Shargah-Katun

Ridiculon's page

1,022 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,022 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I suppose, but that also makes it about 4x the cost in action economy since you'd have to reload them all again right after to keep shooting. I guess it would combo with Opening Volley... but then you have to take into account the upgrade costs for 5 (or 6, or 7 since its for a multi arm character) weapons... I dunno, just not how i would build a character. To each their own though


Looking at these it seems like the only way to make 2 attacks on a full attack with a weapon in auto mode is to actually have 2 auto mode weapons. The special full auto attack uses all your ammo and i think it only counts as a single one of your 2 full attacks.

Side note: that Fusillade feat seems significantly worse than just having an actual automatic weapon... not really sure why anyone would take it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

cause they're level 10 ultra delux tightie whities


Actually I just noticed that the Android slot has a specific exception called out that allows the slot to function under physical armor. This seems to imply that without that exception it wouldn't function, looks like the default is that only the outer-most armor's mods work.


Huh, this makes me want to multiclass Mechanic and Technomancer to get Recalibrate, Overcharge, Supercharge, and Empowered weapon all on one shot. Seems like it'd be a great Sniper shot thing, could put a hole in the side of a starship hah


There is another wrinkle as well, what if an Android is wearing light armor and powered armor? does his built in armor mod function?

Does it even function normally under light/heavy armor? seems like a pretty useless bonus if the majority of the classes (the armor wearing ones) cancel it out.


If it's really bothering you that much just have a white hole spit out a couple of Mass Effect (1st game) style cartridges and be done with it


Why not rig up a single docking clamp and airlock on the exterior of the ship? (a la firefly?)


I would hesitate to offer these as a standalone product, I'd much rather have them included with PDF purchases as a way to differentiate the PDF's


Martin Drouin-Courtois 120 wrote:
Tie Len wrote:
I gave my group a device which you can feed in unwanted manufactured gear and have it spit out 10% it’s value in UPBs. It comes as standard with a manufacture bay on a starship.

I like your idea and the one with Metaphysician.

Sounds like one of the nanobot Oozes from the alien archive tbh, those things are neat. Keeping one on a ship is a terrible idea tho


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if you differentiate ChromeOS and Linux generally but I didn't have any issues on my Chromebook. I'll try to remember to look at Mac OS tonight.


Isaac Zephyr wrote:

...

Starship combat, 3 hours. If we get in the ship to fight, that will be our session for the night. A lot of this comes from needing to use the FAQ page to get the right DCs for actions and exactly what they do.

Link? or page number?


Hi guys, I'm going to be running Dead Suns in the next month or so and I'm wondering what people's average combat times are for both personal and starship combat.

I'd like both a real-time and round length estimate if you'd be so kind!

Any opinions on what the biggest time-sinks were during the combat phases or any methods/shortcuts you guys had in place would be helpful as well, just trying to get this running as smoothly as possible.

Thanks!


neato


Starships do not have ai autopilot, only vehicles have that


Jay M wrote:

You're still not reading the text.

The first says it can control autonomous devices, which a power armor is not.

The second says it can control more complex devices that require skill checks or attack rolls, which a power armor does not.

The power armor having a gun means that at best attack rolls fall under this and the computer can shoot. Walking is a function outside of skill checks or attack rolls.

And even if it can do both, it's still moving at 15 ft and taking -4 to both ACs.

If you are really going to deny them the ability to move the powered armor then they will simply have to make charge attacks to go anywhere, since every suit of powered armor has a melee attack and that requires an attack roll.

You are being ridiculous, there is no reason that a control module that can control a vehicle or a starship or a robot cannot also control a suit of powered armor. Would you say no to a control module operating an elevator because its not on the list of examples?


You don't think firing a weapon requires an attack roll? (all but one of the power armor suits have weapons)


Pax Miles wrote:
Ridiculon wrote:
Normally guns aren't autonomous, but if you install a control module, which includes the turret mounting and whatever sensors are needed to detect enemies as per the control module rules, you get an autonomous weapon.

No. The control Module doesn't include turret mounting or sensors. Nor does it make things autonomous.

If anything, the control module makes autonomous weapons cease to be, since the control module is all about removing the object's ability to be self reliant so you can control it.

Yes those things are included, that is the explicit example in the control module section

Control Module wrote:

Such controlled objects are normally mounted to a specific location (such as a controlled longarm placed in a turret with line of sight to the computer’s terminal), in which case the mount and related components are included in the control unit price.


Those are examples, that is not a definitive list of things that can have control modules. Notice the words "such as" in front of those things.


