See the Shooting Starships sidebar on page 292 for more information on how characters and starships interact damage-wise. Ship weapons are too inaccurate to target individual NPCs (or small groups of NPCs), however they do 10 times the listed damage should they manage to hit.
It's mostly a tool for the GM to inflict on PCs ("Hey the place you're in is being bombarded from orbit! Quickly get to safety!") than something the PCs can reliably use on NPCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ship size categories are ~3 "sizes" ahead of characters.
A Tiny ship (interceptor) runs from as "small" as Gargantuan to in-excess of Colossal on 'character scale' combat, with the added complication of not evenly doubling per size from the Tiny baseline.
Reflex save I would peg at (gunnery bonus/2) +10, AoE 5' per ship-die of damage. AoE's larger than a single move action by the target are made for half-damage instead of negate.
You ain't saving to negate against a quantum torpedo, bub. ;)
Well im taking the inaccuracy thing into account thats why i am going with scatter diceShip size categories are ~3 "sizes" ahead of characters.
A Tiny ship (interceptor) runs from as "small" as Gargantuan to in-excess of Colossal on 'character scale' combat, with the added complication of not evenly doubling per size from the Tiny baseline.Reflex save I would peg at (gunnery bonus/2) +10, AoE 5' per ship-die of damage. AoE's larger than a single move action by the target are made for half-damage instead of negate.
You ain't saving to negate against a quantum torpedo, bub. ;)
Sounds like a solution that should impart the necessary terror in players if/when the time comes. Who knows ... they might even survive a close impact. ;)
|
Because obviously computer-assisted weaponry optimized to hit targets moving at hundred of km per hours with sufficient accuracy to target vital systems can't ever lock correctly on human-ish targets *roll eyes*
Given the fact that what systems get damaged as you shoot other ships is completely random, I'm not sure they're in any way as accurate as this implies. They do hit vehicles traveling very fast, but hitting large objects traveling quickly isn't necessarily that similar to hitting, y'know, people-sized things.
In fact, it's possible that the weapons have hardwired targeting protocols that exempt things under a certain size since otherwise they'd go off course, or their targeting computers would get overloaded, too often. Throwing out human sized chaff would be so casually easy for a star ship, that this is a logical exemption and that's ignoring all the environmental effects that would also be an issue.
This would mean that you could theoretically rewire them to shoot at human scale targets, but it would make them useless versus other ships, and probably be quite a bit of work.
This issue of scale is also borne out by capital scale weapons being unable to target starships that are too small.
What about giant sized enemies that are the size of ships. Do they just count as "people", too?
Yeah that is one of the things I've been thinking about that and the blur between at once point is it a vehicle or a space ship.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully that is addressed in the Alien Archive. Ship-munching space-kraken able to command solar flares should be ship-scaled ... and they could even come in different 'degrees of maturation'.
Spaceship weapons use homing missiles and guiding sights that are targeted through HUDs that lock on stardrives, quantum traces, and big chunks of starmetals. You can't shot them vs a person for the same reasons you cant target a pigeon with a Sidewinder or a cod witth a Harpoon. It is not like Photon Torpedoes are shot with iron sights and enfilading your ship toward the target.
Now, some of those weoapons might have AOE enough to destroy large areas with PC or NPC inside, but that is not targetting them. That's more like hazards, envuromental damage, and such, with players rolling REF saves, acrobatics, ayhletics, or survival, to check if they get to the antinuke bunker before the nukes destroy everything. It is like the inyro in fallout 4, not a combat encounter
Tracking weapons deal with target lock on whatever signatures. While not spelled out in the rules it is certainly possible (in theory) to have any number of nasty homing technologies keyed to something other than the emanations of starships and space monsters.
Direct fire weaponry remains point-and-shoot. Whether or not they can track diminutive targets is another matter altogether, especially at high speed differentials in combination with itty bitty targets that sensors do not easily discern. Strafing runs are a thing IRL and there's no reason other than "don't want the headache so at least the inability to pew-pew Darth Vader and Puke Sandcrawler is equal".
