Peg'giz's page

We just started Mechageddon and this also came up. Unfortunately there is no definitiv answer to it to be found.

Unfortunately it's a recurring pattern with Paizo APs, it seems the APs get no "rules-check-reading" before printing (reminds me of "the enemy tries to stay in ranged combat"-tactic in AotS... problem: Large Enemy, 10x10 square room, 5 players...).

It would be nice if Paizo could release some Erratas for their APs, especially on such obvious misprints.

@Topic: I would prefer to upgrade my Mech with UPBs, it feels like a more organic progression this way. The amount of UPBs spent could then determinate the Mechs tier (and with it his max weapon level, stats etc.).

Context:
The characters knew they will encounter a (Lesser)BBEG which is evil and they have to defeat her (to save the village/land). They knew that there were at least 4 enemies in the room (BBEG + 3 Succubi-thingies) and they assumed even some grunts.

The fight started when the paladin charged the BBEG and his steed attacked the succubi-thingies. The fighter then moved into melee with one of the succubi-thingy and the next thing that happens was the suggestion.

So the spell was cast while the fighting already started.

Hi,
we had a situation yesterday where an enemy cast suggestion on the parties fighter in combat and suggested to "lay of your armor so we can have some fun".

The DM ruled that this is a reasonable suggestion (as the enemy was a beautyfull lady) and not harmfull.
The fighters player disagree and argumented that they were mid-fight and lay of his armor during fight isn't really reasonable.

Of course DM ruling trumps player, so the player gave in and his character basically lay of his fullplate during the complete fight while his party was slaughtered...

I think this was a mis-judgement by the DM as this would make suggestion a far to powerfull spell (as you don't have additional saves like at hold person or other "take out of combat"-spells).

How would you rule this?

I let my players to upgrade armor on the travel and also use them during this process. Simply because they spent a feat for it and it's RAW. I also don't see anything which speaks against it.

It already has a MASSIVE drawback (four times the time) so why add another one?

What is the reason to not allow it? The missing "workshop"? What happens once a wizard can cast tiny hut, Mage's Magnificent Mansion or the cleric has it's own demiplane the group spent the nights-rest on?

Related to

Pathfinder 2nd Edition actually does this, which sort of compensates for the drastic nerf in non-Cantrip spell slots. But here's the idea I had instead: Instead of Cantrips automatically scaling, you have to invest to scale them by putting them into higher level slots. They retain their recastability, but now they're occupying a >0 level spell slot, so you need to pick and choose each day (if you are a prepared caster), or pick and choose as you level up your spells known (if you are a spontaneous caster). As an extension of this concept, since Cantrips would no longer be all 0 level spells, some Cantrips could start out at levels >0 (although at least the great majority of 0 level spells would be Cantrips).

I like the idea, this reminds me of the "spell feats" in 3.5e.

I had this in my homebrew games A LOT - basically the whole campaigns were build around the characters backstories.

But I realized that with the official APs this sort of storytelling went more and more to the background, to a point where in my last campaign the character backgrounds were not mentioned once (simply because the DM run the AP "by the book").

For me, as a DM, it's a vital part to include the characters backstory to the game as this make the story more personal, more intensive and the stakes are higher. (unfortunately I have to admit I failed at this in my SF AotS round).

In my current campaign I went a step further and we are currently playing the characters backstory (which is a lot of fun).
They all play as teen versions of their characters (planned for levels 1-3) in one backwater town on a desert/wild-west planet.

It's very fun, but also difficult for me as a DM as I have to plan the session more like "Three Investigators" episodes then the normal SF game (we played ~8 sessions now and they had exactly one fight (which was forced onto them and they only tried to escape)).

Maybe it's because I'm currently playing a fighter, but I say the fighter needs the most re-work.

Things I suggest would be:
- 4 skill points (did it already in my groups since I started with PF and the players were happy)
- Ability to ignore attribute requirements for feats (I'm looking at you Int 13 for Combat Expertise^^)
- Let them choose a combat style which gives special abilities based on the style (similar in scale to 5E feats, maybe streched over some level )
- Give them the martial flexibility ability from the brawler
- make the adv. weapon/armor training abilities "fighter only"-feats
- remove the weapon training ability (boring)

Related to this:
reduce the amount of feat "taxes" for combat feats

Another one would be Cleric
- again 4 skill points
- change spontanouse casting to "you can swap a prepared spell or use an not used slot to cast any cure/inflict spell or any spell from your domain list (same level or lower)."
- remove the minor damage domain powers and exchange them with non damage options

Related to this:
- make 0-level spells scale with the caster level, so they are still a viable backup option at higher levels.

