Building an optimal "good at starship fighting" starship for four 2nd-level PCs


Advice


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am trying to figure out an optimal "good at starship fighting" build for four 2nd-level PCs' tier 2 starship. So far, I have the following:

Budget of 75 BP:
• 6 BP: Base Frame: Shuttle
• 12 BP: Power Core: Pulse Black, PCU budget 120
• 6 BP: Thrusters: S12 Thrusters, PCU consumption 60
• 6 BP: Armor: Mk 3 armor
• 0 BP: Computer: Basic computer
• 0 BP: Crew Quarters: Common
• 4 BP: Defensive Countermeasures: Mk 3 defenses, PCU consumption 2
• 4 BP: Drift Engine: Signal Basic
• 6 BP: Sensors: Budget long-range
• 25 BP: Weapons: Linked coilguns on extra turret mounts, PCU consumption 20
• 6 BP: Shields: Light Shields 50, PCU consumption 20

The idea here is to use the long-range sensors to keep track of enemies from as far a distance as possible, then use the long-range the linked coilgun turrets (just like the Vindicas Tyrant) to attack from long range for 8d4 damage (average 20). Since they act as one weapon, the gunner can fire both of them using the Shoot action, thus avoiding the -4 attack penalty of Fire at Will. Since turrets can fire in any arc, the ship has the freedom to attack just about anything.

S12 thrusters let the ship kite for as long as possible as it flies away, and remember, the linked turrets can fire in any arc, which will surely annoy enemy ships giving pursuit. Small size and as cost-effective an array of defensive options as possible ensure that the ship can stay alive.

As needed, even without a science officer around, you can turn the ship to have its strongest shields receive attacks, since the turrets make facing much less important for you.

By 3rd level, the ship can afford some luxurious quarters and some expansion bays to make life nicer aboard the ship, but 2nd-level PCs can put up with rather spartan accommodations for a single level.

How can this 75 BP build for the ship be improved? I have an inkling that this is actually the best possible build for low-tier starships, since it relies on the cheese that is long-distance kiting. Does such a hunch hold any water?


I think there's a certain irony seeing that name attached to combat optimization.

That aside, I believe that for tier two, that is likely about what you're looking for with one caveat - while I lean toward allowing turret additions at this point, there is sufficient ambiguity that you could rule the other way. Unless you're the one running the campaign, this isn't guaranteed to work. As long as we accept it, though, there are changes you can make, but I can't call them improvements. Lateral shifts according to taste, perhaps.

The real question here is whether additional shielding would be worth losing one or two AC. Cut it by 1 and you can get shields up to 60 - 2, and up to 70. This improves shields per arc by 2.5 and 5 respectively, though it drops your piloted AC from an expected 16 to 15 or 14. Whether bumping a Necroglider's to-hit chance over 50% is worth the additional shielding is questionable and situational. The more advance warning you have, and the further away you can stay, the more powerful more shielding becomes - at the very limit of your own first range increment, the Necroglider already takes a -6 penalty, and it is as fast as you but no faster - which means another -2 for Snapshot if it's keeping pace.

The real threat on a fighter level is the BMC Mauler, but you're faster than both it and its missiles. +12 Gunnery is enough that it can eat a range increment penalty or two (or three) on its plasma cannon and still have some chance at hitting, but a single Mauler will still be poorly matched against this ship.

It's a toss-up, really. There is one alternative, though. If - and only if - you can be certain that you won't need to Drift travel under the ship's own power before you can upgrade after reaching level 3, you can cut the Signal Basic and use its BP to boost your shields to 70. This is a straight improvement from a pure combat perspective, but will only be feasible if that condition holds true. Possible in some campaigns, but not all of them.

So long as we accept the turret mounts, I think this is more or less what you're looking for from a tier 2 budget with a kiting approach. I can't give you anything else except a statblock.