Capitol weapons cannot target ships of Small or Tiny size. Heavy weapons perhaps not track well enough to target Fine ships (which are Large creatures), while Light weapons could not target Tiny or smaller creatures.
Ruling these things as "hazards" then requires that said hazards be determined so as to be uniform across the game system. Right now it's purely ad-hoc.
Direct fire weaponry remains point-and-shoot.
Yeah, but the thing is, most starships don't even have windows to look through, and even if they have, you can't manuslly target something that moves faster than the eye can see. They rely on target lock HUDs. When Luke targets the Tie in the Millenium Falcon, he does not align the canons and the target, he aligns the computer representation of a ship with the computer representation of a targeting scope.
Same goes with other examples in other genre staples
Said computers might not be programmed to track and represent medium sized 130 pound humanoids who move 30 feet per round with weapons built to target a very kind of threat. Just like sidewinders arent prepared for duck hunting.
Straffing runs are more a thing of vehicle sized combat, not starship combat, and naval sized guns and nuclear missiles should not be mixed with combat knives. The former are city-level destroyers, and any use vs a character are better solved ad hoc. Just like we don't need rules for extiction level meteors impacting the world: if such thing happens, it is plot related, snd either the PC flee the city before the photon torpedos/huge meteor hit, or everyone dies
Tiny and Small ships are vehicle-sized - they're big compared to most, but still (Really Tough) vehicles.
I get where you're coming from ... my doubts come into play with the plausibility of ship-grade direct fire "light" weapons not being able to target rocket launcher packing infantry and vehicles, moving or otherwise.
While infantry weaponry probably can't dent a capitol ship without penetrating rounds/energy quality they should be able to - for the higher damage weapons - take bites out of the smaller craft. Bouncing the blasters of Stormtroopers is one thing (2d6 or 3d6) ... some nasty character about to light off something really nasty should be a threat - especially while such vehicles' thrusters are warming up - albeit less so than getting shot by a gigajoule+-output starship weaponry.
It depends on how fast does a starship travel, I guess. The most difficult thing, in my opinion, to translate from normal yo starship combat is not damage, but accuracy. Starship combat happens at miles pf distance vs moving objects that travel at thousands of feets per second. To hit, a starship weapon needs a computer that guesses where the target is going to be a tenth of a second later (which means hundreds of feets of differece!), then point the weapons there, shoot, and hope the target and the "bullet" have a collision course.
You can't simply do that with a sgoulder mounted plasma rifle targetted manually, no matter how powerful it is. It is like shooting a catapult boulder vs a mach 1 F14. Yes, if it hits, a boulder big enough will crush a wing and take the plane down. It will never, ever, hit.
Now, you could argue about shooting vs, say, a stationary ship in a dock. But then, that combat is easy to solve as «shooting vs an object». It is not much different than shooting vs a bunker. Use hardness, give the walls a ton of hp, and so. Or, even better, just take a decision adhoc, and use that chance for something narrative. Solve it with skill checks, description, and roleplaying
But we don't need combat rules to solve infantry vs starship combat, because such thing is not a combat. It is a plot event. It is something plot related, part of the narrative aspect of the game. We don't need rules to solve how much damage does a star going supernova, planets exploding, or entering a black hole either. We don't need to check if 100d100 is enough damage for Death Star planet killing gun, only to read in the forum that someone, somewhere, got hit by it, rolled exceptionaly low, and survived.
Now, the game does provide a rule to convert for damage (x10). If you need to fibd how much a starship torpedo does to a player, because the player ties himself ties himself to one, use that guideline if you want. But starship and infabtry combat being sepparated by rules is a great idea in my opinion. Players already have a tendency to nuke things from orbit, we don't want to incentivize that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see the players' faces when you drop 80d6 on the table, say "I crit" and then add the d6 burn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually getting really sick of seeing the "just solve it ad hoc" cop-out, b/c I shouldn't have to tell anyone by now that if we take that argument to its logical conclusion, the end result is "just write your own game system", and if we all do that, then why would we be here?