That's exactly my point, if you accept that the given examples can be autonomous then you must be able to extend the rules to other devices and make them autonomous as well. A gun doesn't have any way to turn itself, aim, and fire and yet when you attach a control module (based on the presumption that this is what makes anti-personnel weapons) you get an autonomous turret that can do those things.

EDIT: for clarification, Autopilot is not a default thing on starships in starfinder. it is a default option on vehicles.

This says to me that prior to installing a control module starships cannot be autonomous.


Jay M wrote:

I would assume that starships would fall under either autonomous or autopilot, so the computer would be able to make piloting checks with a skill bonus of 2.5x tier. Starship weapons would be an attack bonus equal to it's tier.

Neither of those gives the control module power armor proficiency (as it is neither autonomous nor a weapon) and walking is not a skill check anyway.

Autopilot starships are not a thing in Starfinder, every movement a ship makes needs a pilot. I still don't see how a control module attached to a suit of powered armor is in any way a different case than a control module attached to a starship, if one is legal the other must be.

(The only instance of the word Autopilot in the CRB is in the vehicle section, it doesn't apply to starships)


A couple of those issues are covered

In the control module section it says

Control Module wrote:
When controlling a basic device that essentially has an on/off switch, the computer simply gains access to that switch and can activate or deactivate the connected device as instructed. When in charge of a device that can already operate autonomously (such as a robot or another computer), the controlling computer can give orders to that device. When operating a device that requires a skill check or attack roll (such as a computer hooked to a med-bed or weapon), the controlling computer can either allow a creature with authorized access to attempt a skill check or attack roll, or attempt the skill check or attack roll itself. When making its own check, the computer is assumed to have an attack bonus equal to its tier, proficiency with any weapon it controls, and a total skill bonus equal to 2-1/2 × its tier. Such controlled objects are normally mounted to a specific location (such as a controlled longarm placed in a turret with line of sight to the computer’s terminal), in which case the mount and related components are included in the control unit price.

But the others would be GM fiat for the most part. On a related note, none of those things are covered for Starships fitted with a control module either, and those are explicitly called out as examples for this tech.


Robert Gooding wrote:
Oh I was getting pretty hostile towards ridiculon after the whole why shouldn’t I have a whole army acting on my turn making everyone else wait half an hour every round

Once again, that was your idea, not mine lol. Also its not a viable option til level 9 or 10, and even then none of the "robots" will have guns.

Even with all that there's nothing wrong with the idea.

@Pax Miles Those anti-personnel weapons are just longarms or heavy weapons, they are the only examples of computer controlled guns in the CRB and so i took the intuitive leap that they must be what you get when you hook a control module up to a gun.

Normally guns aren't autonomous, but if you install a control module, which includes the turret mounting and whatever sensors are needed to detect enemies as per the control module rules, you get an autonomous weapon.

Unless the SDT comes out with some clarification this is the best example we've got of how to actually use control modules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Miles wrote:

Regarding the control module, the use of skills, attack rolls and so forth, is based on the qualifier that the "device can already operate autonomously." Page 215, second sentance of the second paragraph under the heading of "control."

So, prior to the control module being installed, can the Powered Armor operate Autonomously? I read it no.

I do think an Automated Turret can opperate autonomously, but I'm basing that on it's name, not any reading on automated turret rules.

Automated Turrets do present a case for an object (in this case a gun) operating without a PC.

Anti-personnel Weapons wrote:
An antipersonnel weapon must be mounted near the boarding ramp of a Medium or smaller starships. This weapon can be any longarm whose item level is equal to or less than the starships’s tier. By spending 5 additional Build Points, the installed weapon can be a heavy weapon (of creature scale, not starships scale). When an antipersonnel weapon is activated, if a hostile creature approaches within the weapon’s range increment, it begins firing with an attack roll modifier equal to the ship’s tier (minimum 1). It fires once per round during combat until its ammunition is depleted or the hostile creature is disabled or flees. The weapon can’t detect invisible (or similarly hidden) creatures. This weapon can’t be removed and used by characters. Anyone with access to the starships’s computer system can activate or deactivate the weapon, as well designate what kind of targets are considered hostile. Once installed, this weapon can’t be removed from the starships without destroying it.

If these didn't exist then I'd probably agree with you about that line talking about robots. The automated turrets make that line seem pretty nonsensical, I don't know how to handle that and I hope that they clarify the rules on control modules more.