Spoiler:
Kite Flier: Tier 2
Small Shuttle
Speed: 12; Maneuverability: Perfect (Turn 0); Drift: 1
AC: 14 + Pilot; TL: 14+ Pilot
HP: 35; DT: -; CT: 7
Shields: Light Shields 50 (13/12/12/13)
Attack
- Turret: Linked coilguns (8d4)
Power Core: Pulse Black (120 PCU); Drift Engine: Signal Basic (75 PCU min.)
Systems: Basic computer, basic long-range sensors, mk 3 armor, mk 3 defenses
Expansion Bays: N/A
Modifiers: +1 Piloting
Complement: 1-4

Leftover: 0 BP, 18 PCU (3 with Drift Engine)


It has good AC and TL too, which is always a plus. The best-possible turn radius is awesome. The three expansion bays give lots of flexibility over the ship's career. I think you'll hit maximum capability somewhere between tier 12-16, depending on how heavily you arm the ship.

Its two challenges are (a) lack of point defense; and (b) it cannot outrun the fastest tracking weapons. Then again, nothing can outrun light torpedoes, not even the fastest interceptor piloting by a Sky Jockey. Early priorities will be shields and either point-defense, improved defensive countermeasures or both. Defensive Countermeasures are relatively affordable in terms of BP and PCU a long way up the chain and don't eat up precious weapon mount slots. Mark 12 are very, very good and quite inexpensive in BP and PCU for their not-insignificant benefit.

Another challenge for the smaller size ships is that they can only upgrade so far in terms of power core. A Medium ship can theoretically be fitted out with an extra power core in each expansion bay slot, potentially granting it vast amounts of PCU.

One thing I didn't see mentioned was using tracking weapons against other tracking weapons. Barring explicit language to the contrary, so long as you're kiting the enemies from at least the outermost edge of your first long range increment, you should have enough time to counter-track those dreaded fast torpedoes.

Range isn't imperviousness until you're a long way out from the bad guys. Early on you'll need the better part of an entire map between them and you to easily evade close range direct fire weapons and have several rounds between the slower tracking weapons and your precious shields. You're fast enough to keep that distance, which is very nice. Later on, given the current in-print gunnery bonuses the enemies have, you simply must attain a distance of >50 hexes between them and you so you can ignore their close range weaponry completely while heavily penalizing their medium range weaponry's attack rolls.

How cooperative the actual encounters are feeling in terms of initial engagement distance is an entirely different matter...


Long-term sustainability of this design is a potential issue, yes, but of all the concerns you raise I think only encounter design is a major concern given the tier 2 condition. But frankly, I'm not sure there is a more obviously optimal design for tier 2. Would more defenses be nice? Certainly. They would always be nice. What will you cut to fund them? In the same vein, would more offense be nice, to speed up combat and reduce the need for defense? Most definitely! We could stick a Gyrolaser on the back for an extra potential 1d8 damage in three of four arcs... but what shall we cut to buy it?

There's not an obvious way to deal with tracking weapons for this ship, and frankly I think it's a very questionable reading of the rules to say you can fire on them with your own. And it's questionable how many power cores a medium ship can hold - but let's not have a discussion about that here. That warrants its own topic, which I'll touch on shortly.

There are valid concerns here, but for the specific constraints given, I'll stand by my assessment; this is close to the ideal kiting design for a tier 2 ship.

The next step, of course, is obviously figuring out how many Necrogliders it could actually take in a fight given specific starting conditions.


Hithesius wrote:

Long-term sustainability of this design is a potential issue, yes, but of all the concerns you raise I think only encounter design is a major concern given the tier 2 condition. But frankly, I'm not sure there is a more obviously optimal design for tier 2. Would more defenses be nice? Certainly. They would always be nice. What will you cut to fund them? In the same vein, would more offense be nice, to speed up combat and reduce the need for defense? Most definitely! We could stick a Gyrolaser on the back for an extra potential 1d8 damage in three of four arcs... but what shall we cut to buy it?

