Wingblaze's page

211 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

It sounds to me like you may have a major misinterpretation going on. I realize some of this may be obvious but for the sake of more certainty and clarity:

Dex bonus: a character gets this bonus to their AC (subject to the limit of the max dex bonus). The character gets this - it doesn't add to the armor.

Max dex bonus: from CRB, page 196
Maximum Dex Bonus: You normally add your Dexterity modifier to your Armor Class (for both EAC and KAC), but it’s limited by your armor. Your armor’s maximum Dexterity bonus indicates how much of your Dexterity modifier you
can add to AC. Any excess Dexterity doesn’t raise your AC further and is simply ignored for this purpose.

The idea here is that it's hard to be agile in heavy armor. So no matter how agile you are, the armor limits your dodging. If you have an armor with a max dex of +3, then you'll never get more than a +3 from your dex bonus. But if your dex bonus is only +1, then you only get +1.

If you have armor with a max dex of +3 and a shield with a max dex of +4, then your max dex bonus is +3 - the more limiting of the two.

There's no counting "twice" since the dex bonus adds to the *character*, not the armor/shield.

Rules as written, not currently.

Seems like a reasonable extension of the concept to me. Be an awful shame if a so-equipped starship was going through the drift and something... unexpected got caught in the storage bay. :)

Generally speaking, Starfinder doesn't do tons of attacks like some other systems. Dual wielding, higher levels, and the other ways people would typically get more attacks in a round - those things don't happen as much or as well in Starfinder.

You could have dual guns and use different types of weapons or elements.

What drones are you talking about? Providing specific books/citations is useful when asking questions - you say "the" spaceship battle but there are lots of battles in Starfinder.

Pantshandshake wrote:
I'm sure there's some kind of math that can describe where a point weapon is better than shields. I'm also sure I can't do that math.

I did it. That's part of why I made the suggestion. :) It was a while ago and I don't have the math handy, but the basics go like this:

1. Shield cost is fairly linear or better. And shields work against everything.
2. Raising TL as a countermeasure gets very expensive. And it only works on tracking weapons. (Unrelated: AC is also horribly expensive.)
3. Point defense likewise gets expensive. Weapon mounts, turret mounts, etc. And as weapons they're not much help.
4. The general probability of shooting down a tracking weapon was not that great.

When you look at a comparison of estimated value per build point, shields end up being a clear winner. Of course, there's subjectivity in that evaluation.

Now some caveats: everyone's experience will be different. If you're in a homebrew campaign fighting the Great Empire of Missile Launchers, then you might have a different experience. :) Mine was based on Dead Suns and the fights in that run. There were some tracking weapons, but not a lot and certainly not towards the higher end. A solid ship and crew means that the fight won't last ages, and we usually started with the book rules on "roll to see how far apart you are to start". Which means we didn't start at long ranges often. (Tracking weapons have some advantages at longer ranges where you can pre-load the battlefield as the range closes.)

In a medium weight ship, I found it to be a poor use of BP that could go other places. If I'd had a larger ship to play with, I might have thrown in some.

Overall I think there are some imbalances in the construction costs that should be tweaked - the rules as written have some very clear efficiencies that lead you to a certain path. Maybe that's by design, or maybe not. But I think AC and TL cost too much, and many people have noticed that turrets really seem to undercut the notion of tactical movement and piloting.

I'm going to offer a different view on your original question.

The number of point weapons you need is zero.

Point weapons are an inefficient use of build points. Buy shields instead and eat the missiles. Unless you're dealing with a missile heavy enemy, you're better off just buying shields.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed with Dragonchess Player - it sounds like your initial assumption is flawed. There's nothing that has to be "recharged". It effectively runs forever.

That said, could some space battle damage lead to an emergency landing and being stuck there while the core recharges as a plot device for an adventure? Sure I guess. But that's all it would be - a plot device.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like you're trying to ask about rules that don't really exist and overly complicate things.

Scrying: COM page 148: This functions as the scan science officer action,
but you attempt a Mysticism check instead of a Computers check.

So they use the exact same rules as the scan action, except for the substitution of the mysticism skill. Sensors apply. Range penalties from the sensors apply. There's no need for a scrying station or anything else.

If you're looking for something more like an in-game answer, remember that in Starfinder magic and technology are heavily blended anyway and the scanning station may already incorporate divination elements to be utilized.