I'm headed home from work and probably wont be responding any more till tomorrow

Pax Miles wrote:
And for the record, the lack of quotes is related to the difficulty of quoting via the medium I'm using to type, not actual lack of quotable rules. Honestly, pretty proud of doing as well as I am without a functioning spellcheck or autocorrect.

Fair enough, it is pretty impressive in that light hah.


Pax Miles wrote:

But sure, point by.

1: A Control Module is an upgrade for an existing computer (as are all modules). It does not grant Autonomy, but if it is installed on something that already has autonomy (examples in the book are a robot or another computer), the controlling computer can give orders to that device. It does not make them into constructs, they are still whatever type of object/creature they were before.

You are ignoring the rules:
Control Module wrote:
When operating a device that requires a skill check or attack roll (such as a computer hooked to a med-bed or weapon), the controlling computer can either allow a creature with authorized access to attempt a skill check or attack roll, or attempt the skill check or attack roll itself. When making its own check, the computer is assumed to have an attack bonus equal to its tier, proficiency with any weapon it controls, and a total skill bonus equal to 2-1/2 × its tier.

Are you really trying to argue that Automated Turrets don't exist in Starfinder? Because I assure you they do.

Pax Miles wrote:
Regarding Powered Armor, the armor may have a computer installed, but the armor is not controlled by the computer. The Wearer is controlling the Powered Armor. Without Wearer, the powered armor lacks control.

If the Armor has a Control Module installed then it is controlled/operated by the computer. Again, this is the entire point of installing a Control Module.

Control Module wrote:
The control module allows the computer to operate a complex device, to which it must be in some way connected. (Simpler devices can be controlled as part of a computer’s basic functions.)Some countermeasures might make use of a computer’s control modules when activated. Gaining control of a computer allows the user to activate the devices in any way allowed by the control module. The price of a control module depends on the complexity of the object being controlled. The control module for a more complex device, such as a spy Drone, Starship, Vehicle, or weapon turret, costs 10% of the device to be controlled.
Pax Miles wrote:
2: If you read the description for the list strength of all Powered Armors, you will note that strength stat is not the strength of the object, but the strentgh that of the wearer while they are wearing the Powered Armor. A Battle Harness has no strength stat of it own, only while being worn does the strength of the Powered Armor have any effect in-game.

You need to read the rules, the armor has its own strength, it is not an augmentation:

Strength wrote:

Strength

When wearing powered armor, the armor determines your effective Strength. You use it for all Strength-based rolls. Even if your Strength is higher, you’re limited to the armor’s Strength.
Battle Harness wrote:

EAC Bonus +9; KAC Bonus +12

Max Dex Bonus +2; Armor Check Penalty –4; Speed 30 feet

Strength 18 (+4); Damage 1d10 B; Size Medium

Capacity 20; Usage 1/hour

Weapon Slots 1 Upgrade Slots 1; Bulk 20

The battle harness is the basic powered armor frame used by infantry units in professional militaries.

Notice how there is a strength score listed. That means it has a strength score... i cant believe i have to explain that.

Pax Miles wrote:
That's not alone, most of the Powered Armor features modify the wearer, not the armor. AC, for example, is modifying the Wearer's AC and has no affect on the object's AC.

Correct, there is no wearer therefore it can't grant AC to the wearer. This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it can be controlled by a computer.

Pax Miles wrote:

3: No, Control Module does not transforms ordinary objects into constructs. That is not a listed feature.

4: Powered Armor, with or without a Control Module, is not a Construct. Normally, the durability of an object is determined by their item level, but is only used when the object is attacked directly (like via sunder).

A Battle Harness, for example, with Tensile Reinforcement is a 10th level item for the purposes of HP and Hardness, so as a sturdy object is has 25 hardness (5 + 2 x item level) and 45 HP (15 + 3 x item level). The HP isn't much of an issue, but -25 to the damage of all attacks against pretty strong....Especially when the PC in question is only 7th level.

Fair enough, its an object then. I must have been conflating it with robots. This is another major difference between Autonomous power armor and robots.

As to the Tensile Reinforcement, thats allowed by default. Its just as difficult to destroy the armor with a PC wearing it as it is when its walking around on its own, this doesn't have any relevance to the discussion.

Pax Miles wrote:
5: So now you have an Object that can transform between being object and being a Construct. What messy rules interactions.

Which you solved, its only an object.

Pax Miles wrote:
As for spells, it really counts as both armor AND a construct, whichever is currently being used? What a mess of rules.

Its an object, whatever spells affect objects will affect the autonomous power armor. Also whatever spells affect armor specifically, although most of those will probably be pointless without someone actually wearing the armor.