There's not an obvious way to deal with tracking weapons for this ship, and frankly I think it's a very questionable reading of the rules to say you can fire on them with your own. And it's questionable how many power cores a medium ship can hold - but let's not have a discussion about that here. That warrants its own topic, which I'll touch on shortly.

There are valid concerns here, but for the specific constraints given, I'll stand by my assessment; this is close to the ideal kiting design for a tier 2 ship.

The next step, of course, is obviously figuring out how many Necrogliders it could actually take in a fight given specific starting conditions.

There's no real way to up-gun this ship any better at tier 2 - thought I was clear. If not, then I'll reiterate that this about as good as it gets at tier 2 for a group of 4. You need everything that's there. A solid offense in all firing arcs via the turret.

I don't see why you can't fire on tracking weapons. They're not moving so much faster than starships are except if you're within "point blank" (same round to target) range, which is where point weapons' "point" property comes into play. They're not all that much smaller, although I suspect hitting them gets tricky. I can see denying heavy weapons the ability to fire on them in the same way that capitol weapons cannot track and fire against Small and Tiny starships.

Necrogliders are CR 1/2, so 2 is a CR 2 and 3 are a CR 3, making them a tough fight for a tier 2 ship, perhaps deadly. They're just as fast as the S12 thrusters of the shuttle, so kiting is the only way to win out. Gyrolasers, on average, will beat down an arc's shield hp in 2 shots, so if there's 2 of 'em they pop one arc's shields in 1 round (if they hit given the close range increment of gyrolasers). It depends heavily on the numbers.

I think the intent would be to fight at most 2 necrogliders with this ship, and the players'll be sweating it while they do.


You can't fire in tracking weapons because the book doesn't say you can. If it did it would have to provide an AC, TL, and HP value.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I question firing on tracking weapons because the only thing that indicates it's even possible is the Point weapon quality, which permits it in a specific circumstance with mechanics that do not quite match firing on anything else. There is a DC to hit a tracking weapon, rather than AC, and it's a Gunnery check with a fixed bonus based purely on the specific weapon rather than anything the gunner is doing. There are no other references to tracking projectiles being discreet objects which can be targeted. So far as I can tell, they have no AC, TL, HP, or anything else you would expect of a target; they have only a speed, and a DC for the point defense check.

Should you be able to fire on them? From a realism perspective, maybe. Can you fire on them? From a mechanical perspective, probably not. You are free to read it otherwise, but I think there is enough to point more strongly in the opposite direction.

Even within its range increment, a Necroglider's +5 Gunnery only gives it coin-flip odds of hitting the shuttle, halving its expected DPR - and 4.5 average from 1d8 would take three rounds to punch through 12 shield points anyway, not 2. 50 shields total gives 12-13 per arc, not ~9. If a Necroglider is keeping pace, that means the pilot is taking a -2 to hit with Snapshot, which cuts their accuracy down to 40%. Expected DPR from a Necroglider using Snapshot drops from a 4.5 ideal average down to 1.8.

The Necroglider has comparable AC, so the PC's base odds to hit aren't really much better. But the PC ship will be fully staffed, so let's consider. Each PC can be assumed to have 16-18 in their relevant stat, and 2 ranks in their skill. Ignoring Skill Focus, etc., that gives a total of +5-6 for Gunnery, or +8-9 for other skill checks. So the PC is also starting at about coin flip odds to hit, but without having to worry about snapshot's penalty and with a higher base damage. Even at 50% to-hit, linked coilguns have an average DPR of 10. With a captain or science officer boosting the gunner's accuracy with Encourage or Lock-On - the latter would be easier, all else being equal - that to-hit rises to 60% (or 65%, with starting 18 Dex) for a DPR of 12 (or 13). It will take 3-4 rounds to disable a Necroglider like that, but in that timespan, the Necroglider will do 5.4-7.2 damage.