I've never seen anything in the rules suggesting that's possible. Do you have a page reference or something that suggests that's allowed?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not an artificial intelligence - it's an artificial personality. It's not sentient and it does not have free will.

I don't recall seeing rules addressing the subject. That said, using something like this to bypass the action economy is probably something I would say "no" to.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly I think the premise is flawed here. A transport is a medium frame. There are limits on the weapons it can mount (no capital ship mounts) and the number it can sport. A tier 20 dreadnaught is not going to have those problems. I think that will make a pretty big difference in the fight.

There are better weapons and worse weapons. But "better" and "worse" depends what you're optimizing for.

A year or two ago I set out to answer this question for myself. I looked at weapon damage per BP, per power consumed, and so on. I even tried to hybridize a score that took range into account (but I personally favored long range weapons so some of it was just in my head.) I don't have the resulting spreadsheet handy but there were definitely some standouts.

In the heavy weapon category, particle beams were a great weapon along with heavy lasers. Good bang for the buck there. Particle beams were extremely good choices esp. for turret weapons Coilguns and light laser cannons were winners in the light category. (I don't think I really looked at tracking weapons.)

Sure, a persistent particle beam does more damage, but the increase in expense and power is not worth 2d6.

I had fun with my ecocortex mechanic. Overcharge is good. Longarms are good.

Remember there are no multiple iterative attacks in Starfinder. So you need to hit harder on the attack you get.

Can humans?

Yes, sort of, in parts, if you're careful.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll turn your question on it's head - where does it say androids *can* be hacked? Because that'd be a pretty significant thing, and if it were possible, it would be mentioned. Also, as mentioned, computer hacking checks are based on the tier. Androids have no tier so if it were possible the mechanic would have be spelled out because it can't be applied as is.

Then there's the law and consequences. If the PC uses a data jack and plugs directly into the android (something not possible unless the android has a data jack mod installed - it's not default), it's the same as taking a human and doing surgery on them without permission - in other words a hideous assault on their person.

In a more lore sense, it's going back to treating them like property rather than a person, and the PC could probably expect some rather unpleasant visits from the Android Abolitionist Front as well as law enforcement.

Could we not necro ancient threads please?

PMSchulz wrote:
Right, I know about the FAQ, I am talking about fixing all the mistakes and errors, like they've done for every other product. The FAQ isn't complete by a long shot.

You didn't say you needed it "complete". :)

The FAQ is what we have. There is nothing else. Many of us would like updates to the FAQ. But I would also like a pony, and my own talk show.

I think your problem is "raise dead". CRB page 371:

"While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life."

To me, it's pretty clear that if there's no body, raise dead ain't gonna fix that. Despite assertions to the contrary it is not, in fact, only a flesh wound. :)

Agreed - it's up to the GM, but it seems to be a problem that fixes itself. Weapons and armor are very transitory in Starfinder.

Sorry BigNorseWolf - what I meant was that the spell itself doesn't talk about a bonus. It makes you unseen. For the sake of argument, let's say it grants you the "unseen" condition relative to the ones who can't see you.

You're invisible: you're unseen.
You're in thick woods: you're unseen.
You're both: you're still unseen. There's no stacking issue because you are just unseen, not doubly unseen.

It sounds like we're saying the same thing.

Let's get the easy stuff out of the way:

CRB Page 93 wrote:

Specialization Skill Mastery 7th Level

You become so confident in certain skills that you can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. When attempting a skill check with a skill in which you have the Skill Focus feat, you can take 10 even if stress or distractions would normally prevent you from doing so.

An operative can specialize as a hacker, giving them computers and engineering. And part of Specializing means they get the Skill Focus feat for those skills.

Under Actions in Starship combat:

CRB Page 322 wrote:
Class features and items affect crew actions only if specifically noted in the class feature or item.

Lastly we have the FAQ/Errata entry

FAQ wrote:

Under "Actions" on page 322 it is stated "Class features and items affect crew actions only if specifically noted in the class feature or action." Does this mean I can't benefit from the skill bonus of operative's edge, or an envoy's skill expertise?

No. When actions taken in starship combat call for a skill check, any class feature that grants bonuses to or allows rerolls with the relevant skill applies when using that skill as part of starship combat. This is an exception to the rule.

There's definitely a little wiggle in the rules as written, but I think the part about "grants bonuses or allows rerolls" excludes taking 10.


Invisibility doesn't have a bonus itself. It makes you... well... invisible. Probably making you unseen and per pg 261, gives you the bonus. Darkness would do the same thing. You're just unseen - you can't be "unseen" twice so there's no stacking issue.

