at last someone else thinks that.
fighters are only good if you have a carrier to go with it.( or if you have a R2 unit)
CKent83 wrote: Also, if everyone is supposed to be piloting their own ship, you're losing out on party diversity. If you've got 4 small ships going up against an encounter designed for a normal party, they're probably going to take many more casualties because they are squishier, can't shoot, fly, repair, scan, and whatever else all at the same time. 1 big ship automatically has much more defense just from sheer bulk, and can have someone dedicated to repairs, can have much larger/more guns with a dedicated gunner, and can be better at avoiding attacks because you can have some specialized in piloting. This diverse group will have those same strengths when they are on the ground adventuring, whereas a group of 4 pilots would be too similar, and, again, will take more casualties from being unable to deal with specialized threats.
TL;DR: a big ship with a diverse crew is better than a greater number of ships piloted by characters that can't do everything at the same time.
EDIT: grammar.
Yes, and there are several other reasons for prefering a single ship to fighters as well.
* it provides a variety of gameplay options, rather than every player doing the same thing;
* It encorages communication and teamwork. In a fighter each player can ignore everyone else and do thier own thing;
* It serves as a home and base of operations. You wouldn't want to live in a fighter for any length of time. Fighters generally need a home base or carrier, which, in turn, tends to tie the party to an organisation, with people who can give them orders. Capital ships have the same drawback for freewheeling adventuring parties.
yep.. .yep.. yep...
basically a ship recommend for me to all is:
in no particular order.
Light Freighter
Heavy Freighter
squad transport ship( think the soldier ship for SW:TOR)
Corvette
Frigate ( and this one is pushing it, no matter how you get it)
ships I would not recommend
shuttle
carriers
Capital ships
Fighters.
but, no matter what; each ship has drawbacks....
Steelfiredragon wrote: yep.. .yep.. yep...
basically a ship recommend for me to all is:
in no particular order.
Light Freighter
Heavy Freighter
squad transport ship( think the soldier ship for SW:TOR)
Corvette
Frigate ( and this one is pushing it, no matter how you get it)
ships I would not recommend
shuttle
carriers
Capital ships
Fighters.
but, no matter what; each ship has drawbacks....
A lot depends on how you're defining the classes. The RN Corvettes of World War Two had crews of 80+. which seems far too many for a PC ship. Traveller and Star Trek small ships of similar function can often get by with crews of under twenty. I think it depends on exactly how crew complements are implemented in the game, as some ways of doing that would make it easier to handle larger crews.
And as an additional note, a small exploration or science vessel also seems like a practical size ship for a PC group.
As soon as a ship has ANY npc crew you are starting to talk about PCs being part of an organisation, with hierarchies, orders, etc (may not be military, could be a corporation). That may not be a problem, but it does deviate from the established D&D/Pathfinder model of a party of independent self-employed adventurers.
To an extent, that goes for scientists too. They are usually financed by, and beholden to, governments or corporations.
Fardragon wrote: As soon as a ship has ANY npc crew you are starting to talk about PCs being part of an organisation, with hierarchies, orders, etc (may not be military, could be a corporation). That may not be a problem, but it does deviate from the established D&D/Pathfinder model of a party of independent self-employed adventurers.
To an extent, that goes for scientists too. They are usually financed by, and beholden to, governments or corporations.
Not necessarily.
The crew could be henchmen/hirelings/cohorts/etc. Some groups, even in PF, bring such along to carry the loot and tend the horses, even if they're not powerful enough to really help with the fighting.
thejeff wrote: Fardragon wrote: As soon as a ship has ANY npc crew you are starting to talk about PCs being part of an organisation, with hierarchies, orders, etc (may not be military, could be a corporation). That may not be a problem, but it does deviate from the established D&D/Pathfinder model of a party of independent self-employed adventurers.
To an extent, that goes for scientists too. They are usually financed by, and beholden to, governments or corporations.
Not necessarily.
The crew could be henchmen/hirelings/cohorts/etc. Some groups, even in PF, bring such along to carry the loot and tend the horses, even if they're not powerful enough to really help with the fighting.
Skull and Shackles is a possible model, as well. The PCs may matter more than most, but they're not the whole crew of the ship.
Fardragon wrote: thejeff wrote: Fardragon wrote: More likely to be individual player deaths if they are in frail fighters than TPKs on a single ship. Especially when the space combat system is rigged against ships with crews less than 5. Would be nice if there was a way to make the one man fighter thing work. It's a classic bit of the genre. You could always house-rule it if your story requires the party to be a fighter squadron rather than a ship crew, just as you could houserule the players as the bridge crew of a capital ship in someone's navy.
There are NPC fighters, but thier main role is cannon fodder (necrogliders).
It's only Star Wars and it's imitators that made much use of fighters, and even then the Millennium Falcon was the main party ship. Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica and Babylon 5 and more anime than I dare to mention.
If they've structured the game so that fighters don't work well, then they don't, but that's a game mechanics decision they made, not a necessity.
Hmmm, been a long time since I played a Star Wars game, but I know piloting fighters was an option, at least in the West End version. Anyone remember how they made it work?
Bluenose wrote: thejeff wrote: Fardragon wrote: As soon as a ship has ANY npc crew you are starting to talk about PCs being part of an organisation, with hierarchies, orders, etc (may not be military, could be a corporation). That may not be a problem, but it does deviate from the established D&D/Pathfinder model of a party of independent self-employed adventurers.