5% of the power core's output is 6 points - which means that a dedicated engineer can Divert power every round, with +8-9 vs. DC 14. And the FAQ is very clear about being able to put the shield points from Divert where you want.

Fending them off will be time-consuming, certainly. And DPR is an average, so the dice might well make you hit less often and for less damage, while your enemy is getting more hits for more damage. But on average, I think this design can probably deal with 2-3 Necrogliders at once after the chase starts, without too much worry.

Right up until the dice betray you, at least.


*nods sagely* Don't'cha hate it when "This would be cool" gets in the way of/thwarted by the rules. Ah well. :)

The Science Officer's Computer checks can aid the gunnery check as well in some fashion, whether via improvement of the chance to score a critical hit or something else.

Nice thing about the shuttle at full crew is they can make that 8d4/round coilgun turret really count for more shots than not.

Until the sudden but inevitable betrayal by one's dice, of course. ;)


Upgrading to a Medium explorer frame for particle beams on turrets is probably a good idea one or two ship tiers later, which effectively means the same overall "kite enemies as much as possible and abuse a turret," except with a larger ship and larger guns, no?


Colette Brunel wrote:
Upgrading to a Medium explorer frame for particle beams on turrets is probably a good idea one or two ship tiers later, which effectively means the same overall "kite enemies as much as possible and abuse a turret," except with a larger ship and larger guns, no?

That seems to be the "sweet spot" base frame for a group. Large enough to field as much firepower as you can handle, copious expansion bays - including the not-inconsiderable ability to fit more power cores - and be slathered with all of the bells and whistles over the group's career. It's only 'downside' is that capitol-ship weapons can target it.


Once you have some BP to spare, Medium will probably be a good choice, yes. An extra potential weapon mount per arc, heavier weapons, and more HP. Maneuverability will be slightly worse, but turn 1 is barely different from turn 0 anyway, particularly with a kiting strategy. More expansion bays means more out of combat options too, plus room for another power core to fuel more options. Double up on those +300 PCU cores and grab Shields 600 at higher levels! And since both Medium frames come with a turret already on them, there's no worry about whether or not a hypothetical DM would allow more turret weapon mounts if they're letting your customize your ship to begin with.

Small ships will pragmatically cap out somewhere around 14-15 if not earlier, though I didn't run those numbers with a turret enabled. A medium ship you could easily take to 20... though until they actually check and change the DC scaling, you probably won't want to.

The only significant downside, such as it is, is as Mad Comrade says - Capital weapons can target you, but you're not big enough to carry your own.


I drew up an explorer kitted out to the nth degree I could come up with at the time. By raw BP numbers it wound up at an effective tier of 18 or 19 before I ran out of ideas for it.

Scarab Sages

The level 2 fighting ship in the Starfinder society guide to orginized play is pretty solid. Just s thought.


I had previously created a ship that abused a turret and kiting, but now, I am starting to think that the following build may be more ideal:

Budget of 75 BP:
• 12 BP: Base Frame: Explorer
• 10 BP: Power Core: Pulse Gray, PCU budget 100
• 5 BP: Thrusters: M10 Thrusters, PCU consumption 70
• 6 BP: Armor: Mk 2 armor
• 0 BP: Computer: Basic computer
• 5 BP: Crew Quarters: Luxurious
• 4 BP: Defensive Countermeasures: Mk 3 defenses, PCU consumption 2
• 6 BP: Drift Engine: Signal Basic
• 6 BP: Sensors: Budget long-range
• 6 BP: Light turret mount upgraded to heavy turret mount
• 12 BP: Heavy antimatter missile launcher, PCU consumption 15
• 3 BP: Shields: Light Shields 20, PCU consumption 10

This ship is effectively a glass cannon. The idea is to rush in to a distance of 8 hexes of the enemy ship, fire the heavy antimatter missile launcher, and hope for a hit for a whopping 10d10 (average 55) damage.

This ship's defenses are not quite as good as the tier 2 shuttle from earlier, but good grief, is its offense far higher. If it cannot end the starship battle in a total of five shots, then it was going to lose anyway.