If there were I would agree - that would be pretty silly.

My opinion: You are creating words in the rules where they do not exist. If it says something is a +4 bonus, then it's an untyped bonus. It's as simple as that.

There are a couple reasons I see it this way. First, because that's what the text actually says. Second, if you don't read the rules this way, then you're going to constantly have to guess at the designer's intentions rather than accepting what they've written. Third, players and the GM need to be able to see the rules the same way, and the easiest way to do that is to go by what's actually written.

Could it be a typo? Sure. But anything could be. Until there's errata, I'd go by what's written.

Matt2VK wrote:

Why I asked -

In the description of Indivisibility it would be Untyped since it does not give a type...but, there's a number of places in Core where it states all bonuses from this effect is this type of bonus.

Citations would be helpful

There's a FAQ - why they call it a FAQ and not errata, I couldn't say.

A simple google comes up with it. But it's at

Untyped. If it had a type it would say in the rules. This is true for all bonuses. CRB page 148 has no type listed in the description. CRB page 266 makes it clear it's an untyped bonus since no type is listed.

You should do some searches - it's come up many times and it is do-able.

What Vo said. Although I think you're going the long way around for something that can be accomplished much more readily. Besides most armor has life support built in so why would a party member need it? It seems like a very unlikely scenario

First off, to be clear, I think you're in territory not covered by the rules as written. So we're making things up and there are no definitive citations or right answers.

There's a comm unit built into armor. I don't think that means you can upgrade it at all. If someone wants a better computer, then that's a separate unit and can't be integrated into the armor. It's a comm unit - you can't swap the graphics card and cpu :) But if you want to allow it (I'm assuming you're the GM) then that's up to you.

It costs what it costs based on the upgrade costs from a tier 0 computer. If some thing is based on the value of the computer, use the cost of a tier 1 computer or the comm unit. Just because it was bundled in the cost of the armor doesn't mean it has no value.

What VampByDay said. It's not your job to force them together or bend over backwards for them. Gaming is a group story telling exercise, and they're not doing their part.

Yeah, all that you just said. It's not just that the benefits are (or are not) good. It's that the cost structure and complication makes them not worth using over the long haul in a game where you are likely switching weapons a lot.

Wow. I was sure this was covered somewhere, and I'm clearly wrong on that. Interesting question.

Rules as written contain no information. No FAQ entry either. So that just confirms the answer you suspected - no you haven't missed anything.

As for fixing it, your solution seems reasonable. If the asteroids got big enough then I'd argue you couldn't even lock on through them but the module seems to have covered that for you.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Right, you shouldn't be looking up the bone eater while fighting the bone eater.

You make it sound dirty. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The short answer is "Whatever the players and GM decide". There's no official rules that allow or disallow a particular book. This is more around social norms than stated rules.

That said, a player having info about monsters you're facing or the adventure you're playing in is clearly in poor taste. Or at least it is according to most social convention I'm familiar with.

Having the CRB is nearly mandatory. Having an alien archive book might be odd, but might be needed if you're playing a race from that book.

There's another thing to consider, as food for thought in the "what was the design intent" category.

Fusions... yeah... they kind of suck. Both in utility and in their rules and construction. Fusions and fusions seals are confusing, have odd cost structures, and are a bit of an oddity. Initially I thought "ah the Starfinder version of magic weapons - this is important!" and I found out I was wrong. We've largely ignored them except for ones we found in our game.

Now this is all just my opinion of course. But if you are of the mindset that fusions were somewhat poorly designed, then it's pretty easy to ignore any oddities in terms of elemental fusions. If you disagree with that opinion, then that's fine too. But I can't explain the thought behind elemental fusions; it's just one of a number of things that don't make sense to me in the "fusion" space.

Interesting thought. Let's dispense with the premise first:

The Armory has weapons that are C&P, B&F, F&S, and that's just scanning the first few pages.

Second, you cannot use Herolab as an authoritative source of what the rules do or do not allow. Just because a third party coded a tool a certain way doesn't make it official.

So I see no conflict and the rules as written seem clear - you can't add a shock fusion to a plasma weapon.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
HoloGnome wrote:
But, this issue requires attention.

I have to disagree. Of all the things that could use attention, this one is, to me, very far down on the list.