Pax Miles wrote:

Houseruling up a storm...

I'm going to suggesting moving this one to advice, since neither you nor the OP seem to be looking for a rule written in the rulebook.

How is this house ruling? I've quoted the relevant rules that say exactly what I'm saying. The fact is that you have not referred to any rules for your interpretation.

How about this, please answer all of the questions you asked, only instead of Powered Armor substitute a starship or a vehicle.


Pax Miles wrote:


First, Given that a suit of Powered Armor CANNOT already opperate Automonously, are we further houseruling the Powered armor to be a robot for the puposes of giving it skills, proficency, and attack bonus?

Vehicles cannot already operate autonomously, Starships cannot already operate autonomously, guns cannot already operate autonomously, med-beds cannot already operate autonomously. Thats kind of the entire point of the Control Module, it allows you to let things operate autonomously.

As to the skills and proficiency, the rule for control modules clearly states:

Control Module wrote:
When making its own check, the computer is assumed to have an attack bonus equal to its tier, proficiency with any weapon it controls, and a total skill bonus equal to 2-1/2 × its tier.
Pax Miles wrote:
Second, since Powered Armor, in rules, is designed to be Worn, are we houserulling the armor to be considered the wearer for all the many powered armor rules that reference the wearer (like in determining the strength score)?

This is a non issue. Every set of power armor has a listed strength score.

Pax Miles wrote:
Third, now that Powered Armor is moving on it's own, do rules that refer to Armor or objects apply to the Powered Armor, do we regard it as a creature of some sort?

It is a construct, just like any controlled vehicle or gun.

Pax Miles wrote:
Forth, Does autonomous powered armor retain it's Hardness and HP stats from being an object? Furthermore, do armor upgrades which increase the Powered Armor's effective level for HP and Hardness function on the Powered Armor (like Tensile Reinforcement)?

Yes, just like any construct. Why wouldn't armor upgrades work on the armor if they are installed? If the armor is turned on and using charge per minute of usage then of course they work. (this is also the difference between Autonomous powered armor and robots, Robots don't have an operational time limit)

Pax Miles wrote:
Fifth, Does the autonomous powered armor revert to being armor when worn? Or does it remain autonomous?

I would either issue a command to the computer to switch it to manual control or turn the computer off, either way this is a non-issue for the person controlling the computer.

If some hostile tries to take the armor that would be interesting though, I'd probably have them make checks to find the control module (which has to be installed on the armor somewhere) and then let them try to destroy it. Alternatively they could attempt to hack the computer that has control of the control module.

Pax Miles wrote:
And that's really the main list. Other ones are things like wondering how certain spells interact.

It's a construct, things that affect constructs will affect it.


Sonic Weapons wrote:
Sonic weapons emit sonar waves at frequencies that are designed to injure or incapacitate enemies. Many of them are termed “low-frequency devices” (LFDs) and “high-frequency devices” (HFDs) based on the frequencies at which they operate and damage foes.

Sonic weapons in Starfinder use sonar waves to do sonic damage, sonar waves are sound, therefore they do not travel in a vacuum.

But looking at the list of sonic weapons there is one that isn't attempting to project sonar waves. The Pulse Gauntlets release their sonar wave directly into the target on contact, those should work fine in a vacuum.


@baggageboy the section i quoted is the rule for vacuum from the book, it clearly states that sound does not travel in a vacuum.

Energy Damage wrote:
Sonic (So): Damage dealt by loud noise or damaging frequencies.

Sonic damage is just sound, sound is created by vibrating things, to project a vibration you need a medium.

@Robert Gooding in your example of the laser mic: the laser is measuring the vibrations on a solid object and then recreating them either digitally or through an analog device, but the original sound is never actually crossing the distance.

One way to use sonic damage in vacuum would be to use this spell:

Sympathetic Vibration T6 wrote:


School evocation (sonic)

Casting Time 10 minutes

Range touch

Targets one freestanding structure or Vehicle

Duration up to 1 round/level

Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes

By attuning yourself to a freestanding structure or Vehicle (this doesn’t include Starships), you can create a damaging vibration within it. Once it begins, the vibration deals 2d10 sonic damage per round to the target, bypassing hardness. You can choose at the time of casting to limit the duration of the spell; otherwise, it lasts for 1 round per level. If the spell is cast upon a target that is not freestanding, the surrounding material dissipates the effect and no damage occurs.

Sympathetic vibration can’t affect creatures (even if they are constructs).

It uses the medium of your touch to transfer the vibration directly to the object to be vibrated.


