Wingblaze's page

143 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Nothing we are using - we've avoided them.

I think one idea that might work is treating them more like armor upgrades.

Belafon is wise. The remote hack is a mechanic "thing", and it would be a bad idea to allow this to be replicated. It's not just the mechanics - it ties to the mechanic's Custom Rig and that's a core thing in the class. I'm not saying it would totally destroy your game (especially if you don't have a mechanic in the party) but it's bad policy to me.

Probably should be in the homebrew forum.

As for the matter at hand, I share the opinion with others that the whole weapon fusion system seems to be a bit wonky. I'm usually hesitant to mess with the RAW, but for fusions, I'd be a lot more inclined.

It's not RAW though.


The only exception to the "weapons fire only once per round" rule is point defense weapons. Other people have brought up other things in the past to try to get around it.

Just because the Captain grants an action doesn't change the fact that the weapon cannot fire. It's the same as one gunner shooting, and another gunner broadsiding - the weapon cannot fire twice.

"Orders" has plenty of uses - this just isn't one of them.

Greydoch wrote:

You know, once The Character Operations Manual Drops there will be two new roles for starship combat.


Whaaaaa?? (I haven't read any of the beta test stuff)

I know I saw something about linking drift engines. That's a problem easily solved.

The one I'm wondering about is a 7 person ship. Even if we assume the party is well distributed - captain, pilot, engineer, science, gunner gunner gunner?

That requires a lot of guns, and stuffs some people full time into some roles we've had better luck/satisfaction with rotating.

I'd almost suggest doing the two-ship thing, and being willing to rewrite history if it doesn't work. But then you need two pilots, two gunners, hopefully a computer/engineer on each ship, and one captain.

Ignore the 6 crew thing if you are all comfortable with the ship roles you've decided on.

Two ships is possible, but tricky. The system isn't really rigged for it but it might be more fun. You'd need enough diversity of skills

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're reading in a complexity that does not exist.

Think of it this way: The party has a given number of BP. Period. If they want to completely rebuild their ship on a new frame, they can (in a rules-sense). There's no loss of BP.

In game, in a story sense, they may do a major rework on the frame, or "sell" the existing ship and "buy" a new one. Maybe magical nanites re-engineer the entire frame. Maybe the old ship crashes and they find a new ship. The context is up to the GM, but mechanically it does not matter.

There's no loss of BP, no deflation, no 10%. This is not credits - it's a completely different "economy" if you could even call it that. The party should have a ship with the appropriate number of BP spent. That ship will change and evolve over time or sometimes be completely replaced.

There's no official source - you're looking for proof of a negative. This is how ship building and BP work. Everything else is flavor.

Oh I thought it was more to scare your party members :)

Maybe this says something unpleasant about my personality...

The rule book is pretty clear on this - page 26:

Note that ability score increases
are effective retroactively; when your character’s ability
score increases, it increases his total number of ability-based
statistics—things like Resolve Points, Stamina Points, or skill
ranks—as if he had the higher value at previous levels as well.
For example, a mechanic with an Intelligence score of 17 has
a modifier of +3, and thus gets 7 skill ranks to spend at each
level (see Chapter 5). If at 4th level he increases his Intelligence
score to 18, he’ll have a modifier of +4, and thus get 8 skill ranks
to spend from this level forward—but he’ll also get 3 additional
ranks to assign, reflecting the ranks he would have received if
he’d had an Intelligence score of 18 at his first 3 levels.

Different suggestion:

You say it's an unstable junklaser. It looks like one. You tell people it is one.

But it's not unstable, and you pay azimuth price.

All the fun, but less gun-blowing-up-in-your-face.

Our approach to this is that we float certain roles. If there's no useful engineering, science (or gun if one is available) and vice versa.

