wasn’t that bad. Because it wasn’t changing every round. So you easily have a second character sheet with the recalculates stats or a second page with that. Where as this is ok ok babe 3 Ep next round I have 4. What do I spend? Now what do I have? This is too much calculations every round.

Then there is ok do I have enough EP for the speed boosts. Do I need to move before I spend them. As where someone with jump jets, the speed doesn’t fluctuate every round. Most fights don’t go long enough to even consider running our. Then with several abilities to recharge outside of combat or how cheap the batteries are this isn’t a concern for most situations.

That’s not alot to truly track till 6th level. Then consider everything else after 6 to keep updating. Plus all the other things you keep track of.

Under the Mechanized niche you the damage you take from all type except the 2 you selected by half your EP. You have to recalculate this every round. That becomes excessive after awhile.

I don’t understand why you are trying to defend a mechanic that is just horrible and isn’t needed. There are simpler, elegant solutions.

The EP ability as written is just plain bad mechanically. Conceptually i like it.

I read the EP ability and I said next. The rest of the class looks nice. I was hoping for the ability that allows my character to evolve over time. Like the summoner. I get to pick different abilities and they level up with me. Sort of like how the shifter class from 1st edition.

If the final version is anything like this I won’t allow one at my tables, just because if the constant changing of abilities and all the tracking.

I don’t mind the drawbacks as that reminds me of the oracles curse. And I quite like it. Evolving gives you good stuff but comes at some penalty. I don’t really see how this is any different than the Oracle??? Am I missing something?

Basing the drawback effects on number of EP is too much to calculate. It’s changing every turn and feels like a lot of bookkeeping that shouldn’t be needed.

I also feel Paizo gets way to wordy with their stuff and it over complicated things.

I’m new to running and I have been running it for now as a day to day AP. They spend a few days working toward the the main story and may spend 2-4 days promoting and doing downtime activities to promote the circus, crafting etc.

Was excited when I saw the article. As soon as I saw a $2.99 price tag, instantly turned off.

If this has any connection to Lone Wolf, then I will never look to support anything. After the online price gouging. I hope none of these apps ever go to a subscription model.

As of now I don’t see $2.99 is definitely overpriced. $0.99 and I would buy for sure. I think that it is a much better price point.

For now I will continue to use my homemade app for this.

I am a bit late on this. bit looking to build one for a home campaign. I will be starting out at 11th level.

Do I get to select my major (5 total) and minor (9 total) as I wish? Then what ever my highest costing is what I subtract from my starting wealth? I am still a bit lost in how to do this properly.

Norse check the link and you have to have iOS

Not sure how much I can actually leave here without getting in trouble. But I will add a short description.

Looking for people to test out a Starfinder App. it is geared toward Starship Combat, specifically Crew Actions.

Check this out.

Not sure if I missed this but was there ever anything posted of a nanocyte wanted to take an archetype?
I would assume based on the pattern any level the nanocyte gains a nanocyte knack is what they would trade out.

What about at 9th level, very specifically?

Its things like this that is making Society more and more unappealing. You keep making all of the changes. When you introduced Second Edition, you changed the whole system from first Edition. It was a step. We are what a year into Second Edition and you want to change again.

This is becoming really frustrating, that NOW I HAVE TO CHANGE AGAIN. Seriously get things in order, I am already having a hard time keeping people interested and showing up to play.

Now as a cleric I have to do MORE BOOKKEEPING, this is counter productive and complete nonsense. Now I have to buy the material, then I have to have my character pay gold to learn a spell from my character. This is more bookkeeping that is not needed. I just want to play the game and do little book keeping. If I have to pay for the spells, I have no incentive to go out and buy and new books and support the system. If I can't buy a source and use a spell with my character that is common because I have to learn it. I have no incentive and very little care to do all of the book keeping.

Unacceptable.

Please cancel my subscriptions and the current order, 36246570.

So wait, if my cleric wants to pick any spell from the APG I have to use the Learn A Spell activity?