To an extent, that goes for scientists too. They are usually financed by, and beholden to, governments or corporations.
Not necessarily.
The crew could be henchmen/hirelings/cohorts/etc. Some groups, even in PF, bring such along to carry the loot and tend the horses, even if they're not powerful enough to really help with the fighting.
Skull and Shackles is a possible model, as well. The PCs may matter more than most, but they're not the whole crew of the ship. It's still an organisation, even if it's a band of pirates. Which does work, as I've experienced with Star Trek RPG. But I'm betting most of the official material, such as the adventure path, assumes the players are independents. You could have a Pathfinder campagn in which the party was the command crew of a ship in the Abslom Navy, but it would be atypical.
WEG Star Wars space combat was pretty basic. For example, there was no rule about weapon facing, so an X-wing could flee at full speed and still fire at its pursuer. We used the Star Warriors board game a couple of times.
Fardragon wrote: CKent83 wrote: Also, if everyone is supposed to be piloting their own ship, you're losing out on party diversity. If you've got 4 small ships going up against an encounter designed for a normal party, they're probably going to take many more casualties because they are squishier, can't shoot, fly, repair, scan, and whatever else all at the same time. 1 big ship automatically has much more defense just from sheer bulk, and can have someone dedicated to repairs, can have much larger/more guns with a dedicated gunner, and can be better at avoiding attacks because you can have some specialized in piloting. This diverse group will have those same strengths when they are on the ground adventuring, whereas a group of 4 pilots would be too similar, and, again, will take more casualties from being unable to deal with specialized threats.
TL;DR: a big ship with a diverse crew is better than a greater number of ships piloted by characters that can't do everything at the same time.
EDIT: grammar.
Yes, and there are several other reasons for prefering a single ship to fighters as well.
* it provides a variety of gameplay options, rather than every player doing the same thing;
* It encorages communication and teamwork. In a fighter each player can ignore everyone else and do thier own thing;
* It serves as a home and base of operations. You wouldn't want to live in a fighter for any length of time. Fighters generally need a home base or carrier, which, in turn, tends to tie the party to an organisation, with people who can give them orders. Capital ships have the same drawback for freewheeling adventuring parties. Why would they all be doing the same thing? One fighter pilot could be a spell caster while the other is not? Also interdependency creates vulnerabilities. What if the pilot dies, who's going to take over? Most repairs on fighters are done in the hangar, as are most repairs on spaceships.
"Ah Captain, this is Scotty, I know your engaged with the Romulans, but I'm going to have to shut down one of the main warp nacelles while I repair and replace some critical parts, otherwise the engine is going to blow!" There is also some major hull damage on Deck five, I have repair crews working on that right now. The aft phaser bank is offline as we are replacing some power modules there."
Fardragon wrote: Bluenose wrote: thejeff wrote: Fardragon wrote: As soon as a ship has ANY npc crew you are starting to talk about PCs being part of an organisation, with hierarchies, orders, etc (may not be military, could be a corporation). That may not be a problem, but it does deviate from the established D&D/Pathfinder model of a party of independent self-employed adventurers.
To an extent, that goes for scientists too. They are usually financed by, and beholden to, governments or corporations.
Not necessarily.
The crew could be henchmen/hirelings/cohorts/etc. Some groups, even in PF, bring such along to carry the loot and tend the horses, even if they're not powerful enough to really help with the fighting.
Skull and Shackles is a possible model, as well. The PCs may matter more than most, but they're not the whole crew of the ship. It's still an organisation, even if it's a band of pirates. Which does work, as I've experienced with Star Trek RPG. But I'm betting most of the official material, such as the adventure path, assumes the players are independents. You could have a Pathfinder campagn in which the party was the command crew of a ship in the Abslom Navy, but it would be atypical. Sure, the party is basically independent, but they've got a crew under them helping run the ship, which was your original point. "As soon as a ship has ANY npc crew you are starting to talk about PCs being part of an organisation"
It would be a very odd navy if a crew was "basically independent".
Oh yeah, and starships can be repaired during combat (and it is assumed they will be) some of the rules are in the "things we know" document now.
Fardragon wrote: It would be a very odd navy if a crew was "basically independent".
Oh yeah, and starships can be repaired during combat (and it is assumed they will be) some of the rules are in the "things we know" document now.
Who said it was a navy?
You started by saying they'd have to be in some organization if they had an npc crew. I'm arguing they don't need to be, even if they have crew on board. They can hire their own crew. As in the gaming examples given or numerous real world examples of pirates and privateers and the like. Ocean ships being the obvious parallel to space ships, but you could expand to any number of other small independent groups. Treat the leadership or other exceptional characters as PCs and the minions as npcs.
Tom Kalbfus wrote: Why would they all be doing the same thing? One fighter pilot could be a spell caster while the other is not? Also interdependency creates vulnerabilities. What if the pilot dies, who's going to take over? Most repairs on fighters are done in the hangar, as are most repairs on spaceships.
"Ah Captain, this is Scotty, I know your engaged with the Romulans, but I'm going to have to shut down one of the main warp nacelles while I repair and replace some critical parts, otherwise the engine is going to blow!" There is also some major hull damage on Deck five, I have repair crews working on that right now. The aft phaser bank is offline as we are replacing some power modules there."