Robert Gooding wrote:
Again you want a fully autonomous robot which it doesn’t support

How does it not support this? Explain that to me, because if you can't i'm gonna go with the rules that say when i install a computer that controls a device it uses the computer's skills and Tier for skill checks and attack rolls, which seems like the definition of autonomous.

Control Module wrote:
When operating a device that requires a skill check or attack roll (such as a computer hooked to a med-bed or weapon), the controlling computer can either allow a creature with authorized access to attempt a skill check or attack roll, or attempt the skill check or attack roll itself. When making its own check, the computer is assumed to have an attack bonus equal to its tier, proficiency with any weapon it controls, and a total skill bonus equal to 2-1/2 × its tier.

And look, there's another example of a complex device here! Add med-bed to the list of examples.


Vacuum wrote:

The void of space is effectively empty of matter, and this vacuum is perhaps the greatest danger of outer space. A creature introduced to a vacuum immediately begins to suffocate (see Suffocation and Drowning) and takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage per round (no saving throw). Because a vacuum has no effective temperature, the void of outer space presents no dangers from cold temperatures. A creature retains its body heat for several hours in a vacuum. Sound doesn’t travel in a vacuum.

Decompression occurs when a creature suddenly transitions from a pressurized environment to a vacuum, such as by being flung out of an airlock or being inside a sealed structure that becomes heavily damaged. Such a creature takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage (no saving throw) in addition to any suffocation damage.

Most creatures travel the vacuum of space in a starship.

Sonic weapons don't work in vacuum.


Pax Miles wrote:


The Control Module does not work on Powered Armor. If the PC wants a vehicle, or a starship, or a robot, or weapon turret, they can do that.

If the GM wants to houserule, that's fine too.

This is completely false, Control Modules can be applied to any complex device that is connected to a computer, as per the CRB.

Modules wrote:
Modules define what a computer is capable of doing beyond its basic functions. Computers can have any number of modules. These typically fall into one of four categories: control, secure data, Spell chips, and upgrades. Control modules can operate a device or object that is in some way linked to the computer, such as a video camera or even a connected robot. A secure data module contains a vast amount of information, from technical blueprints to financial ledgers or perhaps personal correspondence. Spell chips are special magic items that allow a computer to generate Spell effects. Finally, upgrades are simply improvements to the computer system that increase the Difficulty of hacking the computer, expand its reach, or make it faster and easier to use. For more information about common computer modules, see Modules on page 215.
Control Module wrote:
The control module allows the computer to operate a complex device, to which it must be in some way connected. (Simpler devices can be controlled as part of a computer’s basic functions.)Some countermeasures might make use of a computer’s control modules when activated. Gaining control of a computer allows the user to activate the devices in any way allowed by the control module. The price of a control module depends on the complexity of the object being controlled. The control module for a more complex device, such as a spy Drone, Starship, Vehicle, or weapon turret, costs 10% of the device to be controlled.

The complex objects listed are obviously examples, not a definitive list, which you would know if you had actually read this section.

Robert Gooding wrote:
We’ve been discussing the rules and possibilities for a while and still haven’t fount a way for it to be allowed the way you want within them and you agreed that that was your next step, I just predicted it based on your actions in the thread

I did not agree, what i did was calculate the actual costs of the suggestion you presented. It is an unrealistic extreme that you are trying to use as justification for ignoring part of the rules given in the CRB, but it does not actually mean that those rules don't apply despite the fact that you would rather they didn't.

As to the possibility, look at the rules that i quoted above. You can connect them to any complex device, with examples including guns, Starships, ground vehicles, robots, or drones.


Robert Gooding wrote:

Proving my point. When you get your army of robots the entire game will revolve around your turns and no one else will enjoy the game.

Making you the person deliberately trying to ruin everyone else’s fun, leaving your gym with 2 choices to constantly ban hammer you or not invite you to future sessions.

Please take a serious look at your behaviour and play style before there’s no one left who will play with you

You are the one who took it to a unrealistic extreme, not me.

Do you ban followers too? How about NPC hirelings?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this concept and you are stretching to ridiculous lengths to say otherwise, including ruling that a player cannot use their money and class abilities in a way permitted by the rules of the game.


Robert Gooding wrote:
Because your next argument after you beg someone else to agree with you is to get 10 of them

Your point?

Cargo lifter 4 2,150
Battle harness 5 3,450
Spider harness 10 19,500
Flight frame 11 27,100
Jarlslayer 15 125,500

If a player wants to spend a minimum of 21.5K credits for 10 Cargo lifters + the money needed to upgrade and fit them with control modules why are you as the GM trying to stand in their way? Outside of reasonable inventory limits for the settlement they're in there's no reason you should disallow this.