Micheal Smith wrote:

I should just have to fill out ALL derails then hit save and I am done.

That's what you're supposed to do?

Well, "Save and Exit".

I should have to set it all up then go back to events and report. I literally could streamline this process and make it 100% better. A lot of this site needs an overhaul.

Not sure if I did something wrong when I reported. I must say reporting a game was very unintuitive and overly complicated. So many back and forth and save. The reporting needs to be streamlined. I should just have to fill out ALL derails then hit save and I am done.

So I reported and event earlier and it shows 2 times in my sessions. It has 2 sessions for the same table. I also son't understand how the ACP are being calculated. I don't know if the duplicated sessions are giving me double ACP. When I add all the ACP up they don't actually equal what the Boons tab shows.

I also see that several of the Starfinder scenarios are duplicated also.

Any guidance?

I agree with this for the most part. After playing Pathfinder 2E. Starfinder just feels like a thing of the past. The combat system is garbage. The skills are bleh.

I really feel that most of the classes are boring all around. The Solarion was a cool concept but boring and lacking. The Soldier was an attempt to make the Fighter cool but fails on so many levels. The operative just ungodly broken.

Spell casting isn’t even entertaining. The spell casting classes seem blah and boring. Spells don’t seem to be nearly as fun. Some good steps in the right direction, like magic missile.

Skills I really don’t care to much outside of treat deadly wounds being limited.

Resolve, Stamina, HP. TOO MUCH TRACKING. Way to much tracking. Then the 10 minute rest abilities, again to much tracking. Our group don’t spend much resolve in fear we will run out and die.

Feats are just god awful. Most of the COM feats are boring or way to situational or just plain lacking,. The feat selection for a game that has been out for several years is absurd. I struggle to find feats that are truly meaningful.

The weapon accessories was a GREAT IDEA. But Paizo is just plain horrible with wording, clarifying and fixing rules. So this leads to arguments that detract from the game.

Weapons, half of them are like why? To many and the level system is absurd and very restricting. I like the modular concept mentioned. To many and some are like why would I ever select this. Oh wait I wouldn’t because it is straight garbage. Similar thing with armor.

Combat system is old and unintuitive. 2E got this right. End of story.

Starship, I was super excited. If you aren’t a gunner, engineer or pilot then it just isn’t fun. SOM attempted to fix this but meh. Found it lacking in options for starships and honestly the prebuilt starships are cool but just a filler and excuse not to be innovative. 39 for SOM sorely disappointed.

Overall Starfinder feels dead and NEEDS a serious revamp. Kill it off and rework it from the ground.

Awesome. I won't lie, I am usually very hard headed. It isn't easy to sway me to the opposite.

But I must say there are some VERY good arguments to sway it as an archetype. I really like the concept of a knight class with the samurai as an option, similar to that of a champion.

I have always like the concept of the samurai and the ninjas. and in 1E was disappointed they were just alternates of the cavalier and the rogue. I do like the concept of the ninja being a rogue racket.

I liked a lot of the things I read. Especially with the Hero point manipulation.

As an archetype - what feats would be. I really want to see the iaijutsu strike from the sword saint have its own feat or something similar to it.

So I wanted some opinions and thought. How d you think a samurai in 2E will be handled as a class or an archetype? What are your thoughts on this?

I personally want to see this as a class. I feel this can only be done as such.

Some notable things I feel the class should have
A fighting style - Sword, from mounted, archer, etc...
A Code similar to that of a Champion. But not focused on a deity.
Focused on a specific weapon. Then branch out to a second, maybe a third. Similar to the fighter but more specialized.
Something to do with their armor, maybe focusing around intimidation specifically.

My problem with 1E Samurai was it was just a cavalier, I felt like the samurai wasn't a true class in its own right. feel it was a lazy attempt to add it to the game, same with the ninja, and feel that it was more of a money grab. Here have eastern stuff but its a copy of something out and we just want quantity over quality.

I did like the resolve class feature and would like to see something similar. A feat like charmed life seems to be the most likely.