Sure they could be different classes, but they'll all have to have max ranks in Pilot, the Ace Pilot Theme, and both of those things seem like they won't be too useful when on the ground. Sure you don't have to have a bunch of Ace Pilots for your group of fighter pilots, but that's what you'll end up with, because the ones who aren't built that way will get weeded out through space combat. I'd bet that (at best) in a party of 5, you'll have one Soldier, one Mechanic, and three Operatives, all Ace Pilots. I'm speaking from experience on this one. I've been in multiple games where we were going to play a squadron of fighter pilots, and everyone built the same class, with the same feats, right down to Skill Focus (Pilot) (SW Saga Edition, which one of the Starfinder Developers worked on- Owen K. C. Stephens).
As for what happens on a bigger ship when the pilot dies; you have to remember that it's being piloted by THE pilot, not the ONLY pilot. Someone else would take over, they just wouldn't be as capable, and they would concentrate on leaving ASAP. Alternatively, the medic/healer could cast Raise Dead/Defibrillator and get the pilot back in the game (hard to do if everyone is in their own ship, cut off from each other). Redundancy = good, cookie cutter = bad.
As has been stated earlier in the thread, it's assumed that ship repairs will happen mid combat, and being the person responsible for flying, shooting, repairing, and whatever else the other two roles are is something I'd bet a single character can't do effectively. You'll end up with more party fatalities that way. Sure you could argue that you'll get a TPK if the bigger ship gets blown up, but that's what escape pods are for. Also, with more people on a ship, they'd likely have to all agree to go into a fight they can't win since ship combat encounters are going to be balanced by something like CR. If you, as a GM, are throwing stuff at the party that their ship can't handle, that would blow them out of the sky in a single encounter, you should probably rethink your style. Unless your party has a habit of making bad decisions that get them TPK'ed a lot; then you should probably sit down and talk to your players about what strategy is.
Bluenose wrote: Steelfiredragon wrote: yep.. .yep.. yep...
basically a ship recommend for me to all is:
in no particular order.
Light Freighter
Heavy Freighter
squad transport ship( think the soldier ship for SW:TOR)
Corvette
Frigate ( and this one is pushing it, no matter how you get it)
ships I would not recommend
shuttle
carriers
Capital ships
Fighters.
but, no matter what; each ship has drawbacks....
A lot depends on how you're defining the classes. The RN Corvettes of World War Two had crews of 80+. which seems far too many for a PC ship. Traveller and Star Trek small ships of similar function can often get by with crews of under twenty. I think it depends on exactly how crew complements are implemented in the game, as some ways of doing that would make it easier to handle larger crews.
And as an additional note, a small exploration or science vessel also seems like a practical size ship for a PC group. I would go by star wars and stay far away from the real world ships.
and the frigate I put in, can be modified for either or both
and for star trek.
the smaler ships like the peregrine, small crew. you realise that ship isa fighter escort.
the miranda class( which includes the infamous USS Reliant) its crew is between 50 and 100 personnel
the defiant class( tactical escort) the crew is under 50( think it was like 30, not sure anymore)
and the shuttles and runabouts . I wouldnt mess with the shuttle craft.
but the runnabout carried a crew of 4 and better off than the shuttle for long range travel.
and the other ships, their crews are over 200 with the larger ships around 900 to 1000 personnel
other than that I do agree, science and exploration ships would work as well
PS. the reason I chose to base them off SW, is that the ships can function with a smaller crew than the RW and Star trek ships
PSS: never heard of traveller
For ship types, earlier in the thread I described a ship that I called a "corvette". I was basing that off of the size of real world battle ships, not on the number of crew. Corvettes are (I think) the smallest ships that can qualify as a warship. Modern corvettes are 55-128 meters long, but I think that 50-100 meters long (and capable of being adequately crewed by 1 pilot, 1 engineer, and 1 gunner) is more appropriate. It should be able to fly with just one person at the helm, and also have stations for up to 7-8 crew (sensor operators, extra gunners, extra engineers, a captain). This is close to what I'm imagining for a bridge, but I think the gunner could be in a turret, and the engineer should be in the engine room or something (just my personal preference).
*Here the site went down and I lost 75% of my post* :'(
Anyways, I think the Tempest from Mass Effect: Andromeda is an ideal starting point for GM's that want to create their own ship for their players to fly around in. It has 11 people on board during the game, but only needs a pilot (and co-pilot?), and an engineer to fly. The cool thing is it's got a lot of room to add crew members to, but not so much room that it's going to become a capitol ship. It's a little on the large end for a "corvette" at 95 meters, but that's OK. Most of the room is taken up by tech and bio labs, armory, med bay, meeting room, galley, crew quarters, etc. So there isn't much risk of it becoming a carrier (although depending on how determined your group is, that does remain a possibility).
A ship like this is very flexible, and can be upgraded/tailored to the group. Probably to the point where it won't have any glaring weaknesses. Paizo has said the ships will be customizable, and I think something like this is what they have in mind.
Also, having a ship with a crew "under 50" is way too much. If your crew size needs to be in the double digits, you've probably got too much ship. Here's some examples that, in my opinion, would make good ships for a group of Starfinders.
Small ship for 2-3 people.