Just my personal experience as an eco mechanic: I'd question the value of going this route. Perception is great and all, but wisdom isn't likely to be a strong stat for you which is going to be limiting. As for physical sciences, it's really one of those "it depends" skills. In some adventures it might come up a lot, in others not at all.

I'm not saying it's a horrible choice and as you said the things you'd really want to boost are already covered another way. And other choices you make (e.g. visual data processor) might factor into that choice.

Sadronmeldir wrote:
Comics and books might be ambitious, but the occasional quarterly or bi-annual adventure module seems like a reasonable investment.

I have never been on the inside, but I'm not sure you're right. Adventures sell to GMs. Something like the COM can be purchased by players and GMs alike. Bigger audience will hopefully translate to better sales and more profit. I've started to suspect that adventures aren't very profitable in this industry. You need them to get your system being played, but they're not money makers. It's one of the reasons I think we saw the OGL in Third Edition - to farm out the less profitable activity.

All just my guesswork of course. And I think you're right - SF was a gamble and it has paid off.

It is true that if you are in melee range of your opponent and you attack, you can expect an attack of opportunity in return. Creatures generally get a single attack of opportunity each round so regardless of whether you do a full attack or a regular attack, you'd only provoke an attack of opportunity once from the target.

If there were other creatures in melee range of you, they'd all get attacks of opportunity on your first shot.

I think you're holding Starfinder to something of an unrealistic standard.

Pathfinder has been out for many years and it was based on 3.5E which has a legacy tracing back decades. The sheer volume of content that already existed is huge. PF2 is a big deal and in a way, breaks the fundamental pact that got Pathfinder started in a sense - a way for people who liked 3.5e to keep going with it. So if you're going to do it, you need to really go in deep.

My point is that Pathfinder has mountains of material and has a lot of people playing it, hence a big customer base. Starfinder is doing well and is very popular, but it does not have nearly the same customer base. So Paizo is, arguably wisely, being careful with the resources they put into it. It'd be nearly impossible for any new setting to be as well supported as Pathfinder or 5E - it's just unrealistic if you expect the publisher not to go broke.

As for plans, the only thing I've seen is what Paizo told us on the next two books - something in June, and the Starship Operations Manual in August? (I think? I can't remember the details.)

As additional citation:

Page 240 "Who can I attack?" talks about shooting at anyone you can see.

Page 248 talks about attacks of opportunity.

There's definitely something wrong with the way you're doing things in your group, but I can't say I'm sure what it is. But I suspect Garretmander is on the right track.

What do you mean by "in contact"? This isn't a term used in Starfinder rules.

If a player is right next to a bad guy, they're 5 feet away in the next square. They may not share a square with a hostile creature. They can make a ranged attack against that creature, or any other creature they can see. They will (probably) provoke an attack of opportunity from the hostile creature.

It is usually unwise to take make a ranged attack when you are being threatened (standing in the threatened square of a hostile creature) but it can be done.

Rules - not many.

Generally, I think the needs of the plot will govern.

Also, it depends what you mean by "tracked".

Is there an "emissions" trail where the pursuing ship can follow with their sensors an hour later? I'd say certainly not. Always in motion is the drift, and the general mechanics of drift travel mean that following physical things would, to me, be impossible.

Could you attach a tracking beacon to a ship and follow? Again, probably not.

Could you attach a tracking beacon, and have it relay the target ship's location when it comes back into real space? That depends what there is to connect to? Within the pact worlds system? Sure. Out in the vast? Probably not.

All that said, things like divination magic can circumvent a lot of things.

It's more logical to assume Hero Labs is wrong than it is the rulebooks that come from the actual publishers.

This was just recently debated in another thread. Someone else may be able to say better than I - I didn't follow it closely. I seem to recall looking once though.

It's been a long established "thing" in many systems that involuntary movement does not provoke. So much so that I assumed Starfinder said it too, and was surprised that I could not find such a reference. I don't think the combat rules section says it categorically, though some individual things do.

Personally, I would say that it does not provoke for the same reasons it became a standard rule in many systems; otherwise it tends to get used abusively by players. But I don't think there's a clean cite in the rules as written.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Except it's out today, Wednesday, the 13th. Right now in fact.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree that it's necessarily "precious". Some classes have lots of options for resolve use. Others (operative, mechanic) hardly use them at all except for regaining stamina. I'm not sure this is a problem that needs a solution.

The computer bonus is arguably not an "action taken" the way a captain might boost something. If the computer bonus is set for a gunnery bonus that turn, I'd let that stand personally

1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>