Yeah, I enjoy houseruling the crap out of my game-systems, but I think it's a fair assessment to say most of us are here on this forum b/c we generally like Paizo's products as systems of conflict-resolution for tabletop RPGs.
What exactly would be the harm in not half-arsing it and, oh, I dunno, providing, say, splash-damage radii & Reflex DCs for starship weapons?
Let's say the PCs wanna be wise-guys, take a shortcut, and try firing their shiny new lazor-phazor-mazor-tazor-cannonnator at the tower of the evil space wizard. Ok, say they penetrate the shields and just obliterate every living thing in a quarter-mile radius. Well done, now good luck scrapping any salvageable loot from the crater of irradiated dust you've created.
I mean yes, there's all sorts of reasons you as the GM could present to the PCs as to "why not use starship weaponry as a "press to win" button for every single encounter", and I think "incinerating anything worth looting" is gonna make even the most amoral parties think twice.
But again, why not have the rules to play around with for when it's... *fun!*? I see all these just... puritanical justifications for "separations of charater & starship scale, and ne'er' twain the two shall meet!" ... but then I think of that scene from Serenity with the warship locked onto the pulse-tracker.
Nobody's saying you have to use such rules if you don't want to, but why not have them in there for those of us that do want them? How will that hurt you in the slightest?
All the people saying "oh, you're not gonna hit comparatively itty-bitty characters w/ massive starship weapons" yeah, ok, you're not gonna hit little comparatively tiny snubfighters w/ massive broadside guns either (exactly what happened in the Death Star Run) - that's why we have size modifiers to attack rolls.
And I don't think anyone's suggesting that starship-on-character combat take place at starship-vs-starship speeds, heavens no. These aren't airplanes, they don't need to maintain a minimum speed to remain aloft. Hasn't anyone here ever watched the excellent Star Wars Rebels? Starship vs. character scale combat happens quite a bit - though usually not to lethal effect, it's more of "cover fire to escape" and the characters dodge the actual damage. Here's a scene where a TIE Fighter targets the main characters (a group roughly the size of your average adventuring party) and a character takes it out with a shoulder-mounted rocket-launcher.
Meanwhile in Stargate SG-1, we are shown that Death Gliders (the Goa'uld starfighters) can be taken down by, again, a shoulder-launched missile. Later, Teal'c takes to wielding a cannon from a downed Death Glider as a heavy weapon.
And then of course we have this magnificent scene from Galaxy vol.2 showing starship-on-character combat in all it's glory - why wouldn't I want scenes like that playing out at my game session?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually getting really sick of seeing the "just solve it ad hoc" cop-out, b/c I shouldn't have to tell anyone by now that if we take that argument to its logical conclusion, the end result is "just write your own game system", and if we all do that, then why would we be here?
Yeah, I enjoy houseruling the crap out of my game-systems, but I think it's a fair assessment to say most of us are here on this forum b/c we generally like Paizo's products as systems of conflict-resolution for tabletop RPGs.
What exactly would be the harm in not half-arsing it and, oh, I dunno, providing, say, splash-damage radii & Reflex DCs for starship weapons?
Let's say the PCs wanna be wise-guys, take a shortcut, and try firing their shiny new lazor-phazor-mazor-tazor-cannonnator at the tower of the evil space wizard. Ok, say they penetrate the shields and just obliterate every living thing in a quarter-mile radius. Well done, now good luck scrapping any salvageable loot from the crater of irradiated dust you've created.
I mean yes, there's all sorts of reasons you as the GM could present to the PCs as to "why not use starship weaponry as a "press to win" button for every single encounter", and I think "incinerating anything worth looting" is gonna make even the most amoral parties think twice.