Slow your roll, Michael. Taja answered your question thorougly because it's polite and nice to have all in one place so other users don't need to scour across multiple threads with limited info.

I'm not sure what's going on in your life, but Taja didn't deserve that.

I asked a simple yes or no question. That simple. Nothing is going on. Thats the problem, being polite it not the case. I didn't ask for a thorough answer. Simple as that. Keep the answers to what the person asked for. Simple as that. I hate going in to other posts and seeing these elaborate answers when it clearly isn't needed.

If I wanted more I would have asked for a full on description. It isn't a hard concept. I asked a yes or no question, meaning that's all I wanted, that is all that was needed.

You never 'need' to do 'Risky Surgery'.

There is no specific 'Risky Surgery' check.

If you choose to use 'Risky Surgery', you inflict 1d8 damage on your target and then make your next 'Treat Wounds' check at a +2 bonus: If you succeed on this check, you get a Critical Success instead (which means an additional 2d8 healed).

When using Ward Medic, my group has been making one 'treat wounds' check and applying the results to all targets/patients.

If you use 'Risky Surgery' on multiple patients at once:
Inflict 1d8 damage on each patient
Make your 'Treat Wounds' check with the +2 bonus:
Critical Failure: Inflict another 1d8 damage on each patient
Failure: No healing
Success: Treat as critical Success
Critical Success: Each patient is healed of 4d8 HP plus the fixed bonus for the specific Proficiency/DC used.

WOW A simple yes or no would have sufficed. You severely overcomplicate the answer. You do need to do a risky surgery or else you don't get the benefit. I didn't need a full explanation on everything. Please do not over complicate an explain everything. This turned out to be less helpful as I had to read through everything to find your one line that said Inflict 1d8 damage on each patient.

I hate when people feel the need to explain EVERYTHING. Especially when not needed. I didn't ask for all of that. A SIMPLE YES OR NO. It seems like you think I don't know how to use the abilities. I asked the table I was sitting at an everyone felt it wasn't as clear.

Would I need to do a risky surgery while using Ward medic to help 2 people at once, I am guessing that I will need to do 2 separate risky surgery checks? Then I can perform the treat deadly wounds.

Ixal wrote:

Micheal Smith wrote:

You should get a basic starship for free, everything need to make it free then spend the remaining points.

As I understand it from what is posted here that is what happens?

You get extra BP you can only use for the HQ ship.
Or is that not hiw it works and the BP for the HQ come out of the same pool as the BP for the personal starships?

That the HQ ship does not have all needed components until higher level is a different issue.

nope, that's exactly how it works. You get a completely free, additional pool of BP that you can only spend on the HQ. Hence why I keep calling the HQ free. I honestly don't understand the argument otherwise.

Yes, I agree the ship is nonexistant before 4, and probably not even mobile before 8, but I don't have a problem with that.

A campaign running an HQ/squad setup probably doesn't leave the first planet until 4, and leaving near space can be delayed until level 10. The HQ is a higher level only type of ship, not a level 1-20 kind of option.

You don’t understand Free. You get a pool of point to spend on a Starship. THATS NOT FREE, Free is the wrong word in this instance. We have moved passed this. Well except you. You still have to SPEND BP to build a starship. The option is free. YOU GET A FREE OPTION to build another starship at 25%. The HQ ship isn’t free the ability to build one is. The fact you are still going on about this blows my mind.

T\he option is a waste. An will always be a waste. After 10th level there is no need for HQ because you shouldn’t be building anything smaller than a medium ship with everyone having their own med labs etc... So BP, is useless at lower levels and at higher levels There is no need for it. Once your squadron starship hits about Tier 7 you don’t need an HQ to handle the non combat.

So back to the original argument I brought up. How viable is the HQ? It is viable after 8+. Then even then its not needed. Again the option is one that has no appeal and no true viability. The fact that isn’t viable at all levels is unacceptable.

Micheal Smith wrote:

You are missing the whole point I have been making. you don't get a free ship. If you followed along before. You get a free option to get a ship that you still pay resources for.