According to WBL that makes 10 Cargo Lifters an option at level 7 at the earliest, as long as 94% of what they own is in fact cargo lifters.

More realistically this is a 9th or 10th level option, for the cheapest, least capable, and totally unarmed power armor


Metaphysician wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the *idea* of remote controlling powered armor. However, there is a lot wrong with the idea that you should be able to do this essentially for free. Which is to say, the cost of necessary upgrades and improvements on the PA to make it work? Should be basically the same as the cost of buying a combat robot of the same CR, since that is essentially what you are doing.

A: Robots do not have a listed cost, they are creatures

B: You can remotely control Starships for these same costs, how is this different?


There's nothing wrong with this idea at all, power armor is essentially a vehicle and we already know you can fit those with control modules (up to and including starships).

Its totally ridiculous to suggest that you can remote control a car, a gun, or a spaceship but not a gundam/powered suit.

Turns out computers are really damned useful. It follows that a character who carries one everywhere they go will be able to do stuff that computers can do. Any player character could do this if they had a mobile computer, I see no reason to punish the guy who chose one as their class ability.


Serisan wrote:
Ridiculon wrote:

Serisan,

Enhanced Tank wrote:

...

An upgrade placed in this bonus slot costs half the normal credit amount.
Any upgrades in this bonus slot cost half the normal credit amount. Slot, singular. Therefore any upgrades that require 2 slots cost the normal amount since they are not placed in the bonus slot only.
How do you reconcile the other 2/3rds of the ability that do not refer to it as an upgrade slot, including the primary line that indicates it's a bonus upgrade? Is 1/3rd of the text more important than the other 2/3rds?
Quote:
You can add one more upgrade to your armor than its normal maximum number of upgrade slots.

This sentence is logically inconsistent with itself much less the greater armor upgrade system. It doesn't have any meaning at all, it can be discounted. Let me try to illustrate this:

"You can add one more upgrade to your armor..."

All good so far, this makes sense.

"...than its normal maximum number of upgrade slots."

Now it doesn't, all meaning is lost at this point because upgrade slots do not equate to upgrades and you can already add more upgrades to your armor than it has slots for, it just makes the armor and all the upgrades attached to it useless, thus you don't need another rule telling you that you can do this.

Pg. 205 Upgrade Slots wrote:
Each suit of armor contains a certain number of upgrade slots. This represents the maximum number of times the armor can be modified while still functioning. If you install upgrades beyond the maximum, the armor and all upgrades attached to it cease to function until you remove enough upgrades to bring the armor down to its maximum number of upgrade slots or fewer.

Conclusion: the first sentence is a perfectly valid english construction but a logically invalid statement, it can't be used to interpret the rest of the rule because it literally has no meaning.

Quote:
If you add this bonus upgrade to heavy armor, you can select an upgrade normally limited to powered armor.

We still don't have any bonus upgrade therefore we can't select one normally limited to powered armor. This is also a logically invalid statement because its taking as a given a thing that doesn't and can't exist.

Quote:
An upgrade placed in this bonus slot costs half the normal credit amount.

This is the only sentence that you can take as a whole of the three, it is internally consistent all the way through and also consistent with the upgrade system since it refers to both slots and upgrades as two separate things. Furthermore, it explicitly gives us a bonus upgrade slot that we can use to put upgrades in.

If you want to rescue the second half of the second sentence and apply it to the third that's fine, but honestly it would be a house rule.


Serisan,

Enhanced Tank wrote:

...

An upgrade placed in this bonus slot costs half the normal credit amount.

Any upgrades in this bonus slot cost half the normal credit amount. Slot, singular. Therefore any upgrades that require 2 slots cost the normal amount since they are not placed in the bonus slot only.


Pax Miles wrote:
Robert Gooding wrote:
And since soldiers can get power armor proficiency through their class with the right choices they can then dump str and use the str of the power armor

Regarding that:

Enhanced Tank (Ex) grants the Powered Armor Proficency feat.
Guard's Protection (Ex) grants Proficiceny in Powered Armor.

So I think the dumping Strength route only works with the Guard Fighting Style.

Though in both cases, once you are in the powered armor, the strength of the armor applies, not your strength, so it becomes very murky what the 13 strength is needed for.