But again, why not have the rules to play around with for when it's... *fun!*? I see all these just... puritanical justifications for "separations of charater & starship scale, and ne'er' twain the two shall meet!" ... but then I think of that scene from Serenity with the warship locked onto the pulse-tracker.
Nobody's saying you have to use such rules if you don't want to, but why not have them in there for those of us that do want them? How will that hurt you in the slightest?
All the people saying "oh, you're not gonna hit comparatively itty-bitty characters w/ massive starship weapons" yeah, ok, you're not gonna hit little comparatively tiny...
I made a topic talking about exactly this that I'm sure you would have had a field day in.
I have the same problem with the game essentially not acknowledging the possibility of certain situations, such as what you wrote.
BTW, I didn't link you to my topic thinking you would post in it. I thought maybe you get some amusement from reading it.
All the people saying "oh, you're not gonna hit comparatively itty-bitty characters w/ massive starship weapons" yeah, ok, you're not gonna hit little comparatively tiny snubfighters w/ massive broadside guns either (exactly what happened in the Death Star Run) - that's why we have size modifiers to attack rolls.
Just one small note, we don't even seem to have size modifiers to attack rolls anymore.
Why does everyone assume ships are miles and miles apart when they engage?
Alien Archive shows us that adjacent squares on starship scale is MELEE RANGE. Literally. A big space monster can attack your ship with it's space tentacle simply by being adjacent to it.
That sounds to me like hundreds of feet at most.
Ship battles in most scifi movies get really close. Take Star Wars, for example. They were so tight nit at times that collisions were even quite common!
So where does this idea that they must be REALLY far apart even come from? Real life aviation where missiles can travel long distances?
Why does everyone assume ships are miles and miles apart when they engage?
Alien Archive shows us that adjacent squares on starship scale is MELEE RANGE. Literally. A big space monster can attack your ship with it's space tentacle simply by being adjacent to it.
That sounds to me like hundreds of feet at most.
Ship battles in most scifi movies get really close. Take Star Wars, for example. They were so tight nit at times that collisions were even quite common!
So where does this idea that they must be REALLY far apart even come from? Real life aviation where missiles can travel long distances?
To add on, a hex represents a rather arbitrary amount of distance. A hex could be 2,000ft. or it could be an entire planet. It just depends whether you're fighting in space or in a planet's atmosphere.
When said space monster is able to attack a space ship, what happens, exactly? Does it just make an attack roll against the ships AC? What about the damage? How does its damage convert to Hull Points? What if the ship attacks it first, does it make a regular attack roll vs. EAC/KAC? I asked in another thread and got no real concrete answer, because I imagine there isn't one.
|
When said space monster is able to attack a space ship, what happens, exactly? Does it just make an attack roll against the ships AC? What about the damage? How does its damage convert to Hull Points? What if the ship attacks it first, does it make a regular attack roll vs. EAC/KAC? I asked in another thread and got no real concrete answer, because I imagine there isn't one.
Space monsters capable of attacking space ships generally have starship stat blocks.
When said space monster is able to attack a space ship, what happens, exactly? Does it just make an attack roll against the ships AC? What about the damage? How does its damage convert to Hull Points? What if the ship attacks it first, does it make a regular attack roll vs. EAC/KAC? I asked in another thread and got no real concrete answer, because I imagine there isn't one.Space monsters capable of attacking space ships generally have starship stat blocks.
I know the Oma from the Alien Archive has something like that. What does it do for an attack while in space?
The Oma is not a space monster in the sense that it does not engage in starship combat.
The Novaspawn is a space monster and has AC, TL, hull points, shields, and weapons in each firing arc. It has laser cannons, a particle beam, and a special tentacle attack for adjacent foes.
I read that the Oma can be used as a medium frame starship with 20 cost. It still gets no form of attack?
|
|
I read that the Oma can be used as a medium frame starship with 20 cost. It still gets no form of attack?The Oma is not a space monster in the sense that it does not engage in starship combat.
The Novaspawn is a space monster and has AC, TL, hull points, shields, and weapons in each firing arc. It has laser cannons, a particle beam, and a special tentacle attack for adjacent foes.