Plus, I have managed to squeeze in luxurious crew quarters for six people in this ship.

How does this tier 2 starship build stack up against the earlier build?


The second build looks like a useful part of a fleet but not something that should be allowed out on its own. Fighting two enemies would probably go badly.


For that matter, is there any reason at all to bother with starship weapons other than turrets? The freedom to fire where one pleases is immense.

It seems much more cost-effective to concentrate on turret weapons (ideally linked weapons), especially given how the gunner actions work.


Well, that's certainly a different approach. I'm extremely wary of anything that relies exclusively on limited ammo weaponry, but let's crunch some numbers. Throwing that list together, I'm seeing 3 leftover PCU and no BP. Now, we head back to the Necrogliders and the Mauler.

As you note, this ship is a little more vulnerable - it has only 14 AC and 15 TL with a level 2 pilot in it. Two points and one point lower respectively. Worse still, closing in means the Necroglider has a much better chance to hit, because it is guaranteed to take only a -2 penalty from range increments, rather than a potential -6 or upward if you get a good start. If you only have one Necroglider to deal with, that's not such a problem - in the opening round, the pilot is very likely to move rather than act as a gunner, so it's still taking the -2 penalty from snapshot. 1d8 from a Gyrolaser can potentially punch through the shield in one shot, but it will only do damage 1 in 4 times it hits.

So for round 1, after Snapshot and the range increment, the Necroglider has only a +1 to hit vs. AC 14 for 1d8 damage. That gives 40%, or 1.8 damage average - just like before. With our numbers from before, we can assume the same hit rate - 50-65%. The difference here is that if the missile hits, it is almost guaranteed to disable the Necroglider; Anydice gives 10d10 a 99.42% chance to hit at least 33, which is exactly what we need to one-shot the Necroglider.

So, worst case odds against a Necroglider are that you flip a coin. Heads, it dies. Tails, it survives. Either way, it gets a shot off because damage resolves at the end of the gunnery phase, rather than after each attack.

For a single Necroglider, I'm not worried. You could be out of luck if the dice betray you, but you will probably hit at least once, and it's almost a guaranteed kill. The problem is if you have to face multiple Necrogliders. Not because they'll do huge amounts of damage - they can, potentially, because your shields are so thin - but because you only have five shots. Two Necrogliders? You've got decent odds. Three Necrogliders? You've got maybe a 65% chance to hit, and now you can only miss twice...

Well, that's the Corpse Fleet addressed. What about the Mauler, though? Well, now that you're not kiting it round 1, it's a much nastier enemy. With a dedicated gunner throwing around +12 to hit and another +1 from the mononode... well, it hits on a 2. You, on the other hand, are now looking at a 55% chance to hit. If you hit, you've still got an 87.42% chance to do the 45 damage you need to one-shot it, but you're all but guaranteed to take 5d8 damage yourself in the process.

And you can't automatically outrun it like before, because you've only got 10 speed now.

No, I can't say this is ideal. Can you win against a Necroglider? Almost certainly. Can you win against a Mauler? You have decent odds, but you'll take moderate to severe damage. But you have no back-up plan, and the moment you're facing three enemies or more, there's a good chance you've already lost.

Would three Necrogliders be a nasty encounter by the numbers? Oh yes. Two are already by the numbers equal to you, but your last build could handle three as long as the dice didn't screw it over. Conceivably, it could have even handled four. This one, though? With maybe a 65% chance to hit with each shot, no, I wouldn't gamble on that. Are you more likely to hit three times than miss three times? Yes. Are you sufficiently more likely to hit? Well, with that 65% chance, you miss three times almost a quarter of the time...

If you really wanted to get heavy weapons at as low a level as possible, you'd be better off grabbing the twin laser for the same BP and PCU and keeping with the kiting strategy.

...