Medium Ship about what I'd expect for a typical group.
Large Ship for a bigger party.
the normandy( either one) like the Tempest wouldnt be considered a target for a carrier either for the same reason of being too short. Like the Tempest though it too could be considered a corevette ship.
when I think of corvette, its the tantive 4 from star wars and other corellian corevettes and other corvettes within teh star wars universe.
though in some cases, a larger crew, is also for long distance travel too. even with auto pilot, who wants to stay at their station all the time.
btw, the tempest from andromeda is a far more Superior ship over the Normandy.....(I hate the normandy)
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Steelfiredragon wrote: the smaler ships like the peregrine, small crew. you realise that ship isa fighter escort.
the miranda class( which includes the infamous USS Reliant) its crew is between 50 and 100 personnel
the defiant class( tactical escort) the crew is under 50( think it was like 30, not sure anymore)
and the shuttles and runabouts . I wouldnt mess with the shuttle craft.
but the runnabout carried a crew of 4 and better off than the shuttle for long range travel.
and the other ships, their crews are over 200 with the larger ships around 900 to 1000 personnel
You've got most of them, just the Miranda is a bit off. :)
From the DS9 Tech manual:
A Miranda class starship (USS Reliant) has a crew of 200, with a maximum of 500 in case of evacuations.
A Defiant class starship (USS Defiant) has a crew of 40, with a maximum of 150 in case of evacuations
A Galaxy class starship (USS Enterprise D) has a crew of 1012, with 200 visiting personnel and a maximum of 15000 in case of evactuations
An Excelsior class starship (USS Enterprise B) has a crew of 750, with 130 visiting personnel and a maximum of 9700 in case of evacuations
If we go to the Constitution class (USS Enterprise) and Constitution refit (USS Enterprise A) we get numbers of 205 (2250's)/400(2260's) to 432 (2270's)/500(2290's). (These are sadly not written out in the DS9 tech manual)
All this said, I still see no problem for a party to be in command of one of these ships.
If I take the Enterprise D for example you need the following roles filled in starfinder:
Captain (Picard)
Helmsman/Pilot (Crusher, Wesley)
Engineer (LaForge)
Tactical/Weapons (Worf)
Science (Data)
All the other crew are simple NPCS, just like the ships from Skull and Shackles.
Here is the problem:
The GM has this first level scenario set up: "you are hired by a broker who claims to represent the Xenowardens. He want's you to smuggle a cargo of energy weapons to a group of opressed natives on the local moon". (This is actually what I have planned).
How would the crew react to such a legally dodgy/small time commission? Why would the broker aproach the captain of a naval/pirate frigate in the first instance?
From what I gather, the Adventure Path scenario would be equally inappropriate.
And of course, as the rules are set up, a ship with a crew of 6 would perform just as well as a ship with a crew of 60. There us no gameplay advantage to those extra bodies.
Many Star Trek freighters seem to operate with either single-sophont crews or very small ones, the Maquis Raider we see in Voyager has around twenty crew, and some of the other governments make small warp-capable starships like the Klingon Bird-of-Prey that destroys Enterprise in Star Trek III. So there's those too.
Anyway, I'd rather see what the rules are (or if there are any) before making any judgement on the practicality of using ships larger than the PCs can crew alone. I do wonder if it would be worth writing up some rules I had in mind where a crew was treated as a henchman/swarm being with a class and the ability to level up, increasing their skills and learning crew-specific feats that need more than one person.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fardragon wrote: Here is the problem:
The GM has this first level scenario set up: "you are hired by a broker who claims to represent the Xenowardens. He want's you to smuggle a cargo of energy weapons to a group of opressed natives on the local moon". (This is actually what I have planned).
How would the crew react to such a legally dodgy/small time commission? Why would the broker aproach the captain of a naval/pirate frigate in the first instance?
From what I gather, the Adventure Path scenario would be equally inappropriate.
And of course, as the rules are set up, a ship with a crew of 6 would perform just as well as a ship with a crew of 60. There us no gameplay advantage to those extra bodies.
Considering you've informed your players about the type of campaign you want to run (you did do that right?), they will have made characters that have no huge issues that will prevent them from accepting that type of request.
The broker would likely have heard that the pirate frigate crew is one of the best blockade runners or the idiots that actually take on such "suicidal" missions, or maybe the broker wants to give a few upstarts a chance to prove themselves. If he went to a Navy captain, it would most likely be a navy that has some stake in this and the broker has been referred to that particular captain/crew by the higherups or informants in the navy.
Which adventurepath are you talking about? Skull and Shackles or Dead Suns?
In the case of Skull and Shackles we were informed (by both GM and playerguide) that your character should have some ambitions as to become a pirate.
This is information I currently lack from Dead Suns, what kind of ambitions a character should have or strive towards to actually be a main protagonist of the story.
Bluenose wrote: Many Star Trek freighters seem to operate with either single-sophont crews or very small ones, the Maquis Raider we see in Voyager has around twenty crew, and some of the other governments make small warp-capable starships like the Klingon Bird-of-Prey that destroys Enterprise in Star Trek III. So there's those too.
Anyway, I'd rather see what the rules are (or if there are any) before making any judgement on the practicality of using ships larger than the PCs can crew alone. I do wonder if it would be worth writing up some rules I had in mind where a crew was treated as a henchman/swarm being with a class and the ability to level up, increasing their skills and learning crew-specific feats that need more than one person.