Re: Hammerjack - Mount sizes are already limited in turrets by the RAW. (Of course you can limit it further)

Re: breithauptclan "Except that they are not ;-)".. um... oh. Well, that um... You know what? I'll just stop now. Outside my experience :)

I'll throw one more idea out there that's not often said - the thing about starship combat is that the party is supposed to win. Yeah, you can say that about regular combat, but the truth is there are a lot of ways to escape/survive if a regular firefight goes badly. One player can drop and the others keep going, heal him, whatever.

But if they lose ship combat... things get pretty ugly fast what with space being unforgiving and all. Being in a life pod isn't that appealing of a survival prospect either. I personally believe that the entire thing is therefore tilted slightly in the player's favor since the system and the plotline are pretty unforgiving about a bunch of bad rolls leaving them on the losing end of a space battle.

The math on PD: It was a while ago and it's hard to recall. I looked at build point efficiency comparing tracking defense (which was expensive), PD weapons, and just sucking up the hits. Shields are cheap and reliable and they work no matter what's shooting at you. tracking defense is very expensive, and PD weapons get into the odds of them actually doing their job correctly. It did not speak well to a case for using BP for things other than shields.

As for the gentleman's agreement to not death ball - I wouldn't say you're saying "no you can't do that". You're saying "Guys, I'd like to discuss something. We all want to have fun. This seems not-fun. I'm debating some house rules. If you'd prefer, we can skip that and just agree not to to there. If you'd prefer it or think it's more fun to make some rules, we can do that too." and see what they like. It's not "you" and "them". It's "you"..("youz"? "all y'all"?) it's you all together and you're grown ups. Work it out as such. I'm all about maximum fun for minimum effort.

First off, I believe you are fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Bear in mind that turrets count as being in all arcs, which means when critical damage time comes and you hit a weapon arc, those turret weapons will be quick to have problems. I also think that starship combat is a minor part of the game - a fun skill challenge activity. As such, I don't see it being worth a lot of effort tuning it.

Second, it's your game and your fun so if you think it's more fun a different way, go for it.

Unintended consequences: Putting a restriction on turret movement will draw out starship combat longer. Some people believe this is a problem already so you may not want to add to it.

As for point defense weapons you could just say they are automatically available for all arcs. They're point defense. Right now, having run some numbers, I don't believe PD weapons are worth it and those BPs are better put into shields. So you definitely should avoid nerfing PD further.

One house rule I've seen floated is that the turret can only move one arc per turn and that's part of firing. So if a pilot can put themselves "behind" where the turret was last time, they avoid the turret fire. This adds complexity of remembering where your turret was. It also is a fairly minor restriction with only 4 arcs.

Also what happens when I have multiple turret weapons? Are they each in their own turret? (I'd say yes, but not linked ones obviously.)

The other way to address this is to simply agree with the players to not get too crazy on this. If they make a death ball, you say no. Otherwise, we just play as is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pantshandshake wrote:

Not to mention, the game assumes that when your players level, their ship levels up as well.

Adding a cost into that, especially if there's a choice between player loot and ship loot, means that however much they take as ship loot, you'd need to still be giving them however much much player loot they'd normally get, plus figure out how much the ship loot would be worth if converted to player loot and also give them that much more player loot, otherwise you're penalizing your players' power levels just to level up the ship.

Pantsandshake is wise. Right now players get ships "for free" or "by fiat" or "by elves" or whatever you want to call it. If you make ships have a price, you just have to give them loot to compensate, and in the end you've really changed nothing besides giving yourself more work.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree that this is a problem.

It may be a point in the rules you disagree with or would like to expand on. That doesn't make it a problem - it's a design choice. If you would prefer a different design in your game, that's great.

My group loves starships just as much as they love ground adventures and roleplay.

I hate to say it, but you may be playing the wrong game. Starfinder is not designed that way.