This is the part I'm getting confused by. What resources are you spending?

Say, your average player level is 10. You're building a squadron with an HQ. The squadron's tier is 10.

Your squad consist of three starships, two fighters & a shuttle with a gunner. Each of these three ship's tier is 8. Each gets a tier 8 ship's BP to spend and equip.

The HQ's tier is 10, except for three important bits. 1) it only get's 1/4 the BP of an actual tier 10 ship, 2) Base Frame, hangars and shuttle bays only cost 1/10 the price for this ship, and 3) it can only ever have a light turret mount.

Those BP are extra on top of the squadron's BP. That 67 BP is entirely extra. A normal squad without an HQ doesn't get that BP to spend. This is why I'm calling it free.

You are still spending BP for the HQ. It’s irrelevant where they came from you are still spending something to build that Star Ship. As soon as you spend something for anything it isn’t free. You should get a basic starship for free, everything need to make it free then spend the remaining points. The option to have an HQ is free because doesn’t cost anything to add on the HQ. If I was given an HQ with the minimum requirements to do so, that’s a different story. The fact that you HAVE to spend BP to have a slot for each ship isn’t free. 25% of the BP isn’t enough at lower levels. You want the HQ to do non combat stuff but it can’t even do that reliably.

AGAIN. Leaving it behind defeats the whole purpose. If I jump and it takes more that several weeks, we leave it behind as you suggest, then I don’t have my non combat tools available. Why is this so hard to understand?

You still are better off till about 10th level not taking the HQ ship because the HQ ship is useless. With me previous build it can’t even travel to do the noncombat stuff. Just building the squadron ships to have specialized roles is still the better option at lower builds. It is more than doable and you have 1 less ship to worry about and everything else is good to go. With the specialized build I proposed You could build 1 medium ship to handle all the bays and have launch tubes and still have a decently built combative starship.

AGAIN how viable is the HQ? Not really viable till higher levels. You just don’t have the BP to do so. Then you have to have people man the starship. A lot of people overlook the complement. The minimum number of people. Unless your GM just cheeses and says you can have these people for free because I am too lazy to care. I see a lot of that going on Completely takes the experience away.

Ok. I thought I was loosing my mind. I thought something looked a bit off.

Toxicsyn wrote:

So from levels 1 to 8, you could be a squadron and the GM would provide the HQ.

But from levels 8+, you could have a squadron and the PCs are now able to design their own HQ (using the optional rules.)

This is likely to be my solution.

Make them an HQ ship and allow minor modifications based on what they want, but eventually give them the reigns of it once they actually have the BP to make something.

You would probably be better off using my suggestion. See post directly above with the specialized ships. I am not sure how APL and starship combat works. Starship wombat hasn't come up a lot with our groups and it has really been awhile since I have seen anything.

I feel 10+ you could safely go away from my specialized role starships concept and implement a decent HQ.

Using the grey cloaking device would be the best. So you could cloak then move and remain hidden.

Micheal Smith wrote:

The HQ option at lower levels is a complete and utter waste.

It's literally a free ship on top of your squadron.

You could asteroid drop it on the first pirate base you come across, and it would be worth the investment (zero). Technically, then you should get a free one next level, or however your GM adjucates new ships.

I just don't get what you want out of this ship. Yes, you can't build a functional ship before level 8 or so. No, this doesn't shut down entire campaigns. If you're playing with this option, the GM is making it work for those early levels.

Micheal Smith wrote:

The HQ option at lower levels is a complete and utter waste.

It's literally a free ship on top of your squadron.

You could asteroid drop it on the first pirate base you come across, and it would be worth the investment (zero). Technically, then you should get a free one next level, or however your GM adjucates new ships.

I just don't get what you want out of this ship. Yes, you can't build a functional ship before level 8 or so. No, this doesn't shut down entire campaigns. If you're playing with this option, the GM is making it work for those early levels.