I would say they are made from magical and technological modifies bones of ancient creatures from Eox, which make them as hard as [insert starship metal].
Simply to give them a more mystical feel. :)

Charm Person didn't remove the common sense of an enemy.

If the guard knows that letting in enemies results in a harsh punishment for him, he will not let them in, no matter if they are his best friends or not.

Simply Image your best friend is a guard at a high security military base. Will he let you into the base? Of course not.

On the other hand if he catches you inside the facility and no damage was done, you could argue that he could probably just throw you out and don't report you to his superior.

I think a baseline for what a charmed person would do is always to ask yourself "Would I do a similar thing in the real world for my best friend?"

Why bother giving them stats? They should not participate in any combat or other "stat-relevant" encounter.

And if the mother thinks it's a good idea to bring two babys along while going on an adventure, I would ask her if she is sure and if so, she will have to deal with the consequences (AE spells/traps etc).

I really hope that a Starfinder game is comming, but at the same time I hope that it will not only a "Pathfinder:Kingmaker/WotR-Reskin".

I would love something more akin to Dragon Age Origin or Mass Effect, with one Major (Player) Hero and several companions to choose from.
Also either a more action focused combat or a complete switch to a X-Com/DD2 style combat.

My own house rule is simply "every ship has enough escape pods for its normal crew compliment, for free, unless its otherwise intended to be a deathtrap". Escape pods don't serve to give the players an "unfair advantage", they serve to facilitate the GM telling stories. As such, they shouldn't need to be bought and paid for.

I do the same at my games, simply because Escape Pods are no benefit for the players. If the players have to use their escape pods, they already had a MAJOR loss (their ship including all their not carried items etc.). So I don't want to punish my players twice and escape pods are also a great start for a new adventure (survival, revenge, get a new ship to salvage the wreck of your old etc.).

P.S.: same for the self destruct system, for the same reason.^^

I think it's not about the space on a single planet for one single AP (PF had multiple APs and they didn't used the complete planet^^).

I think it's more about the "spirit of the game" (which is different for everyone). For me (and I think most people) Science Fiction is about encountering/exploring new planet/cultures/aliens and Spaceships.

There is a reason DS9 got the Defiant. ;)

Only limit in my games:
- No 3PP content (aonsrd only!)
- No ultra-passive characters (you are the main character of the story act like one!)

First of all I would allow it as this is the campaign finale and the player earned the wish.

I would sit down with the player between sessions and talk this through with him/her.

What does she/he expect from becoming a dragon?
Does she/he understand the benefits/drawbacks of it?
Does she/he understands the impact for the group/other players?
How can you two balance it out with the rest of the group?

I would suggest something like a permanent form of the dragon /like zza ni suggested) but let the player choose the size.

Don't make it more complicate then it's needed. ;)
And talk to the player! :D

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. :)

I already run multiple starship combats (I run two homebrew campaigns and the AotS AP) and even if I added things like "terrain" (asteroids, nebulas) or multiple "goon-ships" to the combat, the combats were mostly boring and confusing for my players.
That's the reason I'm thinking about these changes.

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.

We currently not run into any space combat, but I think I will change some things there.

1. No strict crew role hierachy anymore. Anyone can act when (s)he wants. (but only once per turn of course)
2. Initiative is rolled once and stays for the combat.
3. Initiative order will be normal (highest act first)
4. Damage will be applied directly, not at the end of the turn.
5. There will be a special action which cost the action of all crew members which, if successfull, forces a new initiative roll from all ships (with a bonus for the crew who initiated the maneuver)

I always try to keep the number of houserules as low as possible. In my current campaign we have three:

1. Operative's Edge only counts for two skills of the players choice
2. All level scaling skill boni (e.g. operatices edge or Bypass) scale the same way (based on Operative's Edge scaling)
3. You can perform "Treat Deadly Wound" once after each combat (as long as the char got HP damage during this fight)

I think instead of a weapon/armor advancement system (which always feels very "rough" and "artificial") I would add a weapon upgrade system which is capped by the characters level/ranks/BAB.

This way the armor/weapon also become "the characters iconic armoe/weapon" which could add to the flavor of it.