As for your question while I was typing this, then no, so long as you can have them and can afford them, there's no reason not to prioritize the turret arc. The others can be filled with point defense as available, but for maximizing firepower, the turret is the way to go.

In any event, just to give this a chance, I'm going to fool around with this idea and see if I can make something that feels like it will actually work with more than just the blessings of the dice. We'll see!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:

For that matter, is there any reason at all to bother with starship weapons other than turrets? The freedom to fire where one pleases is immense.

It seems much more cost-effective to concentrate on turret weapons (ideally linked weapons), especially given how the gunner actions work.

Yeah, turrets are clearly more attractive than any other mounting.

Which is one of the reasons why I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to add turrets to ships which don't already have them... :(

The other reason I think this is that the relevant text (p.305) seems to be carefully worded to omit the option of adding a turret:

CRB, p305: wrote:
By spending 3 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount in any of the aft, forward, port, or starboard arcs with enough free space. By spending 5 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount on a turret that has enough free space. Tiny and Small starships can have only two weapon mounts per arc (and per turret). Medium and Large starships can have only three weapon mounts per arc (and per turret). Huge and larger starships can have only four weapon mounts per arc (and per turret).

This makes me think that only hulls which already come with turrets (all of the Medium or larger hulls, with the exception of the Heavy Freighter) get the turret option.


At this point, I do not think I can meaningfully improve this build while keeping to the design philosophy that it started with. So, congratulations. For the specific approach you chose, that's probably about as good as you're going to get at tier 2; it's simply not possible to match the anti-matter torpedo launcher for damage and damage efficiency. And I expect that the Twin Laser's mere 5d8 is too much of a drop in damage to justify this approach when the entire point is maximum damage in minimum time.

If you can accept the enormous risk involved, and the fact that the entire party is on the line for this glass cannon approach, then yes. I suppose from that specific stance, in which damage output is maximized above all else, this is ideal. And if this were later in a campaign, when the party might conceivably have multiple ships, I could accept this fairly readily. But when it is the only ship, and the entire party is committed to its high-risk all-or-nothing tactics, I'm afraid I'm not comfortable taking that approach.


avr wrote:
The second build looks like a useful part of a fleet but not something that should be allowed out on its own. Fighting two enemies would probably go badly.

I agree. In Traveller terms, the second build is more like an escort, providing screening for Cruisers of better. Or as part of a squadron of similar ships. Scale wise, it's like either a Corvette or a Frigate.


Corvettes - depending on where one derives the designation from - are either Medium or Large frames.

Vague memory is indicating that corvettes being placed between frigate and destroyer, but I freely admit to this being quite vague - small crews, heavily armed for their size, decent defenses and fast/nimble. Kind of an age-of-sail precursor to the battle-cruiser/fast battleships of the dreadnought era.


The Mad Comrade wrote:

Corvettes - depending on where one derives the designation from - are either Medium or Large frames.

Vague memory is indicating that corvettes being placed between frigate and destroyer, but I freely admit to this being quite vague - small crews, heavily armed for their size, decent defenses and fast/nimble. Kind of an age-of-sail precursor to the battle-cruiser/fast battleships of the dreadnought era.

In Traveller:

Corvettes range between 300 - 500 dTons, average 400.
Frigates range between 500 - 1000 dTons, average 800.
Destroyers range between 1000 - 5000 dTons, average 2500.
Light Cruisers range between 5000 - 20000 dTons, average 10000.
Cruisers range between 20000 - 50000 dTons, average 35000.
Battleships range between 50000 - 100000 dTons, average 75000.
and Dreadnoughts begin at 100000 dTons and end at 1 Million dTons.

One dTon is a measure of Volume and is equal to 500 cubic feet.


John Napier 698 wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Corvettes - depending on where one derives the designation from - are either Medium or Large frames.

Vague memory is indicating that corvettes being placed between frigate and destroyer, but I freely admit to this being quite vague - small crews, heavily armed for their size, decent defenses and fast/nimble. Kind of an age-of-sail precursor to the battle-cruiser/fast battleships of the dreadnought era.