You are missing the whole point I have been making. you don't get a free ship. If you followed along before. You get a free option to get a ship that you still pay resources for. Which you barely can do. I shouldn't have to "asteroid drop" coming on the first pirate base. You didn't solve what happens when you get attacked out of nowhere? You severely limit what the GM can do if you wanna play that game. Well I can't attack you ever when you are at the HQ because we may blow it up.

The point being made is until maybe about 8th level it I a complete and utter waste. All the things you suggested are just complete and utter nonsense and defeat the purpose of the ship.

You are better off doing away with it and custom designing each ship to follow the priorities:
1. Combat (the sole purpose of the squadron)
2. Each ship specializes in a secondary role (Sensors, Scouting, think of non expansion bay roles)

One of these ships doesn't follow these priorities
1. Non combat based roles with expansion bays
2. Combat

It's literally just a free base ship for holding expansion bays, downtime, and getting out of the cockpits of your tiny/small combat ships.

It's not meant to be brought into combat, it's not meant to survive level appropriate enemies in combat.

So you don't get into the situation where the HQ is in combat.

When you are ambushed, you must assume the GM isn't out to get you and won't deliberately blow up your base ship.

Similarly, when you leave the ship to do things planetside, you take some precautions, and assume the GM won't be out to get you by having a tribe of space goblins steal your ship everytime you leave it unguarded.

It's literally there for the role play of expansion bays & the like, nothing else.

I can’t even right now. If you get ambushed that happens. That happens all the time now. By car isn’t mean to be in combat. But if someone try’s an steal it or blow me up in it. Things like this happen. Doesn’t mean the GM is trying to deliberately blow up you HQ. Don’t get in that situation. Right. Get real man. Nothing to say you don’t get attacked right outside of EOX or even in the atmosphere. Then what? We did everything you said but uh-oh.

Please name one time where an HQ stars somewhere never really moves and the combat ships make the jump? Also thinking you can make a jump for weeks in a tiny fighter is absurd.

By saying it isn’t combat related and never able to see combat is absurd and unrealistic.

You would be better off taking more combat focused ships and making one less combat oriented but having combat options, be like the last line and giving that ship those options. You at least would have a full BP for the tier to spend. Everyone would be better off doing a small ship at minimum. Everyone have a drift drive. One have the med lab an others. Another ship having more powerful sensors. Everyone has crew quarters. Again making the HQ a useless option. I have stated out several ships and made them combat oriented and would easily be able to do this.

The HQ option at lower levels is a complete and utter waste. Tier 8+ is when you would be best doing the Squadron and have an HQ.

Another reason why leaving HQ behind is absurd. Let’s say we jump 21 days to our next spot. We leave the HQ behind because we don’t want anything to happen to it, Well crap we need a med bay or a tech lab. Guess what we have to jum another 21 days to get it. Seems useless to have that then.

Micheal Smith wrote:

Not at all. I say it isn't free because you are still having to spend some sort of resource to build it. The option is free and in no way truly penalizes the pc for taking that option.

...The problem with that is until higher levels you don't even get those options.

Ah, I see. We were just talking past one another. (I thought you meant something different by "free".)

As I noted above, I completely agree that it's too bad the HQ ship rules don't allow you to construct a HQ ship at lower levels!

Micheal Smith wrote:

What about crew for these HQ ships? We just say you have the required people to do so? Why would they? Do it for free? Seems like a way to just get around the rules to give the players something for free. You need a min of 20 crew for Bulk Freighter. 75 for Carrier.

Technically, the HQ ship rules reduce the minimum crew to 4. But your point still holds - the rules seem to assume that you have at least 4 NPC lackeys (who man the HQ ship during combat), or that during combat you power down the HQ ship or leave it on autopilot or something.

Glad to see us on the same page or getting there.

Leaving the HQ behind and all of those instructions I feel is just completely absurd. That ultimately defeats the whole purpose of the HQ. If I leave it docked then jump, why even have it?

Every party I have been with, no one wanted to stay back to just guard the ship. Seems really lame not to have PC’s accompanying the group.