If you want to keep it simple, you can say that a character has to spent the credit difference between his current weapon and the "new weapon" and spent some days upgrading it.
This way you can still use the WBL and armor/weapon stats of the official books, but simply reflavored it to make it more cool. :)

If you feel creative you could also allow the players to add special effects to their weapons (similar to the ship weapon upgrades).

Hence SF has no aggro mechanic I don't think you can apply the concept of the classic MMORPG roles (Tank, DD, Healer) to it.

Instead I would go more with the party roles mentioned in this video Party Roles Dungeon Dudes

And I think every class can fill almost every of this role, it's just a matter of the build, euipment and how to roleplay your character.

I would tackle this from the roleplaying side:

What is the motivation of your character?
How does he learned his skills?
Is he a team player?
Is he soldier or commander?
etc.

Once you have figured out the character personality (and maybe played it for 1 or 2 levels), you will get a got idea of your role in the party and then you can adapt and evolve your character into this.
(I'm no friend of completely pre-determinate character (builds), as this removes one of the core principles of roleplaying for me: that a chaacter shoudl evolve from the actions and stories this character experienced)

There is a youtube channel called "How It's played" which has a good playlist of rules overviews for Starfinder (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEei3frVCXg&list=PLYCDCUfG0xJaiOsB99j8 H3wyI8gGbxPuP)

The other, more obvious thing would be to read the core rule book and run a intro scenario from the society (I head good things about "Starfinder Society Scenario #4-08: Precious Cargo").

Alternatively run your own level 1 game with your friends.

... planet with some light nuclear winter but a functioning atmosphere and ecosystem.

I doubt that after a global nuclear attack the planet will still have a functioning atmosphere & ecosystem.

Regarding your WW2 comparison, america never occupied Japan. If you want to get a WW2 analogy, take Poland or France. Both were occupied by a MUCH larger army, which commit attrocities to keep the population "in line", both grew a very successfull resistance movement.

I think the best way of conquering a planet in a scifi setting (given roughly the same technology level etc.) would be not by force but by diplomacy. This way they join you willingly and you don't have to deal with things like genocide, large resistance movements or large scale wars.

...

This is called oppresion and history showed that no oppression could last forever.

Also what Ixal said:
When the target is on a similar technological step like you, it will become hard to do the "surrender or we nuke you" tactic.

Almost all magic items are gimmicky and useful only in this ONE CLUTCH SITUATION. I gave someone a potion of gaseous form at like level 2 or 3, promptly forgot about it, and he used it six months later to slip out of a bad situation and we still talk about it to this day.

If we judged content based solely on utility, we'd have about 30 weapons, and 15 armorsets and maybe 2 pages of magic items that all gave +1/+2.

I totally get your point and I agree that items are not "content bloat" even if they are very specific.

Simply take a look at the PF1E feat list, there are so many feats which do the same (or similar stuff). These could be merge (like done with the skill synergy feat) or could be easily dropped (because they are so edge cased or have so many prequisits that no one uses them).

I like the idea of physical data transports. Opens up a complete new area of pirating.^^

In another scifi RPG I read they have a similar system in place, but there they have "data-stations", which are located at Hyperspace entry points. They store data on crystals/mini-probes and "shot" them into the Hyperspace toward the destination station.
I could also imagine a similar system in Starfinder too (of course only for non-sensitive data like news feeds etc.).

Even a six digit amry is not realistic for the conquering of a complete planet.

Planetary conquest is a trope of many scifi stories which would NEVER work (same for planetary blockades). Simply because of the sizes are too large to control.

Look at our own history. After WW2 US have to bring back ~ 6 Million people from Europe alone (Operation Magic Carpet). And this were only the US troops. Also this was a "Liberation-war" and no "Conquest-war".

Other known wars and troops involved:
Invasion of Poland 1939 - 1,6 Million german troops
Gulf War I - 1 Million Allied troops

If you take this numbers and thinking about conquering a complete planet (even one half populated as Earth), you have to think in troop sizes of several hundert million if not a few billion (not to mention the insane logistics behind it).

As said before, we humans are really bad when it comes to realize the size of large numbers.

How was the first rule of P&P RPGs? "NEVER try to explain things in the game with examples from the real world." ;)

Interesting to see what people define as "content bloat".
For me it's mostly useless/extremly situational stuff which is only designed for one specific scene/case and which no player would ever use.

The x-trillion feats from all the PF Companion books are a good example for this.

Sine the ships are more a weapon/tool in this AP and less of a "5th character" I wouldn't bother at all about this. Just run it as it is and done.