As for moving starships over to credits, you're tampering with a fundamental choice in the economic design. If I sacrifice on BP I can have a massive amount of credits. I can then go buy guns guns and more guns. One of the reasons they're distinct is to prevent thematic starship battles from ruining the ground-side player economic and scarcity. Additionally you've got a lot of contorted rules and exceptions to try and mitigate the effect of breaking the "wall" between starships and regular money. To me, it feels cumbersome.

Lastly, this should probably be in the House Rules section.

Wow. This is... not something I caught reading the Armory.

I think it's important we look at more than phrases here:

The Armory wrote:

A scope is a telescopic sighting device with an incorporated reticle that attaches to a small arm or railed weapon’s top rail. A scope can’t be added to a weapon with a sight (see page 61). As a move action, you can aim through a scope. This can be done as part of the same move action required to aim a weapon with the sniper weapon special quality, or as part of a sneak attack where you do not take any movement even if you also aim a sniper weapon as part of that action. Aiming through a scope reduces penalties to attack rolls due to range as well as bonuses to AC from cover.

In addition, a scope increases a weapon’s range increment for determining penalties to attack rolls due to range. For small arms, a scope increases the weapon’s normal range increment to 1-1/2 times its listed range for this purpose. For longarms and heavy weapons, the increase is 4 times the normal range increment. For sniper weapons, the increase is twice the range increment of the sniper special property. The reduction in penalties due to aiming with a scope applies only to the next attack roll you make with the weapon before the end of your next turn.

This is a mess. A scope:

1. Let's you "aim" which reduces penalties due to range and over
2. In addition it increases the range increment.
3. But then it says it's only for the next attack.

It's the paragraph break that's really making this difficult to parse. If the last sentence of the second paragraph were up with the first paragraph this would be easy.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LotsofLore wrote:

You might be right. All I can say is that my players, and new players I introduce to the game, always complain that the weapon situation leaves them quite underwhelmed. The feel that there are too few choices at low levels (even counting Armory), and those that are there feel quite weak. They generally don't bother with fusions because they don't see them as impacting, mainly because most of the times unless they get a 20 on their roll, their money is wasted...

Maybe you can help me see it differently?

I doubt I can. :) I personally haven't really found fusions to be that interesting either. They're expensive for what they provide, and a sunk cost that you can't recover. Hey if we found one in a loot pile, sure I'd use it. But otherwise, I haven't considered them worth having.

Also, the rules are, in my opinion, overly complicated. Armor, by comparison, is much cleaner: Armor, upgrade slots, upgrades, done. Weapons get messy fast. And an armor upgrade, once bought, maintains it's usefulness and can be moved to new armor. A weapon fusion, not so much.

I'm hopeful that someday that whole 'thing' gets an overhaul.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure this is a sound solution. As I mentioned, if it works for you, that's great, and having fun is more important than anything else. Personally I'm always very hesitant to tinker with core balance mechanics, so it may be my risk aversion. Nothing wrong with trying it and telling folks up front "this is experimental and if it imbalances things, it will need to be changed."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This really sounds more appropriate for the Homebrew forum.

My overall impression is that if it makes you happy, that's great. Personally, when I noticed the lack of critical-enhancement abilities, I concluded it was likely a deliberate choice of the designers. So personally I'd be hesitant to tinker with it. The risk is that this becomes practically mandatory, and encounter balance has to change across the board to compensate.

Whether that's a real risk is up to you. I think the item levels might be somewhat low regardless.

If cost is the issue, there's always the PDF.

I agree it's a big book, but it's kind of just life. Again, there's the PDF.

I have not heard of any plans for a paperback.

First off, thanks for providing the full rule text here for easy reference.

- Are "Shield" mechanics same as "Force Field" mechanics or is this a special case? (specifically things like immunities/vulnerabilities)

I agree with Damanta - it grants you temporary hit points, exactly like it says. No more, no less.

- How exacly does the Shield protects against attacks like Life Leech (see: Garaggakal)

Because that's what the rules say it does.