Also leaving it behind in space and going forward is another lame idea. You can’t control what happens. What attacks and when. You also don’t have the ability to sleep and travel for multiple days/weeks. I view the tiny fighers as just being a cramp cockpit like we see in fighter jets.

My calculations didn’t even account for a drift drive. Forcing combat ships in this sense to do so seems really out of place. THe HQ ships is supposed to handle everything outside of Combat. If you are not in combat then the HQ should be with you.

Launch tubes. Well this just adds more complications to the whole thing. What kind of actions is it to leave the HQ during combat? Launch tunes can only have 1 tiny ship and takes up 2 slots for 5 BP.

Maybe the HQ ship is intended to work as you all suggest and not move. Maybe you are too jump to your locations. If this to be true then the HQ ship would never truly needed to be added. Because we could just add make one ship a bit weaker in combat to accommodate the med lab and all of that. So just fine somewhere to land and take care of that stuff.

I guess I misunderstood having access to it. Either way I spoil feel that these should not be Standard, but limited. Just how I read things and view it. I don’t something I am not seeing on my side. Either way thanks all for help clarifying.

I just started to look over APG and on Archive of Nethys it had the Standard symbol by it so I was curious. I am actually theory crafting a character and choosing between several others. Actually putting more thought in to me 2E characters (role playing aspect) vs just throwing together things and going with it.

Just trying to get a grasp on all of the second edition stuff. I like knowing everything.

So then can I not select this option? I guess I still don’t understand. Sorry. If I can’t select it then it shouldn’t be standard option...

Micheal Smith wrote:

Awesome. That is what I thought. But for any options that require a GM to choose who chooses?

Example of a PFS available option that requires a GM choice?

The very option I started the thread with, Amnesiac

You gain three free ability boosts. You choose two, and the GM chooses the third based on their first inklings of your character’s possible history.

Awesome. That is what I thought. But for any options that require a GM to choose who chooses?

Just trying to understand how all this works.

So after looking Amnesiac it is Rare, but it isn't on the restricted or limited list. So does that mean I can take this Background? If I missed something where did I go wrong?

If it is legal, it states the GM picks the 3rd option. How would that be handled?

Micheal Smith wrote:

Firstly the HQ isn't free. It is an option you can elect to take. It's just and add on. You are still required to pay the BP for the frame then you have to spend the BP to house ALL the ships. So you can have one but still having to pay for one.

So I think we're understanding this section differently. First let me make sure I'm understanding how you're reading things correctly (and vice versa).

As I'm reading it, the party decides how many combat ships they want, and then uses table 2-12 to determine what tier those ships are. And that, in turn, determines how much BP they get to use to build each ship. They can also get a free optional HQ ship in addition to this, though there are severe constraints on how good it can be. (It gets a quarter of the BP a ship of tier = APL would get, can only mount one weapon, etc.)

As you're reading it(?), if the party adopts the optional HQ ship, it isn't free. Instead the party has to pay the BP cost of that ship, presumably by deducting it from the BP used to build the combat ships? (Is that an accurate description of how you're reading things?)

Not at all. I say it isn't free because you are still having to spend some sort of resource to build it. The option is free and in no way truly penalizes the pc for taking that option.

Now continuing with

Part of the text reads: "It [the HQ ship option] increases the squadron’s number of Build Points available by accommodating some of the expansion bay facilities (like a medical bay or tech lab) that the smaller starships might otherwise have installed."

If the HQ is an optional free ship, as I read it, then this passage makes sense. Having an HQ ship effectively gives the players extra BP to use on non-combat related things like medical bays and tech labs.

The problem with that is until higher levels you don't even get those options. Some people I have talked to require you to have sensors, because they are the "EYES AND EARS". So looking at minimum build points assuming a party of 6.