Yes, the common science fiction trope (which isn't unrealistic) is that space freighters, even massive ones, are operated by tiny crews. The Nostromo from Alien for example.
Damanta wrote: Fardragon wrote: Here is the problem:
The GM has this first level scenario set up: "you are hired by a broker who claims to represent the Xenowardens. He want's you to smuggle a cargo of energy weapons to a group of opressed natives on the local moon". (This is actually what I have planned).
How would the crew react to such a legally dodgy/small time commission? Why would the broker aproach the captain of a naval/pirate frigate in the first instance?
From what I gather, the Adventure Path scenario would be equally inappropriate.
And of course, as the rules are set up, a ship with a crew of 6 would perform just as well as a ship with a crew of 60. There us no gameplay advantage to those extra bodies.
Considering you've informed your players about the type of campaign you want to run (you did do that right?), they will have made characters that have no huge issues that will prevent them from accepting that type of request.
The broker would likely have heard that the pirate frigate crew is one of the best blockade runners or the idiots that actually take on such "suicidal" missions, or maybe the broker wants to give a few upstarts a chance to prove themselves. If he went to a Navy captain, it would most likely be a navy that has some stake in this and the broker has been referred to that particular captain/crew by the higherups or informants in the navy.
Which adventurepath are you talking about? Skull and Shackles or Dead Suns?
In the case of Skull and Shackles we were informed (by both GM and playerguide) that your character should have some ambitions as to become a pirate.
This is information I currently lack from Dead Suns, what kind of ambitions a character should have or strive towards to actually be a main protagonist of the story. If the broker went to the navy, he would be arrested. If he went to pirates he would be thrown out the airlock for suggesting such a small-time job.
But it's a meaningless hypothetical, since the players are getting a light freighter, a scout-ship or a yacht, as per standard rules.
I do have alternative plot hook if the players aren't happy with the morality of the primary hook.
And yes, I'm talking about the Dead Suns campaign, which seems to be based on the assumption that the PCs are the crew of a Serenity type (with slightly more guns) light freighter.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
You're talking about a 1st level quest.
1st level pirates do not have the luxury to be picky about the jobs they take, because they still need to make a name for themselves, and doing some smuggling/blockade running makes for a nice start to get some cash. (Also, lots of hooks, do they go through with it or not, do they keep the guns or extort the locals even more before handing them over etc.)
Since you are referring to light freighter, scout-ship or yacht, I assume you have more informaton about a starting group's equipment than I. I haven't had the opportunity to go to any of the cons where starfinder has been demonstrated, nor have I seen anything about the starting ships yet.
I've avoided most of the Dead Suns stuff, as I'm not going to GM it but play it, and I want to be as spoilerfree as possible, but good to know that it's based around an armed feighter crew.
Fardragon wrote: Damanta wrote: Fardragon wrote: Here is the problem:
The GM has this first level scenario set up: "you are hired by a broker who claims to represent the Xenowardens. He want's you to smuggle a cargo of energy weapons to a group of opressed natives on the local moon". (This is actually what I have planned).
How would the crew react to such a legally dodgy/small time commission? Why would the broker aproach the captain of a naval/pirate frigate in the first instance?
From what I gather, the Adventure Path scenario would be equally inappropriate.
And of course, as the rules are set up, a ship with a crew of 6 would perform just as well as a ship with a crew of 60. There us no gameplay advantage to those extra bodies.
Considering you've informed your players about the type of campaign you want to run (you did do that right?), they will have made characters that have no huge issues that will prevent them from accepting that type of request.
The broker would likely have heard that the pirate frigate crew is one of the best blockade runners or the idiots that actually take on such "suicidal" missions, or maybe the broker wants to give a few upstarts a chance to prove themselves. If he went to a Navy captain, it would most likely be a navy that has some stake in this and the broker has been referred to that particular captain/crew by the higherups or informants in the navy.
Which adventurepath are you talking about? Skull and Shackles or Dead Suns?
In the case of Skull and Shackles we were informed (by both GM and playerguide) that your character should have some ambitions as to become a pirate.
This is information I currently lack from Dead Suns, what kind of ambitions a character should have or strive towards to actually be a main protagonist of the story. If the broker went to the navy, he would be arrested. If he went to pirates he would be thrown out the airlock for suggesting such a small-time job.
But it's a meaningless hypothetical, since the players are getting a light freighter, a scout-ship or a yacht, as per standard rules.
I do have alternative plot hook if the players aren't happy with the morality of the primary hook.
And yes, I'm talking about the Dead Suns campaign, which seems to be based on the assumption that the PCs are the crew of a Serenity type (with slightly more guns) light freighter. I can agree that a large crew is likely inappropriate at first level. That doesn't necessarily remain true as the party grows in power. Maybe they buy (or steal or capture) a bigger ship. Maybe they want back up for some of the positions. Who knows.
Might not be appropriate for some campaigns. Might be necessary for others.
Do the Xenowardens want to help out these "oppressed natives"? You see these "oppressed natives" ruled a sizable portion of their "primitive planet" and would just love to get their hands on some energy weapons to overthrow their "colonial oppressors", they especially resent the fact that those same "colonial oppressors" outlawed slavery! They would just love to conquer a few planets of their own as well, thus they want to increase their tech level. Were these the "Oppressed Natives" they had in mind?