- Does Boost Shield still require 10 minutes cool-down that does not meet Regain Stamina Points condition to be re-used or can it be basically used again and again without cool-down and in combat as long as the mechanic has Resolve Points left (this would give a level 10 Mechanic at least 200 temporary hit points)?

No. It doesn't say it needs 10 minutes. It says you can spent a resolve point to bring the shield to full.

- Does Boost Shield require the Shield to be fully cycled through Hit Points before it is re-charged or can you re-charge the Shield while is is still active with partial pool of Hit Points left and therefore do so without action penalty since Boost Shield does not list any?

No, it doesn't say anything like "it must be depleted". It says you can spend a resolve point to bring the shield to full.

"This is all quite reasonable though as someone who is not very proficient with practical play of all classes I am trying to find another class that can basically produce 200 hit points plus (more if your INT is high and you have extra RPs) at a moment's notice and without any kind of vulnerabilities..."

First off, you're ignoring the action economy. The shield takes a standard action to activate, which means you're not shooting that first round. I can tell you from personal experience that it's... painful to give up that action.

Second, resolve-point abilities are supposed to be powerful. They are a limited use thing and as such are intended to have substantial benefits. Aside from "not dying" and "recovering stamina", Mechanics do not have a lot of abilities that use resolve points.

Third, a mechanic optimized for it can be pretty tough. Energy and kinetic resistances, shield, and you can absorb a fair bit. If you want to tank, you can.

Fourth, let's consider context. Using my own mechanic, I'm seeing about 90 stamina and 64 hit points by level 10. So sure, 200 hp is a lot of staying in the fight, if you have time to get the shield up over and over again (as opposed to one massive attack that blows through it and into you) but I think that's a somewhat far-fetched example. If a player wants to blow all those resolve points and somehow has time, 25 hit points at a time, then I guess it's ok.

I guess my bottom line is I don't see an obvious problem here.

UPBs are, by definition, a raw material of whatever. There's no info on how they're made. It's just generic raw material, akin to currency. (And nobody says what the currency is made from.)

Why would you need to know?

I'm not a GM. That said, Dead Suns includes guidance for the GM, I'm told.

"The party should be level 3 by now" type of thing. Just use it. Computing xp is a hassle. Just tell them at appropriate points "Level up to 5 for next game".

Now I realize some groups don't like that and it removes some feeling of incremental progress. But it is way easier.

Hm. I wonder if planetary mass is a stat included in Pact Worlds and if you could simulate it...

Agreed. Anyone familiar with KSP (Kerbal Space Program) has realized that being "in orbit" isn't about being high up - it's about moving really really fast. You are falling towards the planet and missing because you're going so fast. To go out of orbit, you have to "slow down" quite a lot so gravity can do its thing without you missing the planet. So If the ship is in orbit and you throw a PC out, you'll all just putter around in orbit. Of course the ship can leave, but the PC won't automatically fall out of orbit.

"expansion" bays

We have a tech lab, cargo bay, escape pods, and a rec suite. Three of those were on the ship when we got it, and I put in the tech bay to have it handy for fixing things (as a mechanic it seemed useful).

The tech bay has technically been used. None of the others have really come up during play.

First off, you want to check the errata.

It adjusts the "whatever is worse" phrase to say "whatever is worse for detrimental effects" and "whatever is better for beneficial effects".

"When determining what abilities affect an android, and how, replace the first sentence of the constructed ability with the following. "For effects targeting creatures by type, androids count as both constructs and humanoids (whichever type allows an ability to affect them for abilities that affect only one type, and whichever is worse for abilities that affect both types).""

I'm not sure this makes life any better here though. :) Is the android getting polymorphed willingly or unwillingly? Lacking the spell description handy, I'm not really sure.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's a VA?

I don't think a "threatened area" is a "thing" in the way you're using it. I think the implication is that it's per map square.