The Enhanced Tank ability also lets you add a special extra upgrade slot to heavy and powered armor that's half the cost of normal upgrades, you probably have to meet the feat prereqs to balance that out as compared to the guard who gets free proficiency but no extra upgrade slot. The most upgrade slots you can get on powered armor is 4 on the flight frame/gundam suit, the other default suits only have 0, 1, or 2 slots. An extra, half cost, upgrade slot is a huge advantage.

Its still weird that you have to take/qualify for a feat by level 5 to support this class skill, especially since the class itself gives you all but one of the prereqs, but i think its justified for what you get.


quindraco wrote:
That suggests turrets cost 10% of the weapon in question, and the control module for a starship (which explicitly exists, per page 216) has some unknowable cost.

What?

Antipersonnel weapons (turrets) costs are given (in BP) on the table on the bottom right of page 300. They don't cost 10% of the weapon (which doesnt make sense as a concept by the way, how can a weapon cost be given as 10% of what it costs?).

The control module for a starship would cost 10% of the cost of the starship, -->

Pg. 215 Control wrote:

...

The control module for a more complex device, such as a spy Drone, Starship, Vehicle, or weapon turret, costs 10% of the device to be controlled.

-----------------------------------------------------

quindraco wrote:
Which still doesn't answer my question - it makes turret costs very different from what I thought, but doesn't cover how "good" the turret is, including whether or not it comes with a camera.

To answer this, look at page 300

Pg. 300 Antipersonnel Weapon (edited out non-relevant sections) wrote:

...

When an antipersonnel weapon is activated, if a hostile creature approaches within the weapon’s range increment, it begins firing with an attack roll modifier equal to the ship’s tier (minimum 1). It fires once per round during combat until its ammunition is depleted or the hostile creature is disabled or flees. The weapon can’t detect invisible (or similarly hidden) creatures.
...
Anyone with access to the starships’s computer system can activate or deactivate the weapon, as well designate what kind of targets are considered hostile.
...

While this still doesn't explicitly state that turrets have cameras, it says they can detect non invisible things which is good enough.

The Starship combat turrets use Starship sensors and starship combat rules.


The price of the control module is supposed to be 10% of the price of the object it controls, where do you see prices for turrets counted in credits?

The only turrets i can find are starship mounted turrets, they all cost BP, not credits.

That might answer your question, the camera that comes with the control module costs BP.


If you've read The Prefect or Elysium Fire by Alastair Reynolds you'll know that a Whip-Hound is the weapon issued to prefects in the golden age of the Glitter Band.

They are essentially a form of combat drone with a lot of funtions, do you think it would break game balance to include every function? What functions would you leave out if not?

For the uninitiated:

Example Whiphound Functions:
-- the whip retracts into a handle (think light-saber sized), not sure how long it can get although i think its probably around 30ft (citation needed)
-- much faster than a person, probably around 60ft move speed
-- Remote Control (like, "space station on the other side of the planet" remote as long as its on the same network)
-- Autonomous tracking
-- Suspect restraint (hold person in rpg terms)
-- Autonomous combat, configurable to various levels (basically anything you can describe in a short sentence: "catch/disarm that guy" to "kill anyone who enters this hallway")
-- Cutting edge can cut through any matter not designed to resist when powered up, about 90% of things can be cut through with no effort in the setting they come from
-- Grenade mode, destroys the whiphound as a last resort, purposefully not strong enough to punch holes in ships or space stations but can destroy most living things
-- Can be held as a one-handed sword, see the cutting edge point above
-- Possibly other functions I've forgotten


R2-D2 and BB-8 are not normal astrodroids though, all the other astrodroids you see on screen act like drones, thats why I didn't include them in the example. Obviously IG-88 or C-3PO would be player characters, but astrodroids excluding those two hero versions are basically mechanic drones, and you need an astrodroid to fly an X-Wing, but not usually R2-D2 or BB-8


Gary Bush wrote:

@Ridiculon I play in Society so it is important to me that all GMs run the adventure the same way. By RAW, a drone, which is a class feature, can't be used in space combat.

For home games, the GM is fully within their means to do otherwise.

Gotcha, yeah this is a weird case for society, do yall just not get to acknowledge the GM fiat blue sections as a general rule?


Gary Bush wrote:


To me this means that a character could take an action that is outside the actions defined as part of space combat. If a character did this, then they are not filling any role during that round.

Looking at Actions section that is at the bottom of page 322, it clearly states "Class features and items affect crew actions only if specifically noted in the class feature or item." Nothing in the class feature for a drone indicates that it can be used in space combat. This makes sense because a drone has to be directed by the mechanic. If the mechanic is busy trying to divert power to shields, they are not able to focus enough to also direct a drone to repair a system.