I really like the small "what you think about other races and what other races think about you" boxes in the CRB - would love to have this back for newer races as it gives a good guideline on how to RP your character (or how to break the stereotype of your race).

Now, that doesn't mean much to me, I can't really visualise a Square mile but using some funky conversions (No guarantee of accuracy so take them as rough numbers) a square mile is roughly 484 American football fields... So that's roughly 247 people living on a football field.

It always amazes me how americans measure in everything except SI units (which everyone else in the world uses^^).

I see what you're going at and I can also see what you mean by the math. HOWEVER it is also implied in these that there is plenty of open space in these vessels for either green space, traffic, or food, which skews that idea.

I'm looking at this from the perspective...

I totally understand your point of view.

I think the biggest issue with station/ship size is, that doubling it's size didn't mean doubling it's volume, but instead increase it by a factor of 8.
So if you take a aircraft carrier and double it in size (to 2000 ft x 2000 ft x 2000 ft), you don't have (cramped) space for 6000 people but instead for 48.000 people.
If do this again two times, you are at a station with roughly 2,5 km (8000 ft.) side length which has space for 3 Million people (and space for 43.520 fighter jets^^).

As said, scaling sizes (and especially volumens) are something which can be tricky.

Because of this I normally model my players ships in 3D (sometimes just as a rough blockout) and it always amazes me how many (or with small ships how less) space there is. :)

The problem with sizes, especially in space is, that humans are very bad in realizing sizes and especially volumes.

I always try to compare station sizes to real world cities.

Let's take a look at Absalom station (Population: 2 mio)
2 mio people are roughly the population of the Paris city area.
Paris urban area is given with 105 km^2 resulting in a density of 21,000 people/km2.

So if Absalom only had one deck it has to be a size of 10km x 10km.

Let say it has 20 decks (not much or?) => 100.000 people per deck => ~ 5km^2 per deck => 2,2 km x 2,2 km

Lets say one deck has a height of 50 meters (~a 12 story house), then we are at 2km x 2km x 1km. Adding 30% for life support, power generation etc. and we are still smaller then Absalom in the game (8 km diameter ~4 km height).

The Idari has a population of 40.000, lets double this to count for all the people who left the Idari since it's arrival and double this again to count for lifestock, plants etc. => 160.000 people => 7,6 km^2.
Now keep in mind that it's a hollow cylinder (Basically a O'Neil Cylinder).

The Idari is 4km long and has a radius of 0,4 km.
So 3km long, radius of 0,4km => cylinder surface (2 x pi x r x height) => 10 km^2
So more there is more then enough space for all people (and lifestock) on board. (Keep in mind that you also have most of the volume of the cylinder for life support etc.)

Tldr: Absalom Station has roughly enough space to fit 8x Paris in it and the Idari could hold ~200.000 peoples without problems.

The problem is the "bigger is better" trend in Scifi. Some IPs really go to ridiculous large sizes without thinking about what these numbers really mean. (Yes I'm looking at you Warhammer & Star Wars).

Now I understand. :)
I'm handling it myself a similar way, if player have access/time to shops/crafting they can simply refill their ammo during downtime (and don't have to mention it or pay for it (except for expensive/special ammo like grenades). I also allow players to use their own spaceship for this (even without special equipment like a workshop).

During AotS there are times when they don't have access/time(e.g. right at the beginning and at the end). For this the characters were told what will happen and they have the time to prep their equipment accordingly. If they don't do it, not my problem. :)

Just for my understanding: If you are talking about "not tacking ammo" do you mean over the time of an adventure or during one encounter/dungeon?

From my experience (DMing AotS & several years of Shadowrun) ammo capacity came into play quite often. Especially when players use things like Full-Attacks or special attacks and you don't run the standard "one encounter day" or "3 rounds burn fight".

E.g. During our AotS Campaign our Soldier managed to run out of power for her Red Star Plasma Cannon (Cap 40, usage 5 => 8 shots) quite often, which leads to some interesting situations.

@Milo v3: Have to disagree with you on the "the game is designed for them to effectively not be limited resources". If this would be the case there wouldn't be spells, abilities or gear which allows you to recharge your weapons, spent more charges etc.
Also if it wouldn't be around this, why is there a detailled system (charges & usage) instead of a simple "unlimited use" ;)

Just out of curiosity? Why do people don't track ammunition? Is is just because they feel tracking it is to tedious? Do you feel limited resources didn't bring anything to the game?
And if you don't track ammunition do you track spell slots? abilities with limited uses? equipment with limited uses? And if so, where is the difference for you?