You can install weapons onto a starship frame. That's part of building a starship.
I read that the Oma can be used as a medium frame starship with 20 cost. It still gets no form of attack?The Oma is not a space monster in the sense that it does not engage in starship combat.
The Novaspawn is a space monster and has AC, TL, hull points, shields, and weapons in each firing arc. It has laser cannons, a particle beam, and a special tentacle attack for adjacent foes.
You can install weapons onto a starship frame. That's part of building a starship.
That's not what I meant. I mean does the monster itself have a melee attack that it can use in space, just like it can in regular combat? I'm assuming the answer is no, for whatever reason. Likewise, I bet the novaspawn has no "land variant" statblock if players somehow would be high enough level to engage it.
Yeah, I don't like that. If it's a space monster, it's only for space combat, likewise if you're a monster that's used for normal combat, you can never use it for space combat. Unless you're a special case like the Endbringer Devil that essentially transforms into a much smaller (still colossal) creature meant for land.
I don't count using starship weapons on an Oma, as that is something that's unrelated to its usual statblock that has to be purchased.
|
|
I read that the Oma can be used as a medium frame starship with 20 cost. It still gets no form of attack?The Oma is not a space monster in the sense that it does not engage in starship combat.
The Novaspawn is a space monster and has AC, TL, hull points, shields, and weapons in each firing arc. It has laser cannons, a particle beam, and a special tentacle attack for adjacent foes.
You can install weapons onto a starship frame. That's part of building a starship.
That's not what I meant. I mean does the monster itself have a melee attack that it can use in space, just like it can in regular combat? I'm assuming the answer is no, for whatever reason. Likewise, I bet the novaspawn has no "land variant" statblock if players somehow would be high enough level to engage it.
Yeah, I don't like that. If it's a space monster, it's only for space combat, likewise if you're a monster that's used for normal combat, you can never use it for space combat. Unless you're a special case like the Endbringer Devil that essentially transforms into a much smaller (still colossal) creature meant for land.
I don't count using starship weapons on an Oma, as that is something that's unrelated to its usual statblock that has to be purchased.
Oma don't damage starships, they disable them with their electrical discharge. They don't need a ship-scale melee attack.
It is okay for things to be on different scales. We can model the interface well enough with the rules we have.
I read that the Oma can be used as a medium frame starship with 20 cost. It still gets no form of attack?The Oma is not a space monster in the sense that it does not engage in starship combat.
The Novaspawn is a space monster and has AC, TL, hull points, shields, and weapons in each firing arc. It has laser cannons, a particle beam, and a special tentacle attack for adjacent foes.
You can install weapons onto a starship frame. That's part of building a starship.
That's not what I meant. I mean does the monster itself have a melee attack that it can use in space, just like it can in regular combat? I'm assuming the answer is no, for whatever reason. Likewise, I bet the novaspawn has no "land variant" statblock if players somehow would be high enough level to engage it.
Yeah, I don't like that. If it's a space monster, it's only for space combat, likewise if you're a monster that's used for normal combat, you can never use it for space combat. Unless you're a special case like the Endbringer Devil that essentially transforms into a much smaller (still colossal) creature meant for land.
I don't count using starship weapons on an Oma, as that is something that's unrelated to its usual statblock that has to be purchased.
Oma don't damage starships, they disable them with their electrical discharge. They don't need a ship-scale melee attack.
It is okay for things to be on different scales. We can model the interface well enough with the rules we have.
Why don't they need a starship scale melee attack? It should be an option.
No, it's not different scales. The Oma is being considered as a medium frame starship, two size categories higher than tiny. If I were to convert a monster from Pathfinder that's much larger and far more powerful than an Oma that also can fly and survive in space, like a space kaiju, what would it's statistics look like in space?
Starfinder's answer: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is why some sort of guidelines or even a precedent would be nice.