You are looking at spending 39 BP (Frame, Thrusters, Power Core, 6 Shuttle Bays, Cut Rate Sensors, Med Bay). This leaves 6 BP for everything else. You can only get 1 more Expansion Bay. Each shuttle bay takes 2 slots.
Now we could look an assume that the Hanger bay could accommodate bigger ships. But again you are force to take the Carrier. Which makes it you can acquire this till 10th level. We can only guess that each small ship would take the place of 2 Tiny ships. Each hanger bay then takes on 4 small ships. So a second hanger bay, taking 8/10 slots. 1 for med. You eventually want to get to medium ship.

What about crew for these HQ ships? We just say you have the required people to do so? Why would they? Do it for free? Seems like a way to just get around the rules to give the players something for free. You need a min of 20 crew for Bulk Freighter. 75 for Carrier.

With all of this you are then force to have one of your combat ships to take on better sensors (if you wish to conserve BP for everything else) Which takes points away for COMBAT purposes.

The unification matrix is cool, but defeats the whole purpose of each person being able to use their own ship and do what they want. And defeats the purpose of having multiple starships for combat. You say let's have 5 starships. But hey we need to combine because we are too weak and have 1 bigger ship. Why not just stay with the 1 bigger ship to begin with?

Let me clarify my position more. My issue with HQ option is until higher levels your HQ ships is useless all around other than to house the ships. Either forcing you to cheap out on non combat things till higher levels or force the combat ships to do so. I feel that the HQ option is weak till higher levels and shouldn't be used till then. I think 25% is too steep. I am fine with 1 weapon mount on the HQ. Through a VI have a pilot and they can get some support based weapons. Maybe a weapon to help penetrate shields faster ECM etc...

Let me see if I have this right. The party decides to go squadron. Lets say they're level 7 and 5 pcs, 4 want to do the individual little ships and the last pc will run the hq.

They look up on the table how many points each individual combat ship gets for 4 level 7s. Each pc builds their own fighter with those points.

Then to build the hq ship they get 180/4=45 points. Heavy freighter costs 40/10=4 points, same with the hangers. Then you buy thrusters, sensors, pcu, drift drive, etc., using the remaining 37 points. So 4 for thrusters, 8 for drift, 1 for terrible sensors, and because we're up to 180 power we need a 20 build point pcu. 37-33=4 points left over for anything else.

That sound about right?

Except that you cannot do that. You cannot use a Heavy Freighter as an HQ option. It can't support the hanger or shuttle bays.

A hangar bay can be installed only in a Gargantuan or larger starship...

A shuttle bay can be installed only in a Huge or larger...

So the minimum frame you can acquire is a BULK FREIGHTER.Which means the earliest you can acquire an HQ is 4th level as I already stated.

So then we decide to exclude the whole fact that our HQ ship can't be "Stolen" or "Destroyed". So until you get more BP at higher levels you have to choose to I add some security to help defend my ship from being stolen while in the battle or even when we are docked.

Micheal Smith wrote:

I feel you should get the base ship and the hangers needed for free.

The HQ *is* free. ("An HQ... increases the number of Build Points available by accommodating some of the expansion bay facilities (like a medical bay or tech lab) that the smaller starships might otherwise have installed.")

Micheal Smith wrote:

I haven’t stated one out so I don’t know if putting a weapon on HQ is doable. Something with some special property that could aid the starships.

Weapon-wise, HQs are only allowed to have a single turret with a mount for a light weapon. That aside, they generally won't have enough BP to add armor or shields. So they're not really viable in combat. (Which is as it should be, because they're free!)

Micheal Smith wrote:

I was wandering how viable the HQ ship was going to be. I mean even at tier 7 you only get 45 BP. I feel this it too steep of a price. I do understand the reasoning. The problem is in out group we have 2-3 people (out of 5) that really want their own ship. By doing this this leaves the others in a useless ship in combat.

Hrmm. You could just let them decide how many (non-HQ) ships they want, and use the 2-12 table to determine their tier. (On this approach, the ship manned by multiple players wouldn't get any more BP than the individually manned ones, but it would get more officer actions, and so would be more effective.)