I encourage my players to track their ammunition (and trust them doing it).
Ammunition is a ressource and if you boil it down, Starfinder-Combat is a ressource-assign-game.

Especially if you run multiple fights in a row or one real long fight (e.g. a "hold out until reinforcements arrive" scenario) ammo management will become a crucial part.

Even the "one-day gang encounter" can lead to a 20 rounds shot-out. And if a player only brought his 10 shot revolver to the fight and no backup ammo, it will force him to leave his cover and go into melee or think of other creative ways to "defeat" the enemy.
Which then can lead to insteresting situations and even some combat-roleplay (think of all the "I have only one bullet left, how many do you have?" scenes in action movies).

So I would NEVER remove the ammo/charge tracking from the game (simply because it's a such crucial part which can create interessting situations). Removing it would also make some equipment, abilities and spells worthless.

Additional Tips on how to make tracking ammo simple:
- use colored dices/pearl (or even smarties^^) to track your ammo
- use a laminated card with boxes you simply cross out
- of the players have the chance to rest in a place with infrastructure (e.g. their starship, a station etc.) let them refresh their ammo for the normal cost without any checks, rp or whatever.
- count "shots" instead of "charges" for energy weapons, especially for weapons which need multiple charges per shot
- item cards (laminated) with all stats and ammo/charge counter on it.

I wouldn't say that the party isn't playing as a team, but most times it's more "I shouldn't use it now, it will be more impactfull later" or simply the player forget about the item (happened to me and my group A LOT, especially with things like scrolls & poitions).

I tackeled it by simply making sure the enemies also use such items (and let the players know it). This way it reminds the players that they also have one-time items they can use.

Also never "punish" the players for using an item "too soon" and always make the item count.
Nothing is more drustrating then using your one-time-summon-large-elemental gem and then the combat is over after 1-2 rounds later...

I run three Kingmaker Campaigns and in all of them, the player were not focused on the gain they will get from building a new building, but what the kingdom/people (in RP terms) will get from it.
One campaign even ended because they build what is logical (RP-wise) instead what is effective (stat-wise) [which resulted into an unbeatable Unrest-Spiral]

I don't know the charter rules, bur I think they will be close to the kingdom building rules.

I think I would try to get away from the pure "stat-bonus" and lean more toward a RP/Event-Bonus. So make running the "Kingdom" more RP-focused then like a mini-managment game.

Your Idea definetly goes into this direction, but as Dragonchess stated, the SF crafting rules are a relative easy so I don't think you would get the incentiv/benefit you looking for out of it.
Of course you could simply scrap the RAW crafting rules and say "You need building X to build itemtype Y" (what sounds logical and like a fun game system for me).

Or steal from the Kingmaker PC game: Building X give the player a random free item of type Y each month/round.

...

I totally see your point here, but at the same time, I also understand the need for such a system from a game design perspective.

I think the best solution would be what Leon Aquilla suggested:
Simply "move" some of the adventures rewards to the cargo reward.

Example:
You have level 3 group which make a cargo run. You plan the "adventure" and decide to add 4 encounters.
One encounter at level 3 should give the players around 1100 credits, so this cargo run should give a total of ~4400 credits.

So you simply split the "credits-gained". The players will get 2200 credits from the encounters (loot, cred-sticks etc.) and the other 2200 credits will be the reward (additional to the BP) when they delivered the cargo.

The good thing is: The players will never know that you split the reward, as they don't know how many credits per level they can expect.
Also you can simply tell them straight "completing this Cargo run, will give you the normal BP and additional 2200 credits".

This way you have your credit reward, but at the same time stay within the game design ideas. ;)

Environmental obstacles and the like only matter to the pilot. If I'm stuck in engineering on my mischief of ysoki it doesn't matter if the pilot is flying through open space or asteroids, my turn is the same. Regen the shields, regen the shields, regen the shields, wait for something to break, duct tape it, regen the shields...

Why restrict the effect (or useability) to the pilot?

Or let the science officer scan the "strange glowing" asteroid, just to find out that he could detonate it with the right frequency (doing damage to all adjanced ships).

Or how about the Riker Maneuver? (combination of engineer, science officer and pilot action)

Just watch some Star Trek episodes, throw in some technobable and let your fantasy run wild (of course the players have to do the same and the DM have to embrace it).