All the people saying "oh, you're not gonna hit comparatively itty-bitty characters w/ massive starship weapons" yeah, ok, you're not gonna hit little comparatively tiny snubfighters w/ massive broadside guns either (exactly what happened in the Death Star Run) - that's why we have size modifiers to attack rolls.Just one small note, we don't even seem to have size modifiers to attack rolls anymore.
Wait, what, we don't?
~looks at rules~
huh. Well, I'm still getting a handle on Starfinder, & I must admit my assumption of "Pathfinder IN SPAAACE! except where told otherwise", lol
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those who want to know what space melee attacks look like:
...
|
|
Why don't they need a starship scale melee attack? It should be an option.
Because they don't have huge tentacles to attack at starship ranges? Because their write-up says they don't bite ships? I don't see why it should be an option at all.
No, it's not different scales. The Oma is being considered as a medium frame starship, two size categories higher than tiny. If I were to convert a monster from Pathfinder that's much larger and far more powerful than an Oma that also can fly and survive in space, like a space kaiju, what would it's statistics look like in space?
It would look like a starship stat block. Only ranged weapons or super-reach melee weapons are relevant in space combat, though. So it may not have any. It's probably much easier to deal with it on a "terrestial" level on your starship-interior map.
Why don't they need a starship scale melee attack? It should be an option.Because they don't have huge tentacles to attack at starship ranges? Because their write-up says they don't bite ships? I don't see why it should be an option at all.
No, it's not different scales. The Oma is being considered as a medium frame starship, two size categories higher than tiny. If I were to convert a monster from Pathfinder that's much larger and far more powerful than an Oma that also can fly and survive in space, like a space kaiju, what would it's statistics look like in space?It would look like a starship stat block. Only ranged weapons or super-reach melee weapons are relevant in space combat, though. So it may not have any. It's probably much easier to deal with it on a "terrestial" level on your starship-interior map.
Or maybe instead of only allowing arbitrary forms of attacks to affect a starship, like tentacles, they should maybe just work in general? It's not even necessarily about an Oma having a melee option (which it should) but what about for other things? If a monster can move more hexes than a starship, so what its melee attacks other than tentacles just don't work? Maybe melee attacks in general should just work as an attack.
Good luck dealing with a kaiju inside a starship, especially when the smallest kaiju is nearly more than twice the weight of a low end colossal starship. So much for scale.
At this point I feel like you're just trying to find reasons why it oddly works the way it does, instead of accepting that maybe the way they handle space related encounters probably isn't the best.
I'm actually getting really sick of seeing the "just solve it ad hoc" cop-out, b/c I shouldn't have to tell anyone by now that if we take that argument to its logical conclusion, the end result is "just write your own game system"That's less logical conclusion and more logical fallacy. There's a pretty wide gap between handwaving a specific rule for a specific scenario and inventing a new game system.
And which fallacy would that be?
One can handwave whatever one would like, there's no one stopping them. If, say, what's fun for someone & their game group is pure in-character voice-acting storytelling, one can just toss the entire combat system out the window and say "you tussle a bit with the unsavory scallywag at the bridge until you both wear each other out and decide to parlay". That is perfectly a-okay.
And if other people desire more detailed combat rules b/c that's what's more fun for them, that's perfectly a-okay too.
And then people play with the parts of the system that are more fun for them, leave the parts that are less useful aside, and the world is a happier place for it. :)
My initial comment was in regards to seeing this type of lazy "well, just hand-wave it" argument come up when people request a more detailed resolution mechanism for X situation, like, firearms in a swords-&-sorcery setting, for example is one I noticed ppl get their jimmies rustled over for some reason (despite the historicity of early firearms being used in Europe in the Late Middle Ages, coexisting with heavy cavalry).