If I try to run by four creatures, I think I should expect to get slapped silly. :)

There's absolutely nothing in the rules that says a ship must be mechanical. If you want the flavor, just use the exact same rules.

Just for the title alone I want to try to reply to this :) But the need for a map/visual element makes it tricky so I'll see if avr's answer helped.

None that I've heard of. I think they leave this sort of thing open for expansion later or adaptation by individual GMs

Agreed generally - there's no explicit rule.

If you are in a *stable* orbit, and your friends are in the ship, they can retrieve you. At worst there'd be a scanner (science) check just to see how quick it is.

If your orbit is deteriorating and speed is important, then a few rolls might add some tension to the situation.

If they weren't in the immediate area, then I'd see how long your armor/air would last. (24 hrs per battery is it? I forget)

But locating you itself is not a biggy given a ship and no interference.


So under cold, page 400 (emphasis mine)

Cold Dangers
Cold and exposure deal nonlethal damage to the victim. A character can’t recover from the damage dealt by a cold environment until she gets out of the cold and warms up again.

An unprotected character in cold weather (below 40° F) must succeed at a Fortitude save each hour (DC = 15 + 1 per previous check) or take 1d6 nonlethal cold damage....

But under Heat, page 402

Heat deals nonlethal damage to the victim. A character can’t recover from the damage dealt by a hot environment until she gets out of the heat and cools off.

A character in very hot conditions (above 90° F) must attempt a Fortitude saving throw each hour (DC = 15 + 1 per previous check) or take 1d4 nonlethal fire damage. Characters wearing heavy clothing or armor of any sort take a –4 penalty to their saving throws. A character can attempt a Survival check to receive a bonus to this saving throw, and might be able to apply this bonus to other characters as well (see page 148).

There's a subtle difference here - the word "unprotected". Armor would seem to protect against cold. I suspect that may be what's causing the confusion.

That said the specific rule for armor explicitly says what it protects from so if you feel they're in conflict, I'd go with what's written for armor. You aren't just in armor; you're in a space suit.

I feel like you're probably overthinking it. But that's me

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If armor can deal with having four arms, I can't see why it can't deal with wings. I don't remember seeing anything about armor reducing fly speed aside from the speed adjustment which impacts all movement types. Where are you seeing that rule?

I feel like you may be looking for problems that don't exist?

From CRB p. 196

Armor comes in different sizes for different creatures, and you might have to adjust a suit of armor to fit you if it wasn’t made for your race. A ysoki can’t effectively wear armor made for a human, and a kasatha needs to adjust armor that was made for a two-armed creature. If it’s in doubt whether a creature can fit the suit, the GM decides whether the armor needs to be adjusted. When you buy armor new, the purchase price includes any adjustments.

Adjusting Armor
If you get secondhand armor that wasn’t tailored for you, you can have it adjusted, which requires a successful Engineering check (DC = 10 + 2 × the armor’s level). Alternatively, you can spend 10% of the armor’s purchase price to have it adjusted by a professional—typically an armorsmith or anyone with multiple ranks in Engineering.

As an ecocortex mechanic, actions is something I struggle with and I'm not doing melee.

Facts: There are no facts indicating anything like that is coming.

Conjecture: Given that we haven't even seen any updates to the FAQ in a year, and if you assume that the stuff in the FAQ is what you'd want to revise in the updates, I suspect it's unlikely.

Gunners can fire guns. If you have enough gunners, and enough guns that can target the enemy, then you can fire a lot of guns.

As mentioned, if the enemy is on a border hex, you pick and it's one or the other. You can't fire your forward and port-side weapons on the same target.

Fire at will lets you fire multiple weapons at valid targets. The target still has to be in the right arc to get hit. (For example fighting multiple enemies, one gun at each.)

In general weapons can never fire more than once a turn. That's in the rules. (Point defense weapons are a specific exception.)