Here are some more "oppressed natives" that could really use those energy weapons.
How about energy weapons for these guys? In an interstellar campaign, they could be seen as oppressed natives too and could really use those energy weapons.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Fardragon wrote: Here is the problem:
The GM has this first level scenario set up: "you are hired by a broker who claims to represent the Xenowardens. He want's you to smuggle a cargo of energy weapons to a group of opressed natives on the local moon". (This is actually what I have planned).
How would the crew react to such a legally dodgy/small time commission? Why would the broker aproach the captain of a naval/pirate frigate in the first instance?
From what I gather, the Adventure Path scenario would be equally inappropriate.
And of course, as the rules are set up, a ship with a crew of 6 would perform just as well as a ship with a crew of 60. There us no gameplay advantage to those extra bodies.
Do you have actual evidence for that claim of 6=60 in performance? I don't think we have enough info for this statement to hold much weight.
Key Starship Modules:
Cockpit, Sensors, Life Support, Cargo Bay, Engines
Weapon Systems, Defensive Systems/External, Defensive Systems/Internal
Just how detailed and sensitive will sensors be? If I am in a star system can my sensors pick up all the planets in my solar system? Will sensors only be able to reach out about 100,000 km? Can I detect things in other star systems from my ship?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think PC ships will be more Guardians of the Galaxy and Millennium Falcon than the Enterprise
modified freighter ( regardless of weight)
corvette ( also regardless of weight)
Frigate
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote: Fardragon wrote: Here is the problem:
The GM has this first level scenario set up: "you are hired by a broker who claims to represent the Xenowardens. He want's you to smuggle a cargo of energy weapons to a group of opressed natives on the local moon". (This is actually what I have planned).
How would the crew react to such a legally dodgy/small time commission? Why would the broker aproach the captain of a naval/pirate frigate in the first instance?
From what I gather, the Adventure Path scenario would be equally inappropriate.
And of course, as the rules are set up, a ship with a crew of 6 would perform just as well as a ship with a crew of 60. There us no gameplay advantage to those extra bodies.
Do you have actual evidence for that claim of 6=60 in performance? I don't think we have enough info for this statement to hold much weight. Yes. Only player characters can perform actions and make skill rolls. That's true if they are crewing a light freighter or a megadestroyer. In gameplay terms there is simply nothing for your 54 NPCs to do.
there is one thing that crew of 60+ can be used for.
add the number to the skillchecks for repairs and what not
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Fardragon wrote: Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote: Fardragon wrote: Here is the problem:
The GM has this first level scenario set up: "you are hired by a broker who claims to represent the Xenowardens. He want's you to smuggle a cargo of energy weapons to a group of opressed natives on the local moon". (This is actually what I have planned).
How would the crew react to such a legally dodgy/small time commission? Why would the broker aproach the captain of a naval/pirate frigate in the first instance?
From what I gather, the Adventure Path scenario would be equally inappropriate.
And of course, as the rules are set up, a ship with a crew of 6 would perform just as well as a ship with a crew of 60. There us no gameplay advantage to those extra bodies.
Do you have actual evidence for that claim of 6=60 in performance? I don't think we have enough info for this statement to hold much weight. Yes. Only player characters can perform actions and make skill rolls. That's true if they are crewing a light freighter or a megadestroyer. In gameplay terms there is simply nothing for your 54 NPCs to do. Evidence: I don't think it means what you seem to think it means.
There's nothing so far that says every roll must be filled, or that one roll can't be doubled up on (except perhaps I saw something confirming that for pilot). Why can you not have as many gunners as guns, for instance? I'm fine with it if that's the case, but I asked for evidence. You keep making a lot of assumptions and assertions, though...
Edit: from the collected info doc "Only one player each can be the captain and the pilot, however you can have multiples of other roles."
Players can double up on roles, but they can still only take one action and one minor action per round, so if they do a pilot manoeuvre they can't restore the shields or use the sensors and so on.
Extra PCs are useful as additional gunners or engineers, but NPCs don't count. So if you have 60 players they can all be useful, but 54 NPCs are just a liability.
In Star Trek RPG the NPC crew are tracked, and if too many die the efficiency of ship functions is impaired. There is also a role for a Medical Officer who can mitigate crew damage. But the Starfinder starship sheets have no box to track crew damage, and there is no medical officer role.
Fardragon wrote: Players can double up on roles, but they can still only take one action and one minor action per round, so if they do a pilot manoeuvre they can't restore the shields or use the sensors and so on.
Extra PCs are useful as additional gunners or engineers, but NPCs don't count. So if you have 60 players they can all be useful, but 54 NPCs are just a liability.
In Star Trek RPG the NPC crew are tracked, and if too many die the efficiency of ship functions is impaired. There is also a role for a Medical Officer who can mitigate crew damage. But the Starfinder starship sheets have no box to track crew damage, and there is no medical officer role.
Seriously? NPCs don't count?
If you've got a small group of players, you can't fill roles with NPCs? This is an official rule?
The GM could add a pseudo-PC to the party I guess, in the same way as you might in Pathfinder if you didn't have enough players, but generally it is supposed to be covered by having lower challenge rating enemies if the number of players is small.