Alternatively, you do something like that, but bump up the tier of the ship manned by multiple players by 1, and bump down the tier of the individually-manned ships by 1. (E.g., make the shared ship APL-1 tier, and the individual ships APL-3 tier.)

You completely missed the points I made.

Firstly the HQ isn't free. It is an option you can elect to take. It's just and add on. You are still required to pay the BP for the frame then you have to spend the BP to house ALL the ships. So you can have one but still having to pay for one. 45 BP isn't a lot to spend to give the ship the basic requirements.

Here is the minimum ship you can build
Legend: Normal (HQ)

Frame: Bulk Freighter - 55 BP (5.5 BP)
Shuttle Bay 4 BP (1 BP) each
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ships (2, 3, 4, 5, 6 BP)

Power Core: Nova Light 15 BP *Assuming it can power everything
Thrusters: H4 - 4 BP

That leaves just 15 BP left to add armor, shields, etc. So using the med lab as the example the provided it could do that's another 8 BP. Leaving 7 BP. No security... No way to be truly defended in combat. With your alternative method that's something that isn't written. We use the rules as they are written. So that doesn't work. We are then forced to make an additional ship so the people who don't want and individual ship have a viable ship. Thus weakening the other ships. Seems like a poor design. What about tiers below this?

This means you can't even get an HQ prior to 4th level. Because having a hanger bay requires a Gargantuan ship. Which is a minimum of 51 points just to get the hanger bay, base frame, power core and thrusters. 8th level to grab that. Ultimately sounds a bit backwards because then you are forced to grab a tiny ship. So you can go from having a small ship to that of a tiny. That is a step backwards. Remember this is just the minimum spent BP to make it functional. If sensors are required you need to add another 2 BP the cost to make it work.

Now I don't know how much more powerful you will be with having 2-6 tiny ships vs 1 ship in the party.

Keep in mind with solo pilots you are restricted to what. you can do compared to multiple people. VI helps but how much will that truly help or make overpowered. This is all just written on paper.

If we are to get a HQ. We should have all the tools needed given to us to do so, meaning the minimum components to make the ship useful and functional (Base frame, thrusters, power core, maybe sensors, and all the required hanger/shuttle bays needed. We should get a free ship with the capabilities to house the ships and not SPEND the BP. Spending a resource makes something not free. How are the tiny ships supposed to scan other ships and figure that information out? Knowledge is power. Knowing where to be and where to strike is important. And can help underpowered ships defeat more powerful. The stunts and the new actions help with this.

Micheal Smith wrote:

I was wandering how viable the HQ ship was going to be. I mean even at tier 7 you only get 45 BP. I feel this it too steep of a price. I do understand the reasoning. The problem is in out group we have 2-3 people (out of 5) that really want their own ship. By doing this this leaves the others in a useless ship in combat.

I feel you should get the base ship and the hangers needed for free. Maybe have the HQ be a science officer based ship. Where it’s primary function is to help scan enemy ships and coordinate them.

I haven’t stated one out so I don’t know if putting a weapon on HQ is doable. Something with some special property that could aid the starships.

You can have a couple of two-person ships. The main flight dude and then a support person to do those engineering checks and help out otherwise.

Unless one of their 'demands' are that they must be alone in there.

True. An the ones that want to solo can get a VI with gunnery. Throw a point weapon and the VI can shoot down tracking weapons and fire linked weapons up front.

I was wandering how viable the HQ ship was going to be. I mean even at tier 7 you only get 45 BP. I feel this it too steep of a price. I do understand the reasoning. The problem is in out group we have 2-3 people (out of 5) that really want their own ship. By doing this this leaves the others in a useless ship in combat.

I feel you should get the base ship and the hangers needed for free. Maybe have the HQ be a science officer based ship. Where it’s primary function is to help scan enemy ships and coordinate them.

I haven’t stated one out so I don’t know if putting a weapon on HQ is doable. Something with some special property that could aid the starships.

I was wandering the same thing. I think you do that is the only way it makes sense. I feel if you didn’t add it then they could have just said array is add 0 BP.