I never understood the antipathy toward allowing other people to have nice things that you don't have to use if you don't like them. I mean, why does it seem to be such a problem to some people that they have to take such a puritanical stand against it? If you don't want a certain option in your game, then just don't have it in your game, seems pretty simple to me (i.e. if you don't want firearms in your swords-&-sorcery setting, then just don't have firearms - some other game group somewhere else playing as swashbucklers & musketeers won't hurt you in the slightest). What other game groups do at the privacy of their game tables is their business. :D
That's the beauty of these types of games - it's a buffet, not a force-feed tube.
I made a topic talking about exactly this that I'm sure you would have had a field day in.
I have the same problem with the game essentially not acknowledging the possibility of certain situations, such as what you wrote.
Thanks! :) Looking through it now.
|
|
Or maybe instead of only allowing arbitrary forms of attacks to affect a starship, like tentacles, they should maybe just work in general? It's not even necessarily about an Oma having a melee option (which it should) but what about for other things? If a monster can move more hexes than a starship, so what its melee attacks other than tentacles just don't work? Maybe melee attacks in general should just work as an attack.
That doesn't make physical sense. Sure, you could add rules to allow claws using the Flyby maneuver. But, at that point it is just easier to switch scales.
Good luck dealing with a kaiju inside a starship, especially when the smallest kaiju is nearly more than twice the weight of a low end colossal starship. So much for scale.
lol. Not inside the starship. Just using the map of the interior for scale. C'mon.
At this point I feel like you're just trying to find reasons why it oddly works the way it does, instead of accepting that maybe the way they handle space related encounters probably isn't the best.
And you seem intent on ignoring the valid reasons the designers have offered for why they made the choices they did.
The rules we are given reflect their vision for the game. That vision minimizes character v starship combat. That's okay. If you wish to explore that area of gameplay, the rules we have are quite serviceable for stating out challenges and adjudicating interactions.
Maybe focus on figuring out how you can use the rules to achieve your goals?
I imagine most monsters' "melee attacks" would be highly ineffectual at starship scales, and so aren't worth listing in their starship stats most of the time.
If a monster without such a specialized attack did try it though, I would probably use the rules for collisions/ramming, whatever those are.
The rules we are given reflect their vision for the game. That vision minimizes character v starship combat. That's okay. If you wish to explore that area of gameplay, the rules we have are quite serviceable for stating out challenges and adjudicating interactions.Maybe focus on figuring out how you can use the rules to achieve your goals?
Why do you seem so puritanically dead-set against other people getting to enjoy options they want? If there's a sufficient customer demand for it, why would Paizo not meet it with a supply? Nobody is forcing you to use those options if you don't like them.
Or maybe instead of only allowing arbitrary forms of attacks to affect a starship, like tentacles, they should maybe just work in general? It's not even necessarily about an Oma having a melee option (which it should) but what about for other things? If a monster can move more hexes than a starship, so what its melee attacks other than tentacles just don't work? Maybe melee attacks in general should just work as an attack.That doesn't make physical sense. Sure, you could add rules to allow claws using the Flyby maneuver. But, at that point it is just easier to switch scales.
Good luck dealing with a kaiju inside a starship, especially when the smallest kaiju is nearly more than twice the weight of a low end colossal starship. So much for scale.lol. Not inside the starship. Just using the map of the interior for scale. C'mon.
At this point I feel like you're just trying to find reasons why it oddly works the way it does, instead of accepting that maybe the way they handle space related encounters probably isn't the best.And you seem intent on ignoring the valid reasons the designers have offered for why they made the choices they did.
The rules we are given reflect their vision for the game. That vision minimizes character v starship combat. That's okay. If you wish to explore that area of gameplay, the rules we have are quite serviceable for stating out challenges and adjudicating interactions.
Maybe focus on figuring out how you can use the rules to achieve your goals?
If a monster is vastly faster than a starship, why does tentacles need to be the only option?
Sorry, I thought you meant inside the starship, which is kinda funny. If you did it the way you meant, I'm not sure if you'll find a good battle mat for the insane space that'll take up.