If you run starship combat straight by the numbers it is boring, but you can spice it up with some creative thinking and technobable. ;)

I think Starfinder spaceship combat also suffers from the "arena-mode" of most pre-made ship combats.

Let me explain what I mean with "arena-mode":
Almost all ship combats in the books take place on a plain battlemap with no special effects or environmental obstacles. This removes all tactical depth from it and make it to a "dice roll competition".
From my experience with wargames (especially BattleTech) I can say that adding things like environmental obstacles, triggered effects or timers can add a lot to the fight.
And you can even empower the other crew roles with such ideas.
How about adding a nebula which can be ignited (and by this do damage for this round) by overpowering the engines (engineer action) or some micro-anomalis which deal constant damage each time the ship moves unless the science officer scans them? Or very basic: Nebulas/asteroids which block LOS/give mali to checks.

I think what SF spaceship combat really needs are three things:
1. Remove the turn order (allows for more tactical team play in combat)
2. Remove the round-by-round initiative and exchange it with the standard inititive system (maybe with a special action which allows/forces a initiative re-roll)
2. A Splat-Book with A LOT of environment/timer/trigger ideas to spice up the combat.

Not exactly what you are looking for, but maybe another point of view could be helpfull. :)

I want to play a gunslinger myself for a while and the reload mechanism really anoys me.
I'm playing LARP and use flintlock pistols there. Even if I rush through the reload progress there is NO CHANCE to get out more then one shot in 6 seconds (one combat round).

Because of this I thought about how to "fix" the reload issue for older firearms without nerfing the gunslinger.

My idea is to instead of giving the gunslinger itterative attacks she will get the vital strike feat chain for firearms (and all firearms get a 1 shot/round limitation with a minimum of a move action to reload).

So at level 5 instead of two attacks with each 1d8 she has one attack with 2d8. (3d8 at level 10 etc.)

For dualwielding I would keep it the same, means you can fire both at the first round, dealing massive damage, but then have to take cover to reload them to then blast the next attack.

I have to admit I never get so much into detail with these rules (neither as a DM nor a player).
For my table we normally play it simple.

But let me try to answer your questions:
1) I would go with Aware of Presence as Billy didn't know where Jack moved once he left Billies field of view. (he can't observe him behind the wall, no LoS).

2) Billy does not know where Jack is, even if he is not trying to hide. In this situation I would let Billy roll a perception check (DC 10 "Hear the sound of a Small or Medium creature walking"). If he succeds he is "Aware of Billies Location.

3)see 2)

4) If Jack want to actively hide from Billy, he has to do a Stealth check (including the +20/40 bonus). Jack has to do the roll, once he declares he is hiding.

5) I would rule yes, because there is no rule which forbid a character to attack an empty space. Of course Billy still have the 50% miss chance if he tries to do a direct hit (I would also roll this, if Jack is not in the space and simply tell the player "seems you missed").

6) If Billies perception is high enough he could spot Jack. And yes, if Jack is still invisible after the attack, Billy will be "Aware of his Presence" but not "Aware of his Location".

Hope this helps a little bit.

I would also say that keeping a tracking weapon "on course" is no action for the gunner, it's done by the missile.

I don't really like that you have to use the gunners skill for this role. I think it would be better to do something like 1d20 + ship tier + computerbonus + bonus as long as the missile is within first range increment of the ships sensors.

You could even create a new science officer action which allows the science officer to aid missiles to stay on course.

I don't really see the "need" to take any augmentations beside "personal upgrades".
In my AotS group only one player has one augmentation (necrograft) beside the personal upgrade, all others had no augmentations at all.

I like BNW explanation, it doesn't go against the lore, it sounds reasonable and you can explain it with technobabble.

"Each drift drive has a unique tachyon flux signature, which intaracts with the drift itself. When a ship enters the drift, this interaction defines the route for the ship (between area A & B). If the ship leaves the drift and re-enters it again, the drift drives tachyon flux signature intarcts with the Drift again and creates the same route again."

Also keep in mind that the drift is no ordinary plane, but the exclusive playground of one (or three^^) god. ;)

Science-Fantasy - Spaceships, Lasers & FIREBALL

I don't really think you can run a Survival/Ressource Management Campaign for long. Once the exponetial economy curve kicks in, ammunition is no problem anymore (players can simply spent small amount of their credits to buy A TON of ammo).