The idea is to make things managable for the GM by not having to make dozens of skill rolls every turn for the opposition.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The cap ship in the demo had multiple NPC crew members...where are you getting this 'NPCs don't matter' idea?
I mean, if you've got actual info, please be clearer about it.
if they are not on the bridge they dont count. they spell.
sorry I couldnt resist.
on that note.
bigger the ship, larger the crew, bigger the bridge crew,
station that holds a npc bridge officer only would do what the station is, no choice....
all that and box of grapes.
still dont really need a crew larger than 150( hypothetical number for a frigate crew)
thejeff wrote: Fardragon wrote: Players can double up on roles, but they can still only take one action and one minor action per round, so if they do a pilot manoeuvre they can't restore the shields or use the sensors and so on.
Extra PCs are useful as additional gunners or engineers, but NPCs don't count. So if you have 60 players they can all be useful, but 54 NPCs are just a liability.
In Star Trek RPG the NPC crew are tracked, and if too many die the efficiency of ship functions is impaired. There is also a role for a Medical Officer who can mitigate crew damage. But the Starfinder starship sheets have no box to track crew damage, and there is no medical officer role.
Seriously? NPCs don't count?
If you've got a small group of players, you can't fill roles with NPCs? This is an official rule? Just make a character sheet for each of them! What's so hard about that?
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
I would imagine that there should be guidelines for NPC crew for encountered ships that could be applied to a larger player controlled ship with a large contingent of NPCs.
If there are enough of them, I could see adding a role for an executive officer, whose task is to control the actions of and make rolls for the NPC crew members. This role could be taken by a player who is second best among the PCs in his selected ship combat role and thus does not actually need to fill that role.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CKent83 wrote: Also, if everyone is supposed to be piloting their own ship, you're losing out on party diversity. If you've got 4 small ships going up against an encounter designed for a normal party, they're probably going to take many more casualties because they are squishier, can't shoot, fly, repair, scan, and whatever else all at the same time. 1 big ship automatically has much more defense just from sheer bulk, and can have someone dedicated to repairs, can have much larger/more guns with a dedicated gunner, and can be better at avoiding attacks because you can have some specialized in piloting. This diverse group will have those same strengths when they are on the ground adventuring, whereas a group of 4 pilots would be too similar, and, again, will take more casualties from being unable to deal with specialized threats.
TL;DR: a big ship with a diverse crew is better than a greater number of ships piloted by characters that can't do everything at the same time.
EDIT: grammar.
This is all based on a lot of assumptions though.
We know there are single crewed fighters in the game, so lets assume they can perform basic move and shoot in a single turn. they probably can also perform something like a target lock or sensor scan, maybe at the cost of moving or shooting.
Defense being based on bulk is a realism thing sure but that doesnt mean it is how the system will work, we have seen indications that AC is going to be based off gear equipped instead of ship size "mark 1 armor"
Why assume that the PCs die when their ship goes up? It seems like every armor in the game is enviromentally sealed and has life support for a minimum of 24 hours. Worst case scenario, you have who ever is left with a ship craming survivors uncomfortably into their cockpits and doing an emergency landing. one survivor at a time if need be, it only takes a few sesconds of real time to discuss it after the battle.
A normal assumption in the genre is that smaller ships are more agile and harder to hit as well, you trade slugging blows with dodging and knife fighting. and Serenity or Falcon sized sihps have to be moddified to hell and back to survive their encounters (that are usually just running away from the bad thing) so imagine what those resources on a proper fighting ship would have done?
i dont really buy into any of your assumptions actually. the kinds of ships you would expect a 4-6 man crew to operate would generally be fodder for a group of 4-6 fighters or any military ship of corvette size and up. Assuming a corvette has a crew of 50-100 on board and weapons meant to intercept and damage other warships. So really, for the game's sake, we should assume that whatever ship the PCs get, if that is one medium sized or lots of individual ones, they will have plot advantages that make them outperform anything else in their tier and being a single person fitgher or 6 man freighter wont have nearly as much effect as just being owned by a PC.
In the end, i would expect the system can support the PCs splitting up their resources in a couple of different ways, one freghter, one medium ship with a few fighters, everyone in their own fighter or some mixed fleet of scout craft. Because these are all common tropes in sci-fi and it shouldnt be too hard to make it supportable since effectiveness is more closely tied to gear and level than base ship.
CKent83 wrote: For ship types, earlier in the thread I described a ship that I called a "corvette". I was basing that off of the size of real world battle ships, not on the number of crew. Corvettes are (I think) the smallest ships that can qualify as a warship. Modern corvettes are 55-128 meters long, but I think that 50-100 meters long (and capable of being adequately crewed by 1 pilot, 1 engineer, and 1 gunner) is more appropriate. Depends on what you call warship, there are guided missile patrol craft that are usually under 50 meters and have crews of around 20 instead of ~100 that you see on corvettes. the problem with ships smaller than that is they dont have the stores on board (fuel/water/food) for traveling far from home and when they get hit by weapons designed for 9,000 ton destroyers they are done for.
Still, i maintain that the ship size, effectiveness and capabilities will be determined far more by PC ownership and campaign style than any aspect of realism.
Also, yeah, just got pointed to this thread so multiple posts.