I'm not ignoring their design choice. Their design choice was to make it so you can't cheese games by using your starship to handle encounters instead of the individuals, right? There has to be a reason why they don't want starships mixed with PCs too much. What I encourage would help alleviate that problem, by having a player's (or anyone else's) starship be vulnerable. Rocket launchers, other portable artillery, giant creatures, certain spells etc. should be damaging to a starship so it would encourage people to NOT use their starships. The starship maybe more deadly than the party piloting it, but if it gets smashed they may be very much out of luck. But none of this actually works, in regards to damaging them outside of starship combat.
Their design choice was to make it so you can't cheese games by using your starship to handle encounters instead of the individuals, right? There has to be a reason why they don't want starships mixed with PCs too much. What I encourage would help alleviate that problem, by having a player's (or anyone else's) starship be vulnerable. Rocket launchers, other portable artillery, giant creatures, certain spells etc. should be damaging to a starship so could encourage people to NOT use their starships.
Well, I don't think starships should be made of tissue paper, or no one would take them into battle, but I'm guessing that's not what you meant by "vulnerable".
Again, I think one limitation to consider is that any starship weaponry capable of punching a hole through duramantium (or w/e) armor is gonna completely slag any valuable loot, so there's that opportunity cost.
Also, let's consider the "rock/paper/scissors way it's handled in something like Star Wars, since that's been the trope codifier for 40 years now.
So, roughly speaking, you've got:
Infantry can use shoulder-fired, tripod/turret-mounted, etc heavy weapons to take down fighter-class starships (including bombers, interceptors, etc) or punch big holes in light transports, can't typically hurt bigger (capital) ships (to say nothing of the fact that most capital ships don't usually even make planetside stops, sending shuttlecraft/landers instead.
Fighters can gun down exposed infantry & other fighter-class ships. Bombers fill an important niche b/c they pack heavy enough ordnance to damage (and even destroy) capital ships (and ground targets like military bases and cities), but are small enough to generally avoid being effectively targeted by the large cannons of their prey. Interceptors are fast, heavily-armed fighters that quickly close the distance w/ bombers & shoot them down.
Mid-size ships (frigates, corvettes, etc) can fill a variety of functions, but in battle, most often act to "screen" the large capital "motherships" from fighters & bombers using their smaller guns, and use their bigger weaponry to take shots of opportunity at larger enemy ships.
Larger ships (battleships, dreadnaughts, carriers, etc) pound each other with massive broadside cannons while often also unleashing flights of fighter-class ships from their holds. Can easily take out any smaller ship if they can get a hit, but smaller ships are generally more maneuverable (less mass to stop & change direction of).
Many capital ships can also initiate planetary bombardment simply by angling their weaponry downward (remember, there is no "up" in space, so even if your cannon is a fixed-forward-firing weapon, you can just aim it at the planet). Unless the ship has weaponry specifically designed for this, more often than not, it's clumsy & ineffective from space (physical projectiles burn up in atmosphere, energy beams diffuse, etc), so it's more of a "show of force". And of course, those on the ground can seek cover or GTFO the area.
Now yeah, I don't think anyone is saying "Space Conan with a plasma-axe should be able to chop a battlecruiser in half". But knocking a starfighter out of the air with a shoulder-fired heat-seeking missile? Heck, we can do that with today's technology - like this scene in the pilot episode of the phenomenal sci-fi series Stargate SG-1.
Why does everyone assume ships are miles and miles apart when they engage?
Alien Archive shows us that adjacent squares on starship scale is MELEE RANGE. Literally. A big space monster can attack your ship with it's space tentacle simply by being adjacent to it.
That sounds to me like hundreds of feet at most.
Ship battles in most scifi movies get really close. Take Star Wars, for example. They were so tight nit at times that collisions were even quite common!
So where does this idea that they must be REALLY far apart even come from? Real life aviation where missiles can travel long distances?
I think the reason for this is the fact that a multiple-mile-long ship takes the same hex that a single-person fightercraft does. So for that to make sense a hex would need to be at least several miles wide, and typically attacks happen from one hex to the next.