You could put multiple guns in a turret (or multiple turrets depending on your visualization). But you'd probably rather link them so they both blast the same target with only one gunner needed. (Or maybe you don't and want your flexibility if you have a lot of gunners.)

The base design/balance of the game assumes a four person party. Therefore a ship will likely have one or two gunners.

Have the meta-talk (as noted). Or just give them the money and take it from treasure they would have otherwise have gotten.

If they see this as rewarding, they'll keep doing it.

Not sure. Maybe you wanted to use another maneuver instead really badly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rules: None I've seen.

Do you mean science or something planar/magical?

If the former, then I agree they're a plot device. (Or a small environmental effect if you keep far away in ship combat.) Black holes are just an absolute beast and not something you mess with.

If the latter, then it's anyone's game. They're not really negative energy in my mind - gravity and shadow aren't the same thing to me, but they could be to you. It'd be all house rule territory.

Food for thought:

You could end up overlapping a lot with the mechanic. Now that may be ok, or it may not. Some games/groups of players like it when everyone has a lane and stays in it. Others don't care. Think about what kind of group yours is. If you need to be a little distinct, talk to the mechanic and see if you can't figure out what he envisioned specializing in, and what you can.

Second, you have a lot of combat power in that mix, and a fair bit of skills coverage. What I don't see is any spellcasting. If you want something more distinct, you might consider technomancer or mystic. I'm not saying you *should* or you *must*, just noting the fact that the group will be missing a set of resources that spellcasting brings.

Whatever you do, make sure you think about your role in ship combat. Mystics and solarians have some challenges there particularly.

There is no answer within the rules.

Personally I'd say living yes, undead no, weapons recently fired probably (depends on type).

The rules-as-written are unclear, as evidenced by the thread on the topic (and others that reference it)

I entered this thread carefully as a dead suns player but it was safe enough fortunately :)

My thoughts: I think you're trying too hard to shoehorn this into the rules. You're thinking too much like a "ship" and not enough like a PC. Androids, SRO (sentient robotic organism) etc all provide an easy model.

What does that mean? First off, forget build points, and computer nodes. They reserve the BP for the artificial personality, and that's it. The critical thing here is you have a three player game so letting the ship fill the "fourth seat" in ship combat is merely a minor correction for a small party. There's no need for it to "cost" anything and if you do, you negate the correction you're applying.

As for mechanics/advancement, I think you're keying off the wrong thing. Ignore the tier of computer or nodes or whatever. The key thing with ships is the tier. The tier is their level. Use that.

My suggestion is to stat out Dawn. Int, wisdom, charisma even. (Physical stats are unimportant but maybe dex for piloting.) Then advance her like another party member, using tier as her level. Give her feats and stat boosts as she levels (otherwise her skills will lag behind an equivalent PC, unless you want that).

As for how she came to be? Well the driftrock does funny things, and decades out there alone... well sometimes strange things happen.

Just my two cents.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SirTristan wrote:
the game needs rule so a mechanic captains can take on a normal captain character so we all don't get.Railroad in to one ship?

No, it doesn't. That would be the same as saying "a technomancer needs to be on equal footing with a soldier in a fist fight." Different classes have different talents - areas where they are strong and not-as-strong. That is a core component of this, or any, RPG. If the mechanic is the captain, that's fine but they won't be as good as, say, an envoy. Nor will the envoy be as good an engineer. That is balance.

As others have noted, we are outside the territory of the rules as written.

My interpretation: Escape into the drift is an option, but a desperate one. It is designed to be possible but nearly suicidal. Outside mechancis, it's also tense, and desperate and therefore good story and good fun. But you don't want the enemy fleeing every time either.

So in that spirit, I would say you have to survive five rounds of combat. It has nothing to do with how long rounds are, and everything to do with story and theme. If you can survive five gunnery phases of you being a sitting duck, not moving and the other ship is blasting everything it has at you, you can escape.

Engineering checks may shave off some time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. I didn't even say his name three times...

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>