In Traveller:

Corvettes range between 300 - 500 dTons, average 400.
Frigates range between 500 - 1000 dTons, average 800.
Destroyers range between 1000 - 5000 dTons, average 2500.
Light Cruisers range between 5000 - 20000 dTons, average 10000.
Cruisers range between 20000 - 50000 dTons, average 35000.
Battleships range between 50000 - 100000 dTons, average 75000.
and Dreadnoughts begin at 100000 dTons and end at 1 Million dTons.

One dTon is a measure of Volume and is equal to 500 cubic feet.

One of the lessons that stuck with me from Traveler is that displaced volume tonnage does not equate to mass tonnage.

If I am remembering right - just memory, my Traveler resources have been long lost - weren't corvettes on the upper end of what a player group could reasonably expect to operate on their own accord (depending on TL)?


Yes. Small crews tended to "cap-out" at about 400 dTons, which is the same volume as the Subsidized Merchant. The Subsidized Liner and the Mercenary Cruiser had larger crews, and were about Frigate-sized.


That's why I've been having this nagging feeling in my head the past couple of weeks about "300 tons, man, build a 300 ton ship!" without being able to vocalize it/type it coherently.

Thanks!

Fire, Fusion and Steel as I recall inspired some fun designs back when. CLC (Chemical Laser Cartridge)-powered ship-to-ship batteries, among many others.

Funny part is I think both the reboot of Star Trek and at least some of Star Wars' heavier turrets appear to such 'cartridges' (shells really) to power some of their weaponry.


Attack of the Clones during the Battle of Coruscant. General Grievous's Flagship had chemical laser cannons. Not sure about Star Trek.


I'm tired now, and signing off. Good night, all.


John Napier 698 wrote:
Attack of the Clones during the Battle of Coruscant. General Grievous's Flagship had chemical laser cannons. Not sure about Star Trek.

There is a short scene in Abram's reboot Star Trek where they crew can be seen closing a series of circular doors with - at a glance - appear to be a series of crystalline charging matrices or something very similar, to my mind, to 'energized plasma cartridges' after the order is given to charge the ship's phasers.


I see this thread is starting to wander a bit, so we may have some parallel conversations going on here. How exciting.

Despite what I said earlier, I do have some more thoughts after seeing some conversation elsewhere. There is an alternative approach here, which is fiddling with it to switch the antimatter launcher for a particle beam, and I'll repeat it here for the sake of completion. If you drop the thrusters down to 8 and cut the luxury quarters, that gives you enough to swap out the missile launcher for an infinite-use - if weaker - particle beam, and upgrade your armor back up to +3. With a level 2 party, that gives you AC and TL 15, with a particle beam for 8d6 damage. It's... an alternative. I can't call it an improvement, though, because in order to do this you need to compromise your speed, and speed is the only meaningful defense you have when you have only 5 shield points per arc. You're stuck relying on kiting, and while that may still work out okay with a single Necroglider, against more of them or against a tougher foe you're still facing the potential for significant damage.

If we set aside the tier 2 condition, though, tier 3 is much more attractive, because you can do all this, upgrade to the 130 PCU Arcus Heavy, kick your shields from 20 to 140, and get an extra point of TL. Outside of that, if you really wanted to stick with with antimatter missile and its 10d10, you could settle for 80 shields, staying at mk 2 armor and mk 3 defenses, and either mount a heavy laser cannon on the front or a linked pair of light torpedo launchers, or something in that vein. Or maybe ignore the front and just mount a coilgun on the turret. Lower power, but greater field of fire.

This approach creates something far too fragile for my tastes at tier 2, but is more workable if you allow for tier 3.


Sorry about that. Just an old gamer reminiscing.

Community / Forums / Starfinder / Advice / Building an optimal "good at starship fighting" starship for four 2nd-level PCs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.