Torbyne wrote: CKent83 wrote: Also, if everyone is supposed to be piloting their own ship, you're losing out on party diversity. If you've got 4 small ships going up against an encounter designed for a normal party, they're probably going to take many more casualties because they are squishier, can't shoot, fly, repair, scan, and whatever else all at the same time. 1 big ship automatically has much more defense just from sheer bulk, and can have someone dedicated to repairs, can have much larger/more guns with a dedicated gunner, and can be better at avoiding attacks because you can have some specialized in piloting. This diverse group will have those same strengths when they are on the ground adventuring, whereas a group of 4 pilots would be too similar, and, again, will take more casualties from being unable to deal with specialized threats.
TL;DR: a big ship with a diverse crew is better than a greater number of ships piloted by characters that can't do everything at the same time.
EDIT: grammar.
This is all based on a lot of assumptions though.
We know there are single crewed fighters in the game, so lets assume they can perform basic move and shoot in a single turn. they probably can also perform something like a target lock or sensor scan, maybe at the cost of moving or shooting.
Actually, we know quite a lot quite a lot about how starship combat works, and have seen it in action. We know that each PC - not each ship - can perform one action, and one quick action in a turn.
So yes, each ship can (and must) perform basic movement. But anything else it wants to do - mavouver, fire weapons, perform a sensor scan, recharge shields, repair system damage, give an inspirational order is limited by the number of PCs on the crew.
And in order to do those things, you will need the appropiate skill Pilot, Gunnery, Engineering, Computer, etc. A fighter pilot would need to have all those skills, which would make their options a bit limited on the ground.
i still dont buy it, you dont need a bard giving a party buff, you dont need a cleric casting support, you dont need a wizard running battlefield control, you can run a party of switch hitter barbarians that are brutal in what they do... you just dont play that group in an intrigue heavy game. just as you dont need a mechanic running repairs or a motivational speech, just follow along with quick table talk and do your thing and that works. since themes are dissociated from class and arent suppose to influence combat very heavily the PCs can still be as diverse as they want outside of their ships.
The action economy i was thinking about before wasnt that some players dont have things to do in ship combat but more of, there is only one gunner and the ship only makes one attack. split that up into 3-4 fighters and even if the guns are weaker you could end up with more hits and more damage done, which ends the fight sooner so you dont need as much repair or shield balance. This is not to say there wont be groups running around in smallish freighters, just that there should be more than one way to play.
Fardragon wrote: Torbyne wrote: CKent83 wrote: Also, if everyone is supposed to be piloting their own ship, you're losing out on party diversity. If you've got 4 small ships going up against an encounter designed for a normal party, they're probably going to take many more casualties because they are squishier, can't shoot, fly, repair, scan, and whatever else all at the same time. 1 big ship automatically has much more defense just from sheer bulk, and can have someone dedicated to repairs, can have much larger/more guns with a dedicated gunner, and can be better at avoiding attacks because you can have some specialized in piloting. This diverse group will have those same strengths when they are on the ground adventuring, whereas a group of 4 pilots would be too similar, and, again, will take more casualties from being unable to deal with specialized threats.
TL;DR: a big ship with a diverse crew is better than a greater number of ships piloted by characters that can't do everything at the same time.
EDIT: grammar.
This is all based on a lot of assumptions though.
We know there are single crewed fighters in the game, so lets assume they can perform basic move and shoot in a single turn. they probably can also perform something like a target lock or sensor scan, maybe at the cost of moving or shooting.
Actually, we know quite a lot quite a lot about how starship combat works, and have seen it in action. We know that each PC - not each ship - can perform one action, and one quick action in a turn.
So yes, each ship can (and must) perform basic movement. But anything else it wants to do - mavouver, fire weapons, perform a sensor scan, recharge shields, repair system damage, give an inspirational order is limited by the number of PCs on the crew.
And in order to do those things, you will need the appropiate skill Pilot, Gunnery, Engineering, Computer, etc. A fighter pilot would need to have all those skills, which would make their options a bit limited on the ground. Which means single crewed fighters are at best mostly useless. And yet they're part of the system.
Maybe there are exceptions for those?
Does seem like you'd need at least some of the multiple skills, but making it completely ineffective due to action economy seems like a bad idea. Just ban single fighters if that's the intent.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Single fighters make use of the AI for combat functions. Fighters will needs support from a larger ship to be the most effective, though. I expect 1-2 fighters alongside a larger ship to be pretty common.
KingOfAnything wrote: Single fighters make use of the AI for combat functions. Fighters will needs support from a larger ship to be the most effective, though. I expect 1-2 fighters alongside a larger ship to be pretty common. Heres hoping. let the command ship pass targeting data and run the EW side of house while the fighters do the warheads to foreheads part.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
From the very early playtests, the science officer was a surprisingly effective participant. Identifying enemy status/weaknesses/abilities is important for keeping your allies alive and dealing maximum damage.
Gameplay may have changed since then.
I don't think an all-fighter party fleet makes sense, but I'd be very interested to see a carrier-class adventuring ship that relies on smaller vessels for damage.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
KingOfAnything wrote: Single fighters make use of the AI for combat functions. Fighters will needs support from a larger ship to be the most effective, though. I expect 1-2 fighters alongside a larger ship to be pretty common. So... Cowboy Bebop? I would be cool with that.
|