If the mechanic wanted to not take a role in combat and direct their drone, then maybe they could. But the mechanic is likely going to be much better at making the necessary DC in space combat than a drone. This is stretching it and I personally would not allow a player to do this.

Thanks for the response, although i personally don't think its a stretch to tell a drone to do something for a starship combat role every GM runs their own game.

If the mechanic is controlling the drone directly then it uses the mechanic's skill points, its only when the drone is told to do something without direct control that it isn't as skillfull (although it definitely still has its own skill points). I don't think flying an X-Wing should be impossible in a sci-fi RPG but to each their own.


Gary Bush wrote:

Drones are a class feature and cannot be used in starship combat (see page 322 under Actions).

When you breakdown a starhip combat round, it has 3 phases.

Engineering: where Engineer(s) role can take actions.

Helm where the Pilot and Science Officer(s) can take their actions.

Gunnery where the Gunner(s) can take their actions.

The Captain can take an action any phase but can only take one action per round.

So no, PCs can't take more than 1 role during a round.

You should look at that page again, theres a blue section at the top labeled "Other Actions in Starship Combat" that says you can use class features in combat if you want to, and that they get slotted in before the engineering phase. That seems like it should cover multiple starship role actions though.

Sorry for the late response, not sure how I missed this post for over a week :/


Merm7th wrote:
If you have a good Dex like 16 and acrobatics is a class skill and you have at least one rank, you can take 10 and hover in up to 30 mph winds. Once you have 3 ranks you can take 10 and hover in 50 mph winds. Hoverdrones and PCs in jetpacks auto succeed to hover as a swift while taking 10. Your issue comes up when both the mechanic and her drone want to hover as they only have one swift between them. Everyone else should be fine.

Giving the drone your swift action means you have to have already given it your move action, basically any time your drone wants to hover you are both stuck where you are for the round.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Well that's good enough for me, looks like I interpreted it wrong. But how I was doing it still works in play thematically for now, they have an old rustbucket with only a couple weapons as their starting ship which I wasn't intending them to keep for long, so once they upgrade to a newer vessel they can get the benefit of declaring dynamically.

That seems like a nice way to do it, makes the players appreciate the base gunnery system more


I have no doubt that powered and directed thrusters could out-thrust venting or explosive force, its the randomness of the course changes that is the issue. Also the fact that you can catch up to a ship still doesn't mean you can cross between them safely to salvage it.

As to the Gravity Gun/Cannon, not one of the sample starships has one equipped. This seems to point towards it not being a particularly common piece of equipment for Interceptors, Fighters, Transports, Battleships, Racers, Freighters, Carriers, Shuttles, Explorers, Cruisers, Destroyers, or Dreadnoughts. I wouldn't mind the PC's building it into their own custom ship, or upgrading into it, but you wouldn't be able to buy a pre-built ship with that equipment (by default, obviously you're the GM and can do whatever). This also means its not going to be available at every dock, or that it would need to be shipped or whatever.

The main point of this line of reasoning is to provide an in-universe rationale for the players not being able to grab every ship they come across and build themselves a fleet instead of just saying "because i said so" or "it breaks the game".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A starship isn't like an ocean going ship, you can't always just get up alongside it and loot it. Its venting atmosphere, thruster control systems are damaged, some bits of it are just straight up exploding and all of these things are going to make it difficult to salvage. It's trajectory is going to be erratic, its going to take some serious piloting mojo to come alongside and maintain a safe distance long enough to get the goods, much less repair damaged systems or hull breaches to the point where it isn't flailing around wildly and dangerously. It may be completely impossible without the correct equipment (tractor beams or some sort of high power clamp/arms). Moving between two such ships would be insanely dangerous, even if they are clamped together the damaged vessel is going to be moving the whole mess around and any "pedestrian" caught between them is likely to get pulped.

Basically unless you heavily invest into salvage equipment salvaging the ship itself is tantamount to suicide, it makes much more sense from a time, money, and staying-in-one-piece point of view to scoop up the most valuable bits that are blown off during combat. Maybe after a particularly good shot on a ship component you can comment about how a module just went flying off, maybe have the players make a piloting or engineering check to mark the trajectory for later pickup.

That being said, if the players invest into salvage equipment you should let them have the ship. Just be sure to make a salvage ship only good at salvaging.

On top of this you could have a salvage service that the players could call in for their 10% finder's fee if they (understandably) don't feel like risking their lives and ship attempting the extremely dangerous actions involved in salvaging damaged ships.

1 to 50 of 1,022 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>