Several short threads on the advice board discuss when to full attack as GM and the mathematical superiority of full attacking as an NPC.
I find that full attacking with NPCs increases the lethality of the combat almost exponentially with their high to-hit bonuses.
For the ol' home game, I do what I want but what's the consensus on society play? Should we full attack only if it says so in the tactics of the NPCs stat block?
|
I haven't been handling it any different than PFS.
Mindless opponent begins their turn adjacent to you? Full attack.
Intelligent opponent begins their turn adjacent to Unhittable Vesk? Move and attack someone else.
Ranged opponent isn't threatened and has an unbroken line of fire? Full attack.
Players are having a tough time and might TPK? Move and provoke occasionally.
It's just situational.
|
By full attack do you mean taking two attacks with a -4 penalty? If so, generally speaking I won't do that unless the tactics call for it or there is some compelling reason from the NPC's description that would make it seem in character. Taking a -4 is a relatively hefty penalty especially at low levels.
|
|
By full attack do you mean taking two attacks with a -4 penalty? If so, generally speaking I won't do that unless the tactics call for it or there is some compelling reason from the NPC's description that would make it seem in character. Taking a -4 is a relatively hefty penalty especially at low levels.
Given the Starfinder cover rules, I find that ranged attacks have a much higher frequency of being against cover than Pathfinder. This tends to dissuade full attacks from players as that means they usually either have to take a -8 penalty or move into a better firing position before attacking. It's also worth noting that in Starfinder, you can't take a Swift Action if you are full attacking, so you can't Quick Draw or use devises that put a weapon in your hand as a Swift Action and still Full Attack. I have also noticed experienced players tend not to use full attack at low levels as they simply aren't used to having the ability to make full attacks at low levels without building for it.
Regarding full-attacking with NPC, that is highly situational based on the intelligence of the NPCs, their listed tactics, their mental state (panicking NPCs are more likely to full attack), how well the party is doing and, of course, whether or not they are Stormtroopers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the typical levels of accuracy that both combatant NPCs and well built PCs have, full attacking is about a 30% increase in their damage output. This is hardly an 'exponential' increase in lethality. Having enemies take the full attack action every time they have the freedom and reason to do so seems reasonable to me.
From a player perspective: Denying enemy full attacks by getting into the face of a ranged NPC or playing keep-away with a melee NPC, while simultaneously maximizing the amount of time your PCs are able to full attack is one of the main bits of depth to Starfinder combat. If enemies never full attack there is less to be gained from good combat strategy.
From a GM perspective: About a month ago I did the average damage math on low level combat in Starfinder and found that despite initial appearances it starts off deadlier than in Pathfinder. CR1/2 and CR1 Enemies on average deal a significant portion of player HP/SP pools before going down. By levels 3 or 4 the deadliness is way down as the players pick up specialization and become significantly more effective at ending encounters.
While I haven't seen it to be necessary in SFS games I've GM'd so far, playing low CR enemies a little 'dumb' is probably healthy to compensate for this low level deadliness.
Note that the convention in Pathfinder stat blocks is that enemies trying to full attack (especially if they have natural attacks) is the general rule and the tactics section describes when the GM deviates from that. After all, that's what your PCs are doing if they can!
|
|
For the typical levels of accuracy that both combatant NPCs and well built PCs have, full attacking is about a 30% increase in their damage output. This is hardly an 'exponential' increase in lethality. Having enemies take the full attack action every time they have the freedom and reason to do so seems reasonable to me.
From a player perspective: Denying enemy full attacks by getting into the face of a ranged NPC or playing keep-away with a melee NPC, while simultaneously maximizing the amount of time your PCs are able to full attack is one of the main bits of depth to Starfinder combat. If enemies never full attack there is less to be gained from good combat strategy.
From a GM perspective: About a month ago I did the average damage math on low level combat in Starfinder and found that despite initial appearances it starts off deadlier than in Pathfinder. CR1/2 and CR1 Enemies on average deal a significant portion of player HP/SP pools before going down. By levels 3 or 4 the deadliness is way down as the players pick up specialization and become significantly more effective at ending encounters.
While I haven't seen it to be necessary in SFS games I've GM'd so far, playing low CR enemies a little 'dumb' is probably healthy to compensate for this low level deadliness.Note that the convention in Pathfinder stat blocks is that enemies trying to full attack (especially if they have natural attacks) is the general rule and the tactics section describes when the GM deviates from that. After all, that's what your PCs are doing if they can!
I agree Starfinder battles at 1st & 2nd seem to be more difficult than Pathfinder as it is much more difficult to have a heavy damage dealer from the get-go. Only a strength-based character with a Reach Weapon seems to come close to a comparable damage output to a typical Pathfinder character. Add in the fact the NPCs get Attack and Damage bonuses even at CR 1/2 that the PCs cannot match and things can indeed get difficult.
However, I would stop short of using the word "deadlier" as, despite the fact I have seen many PCs go down in combat at low levels, I haven't seen a single death due to the fact that Starfinder has more generous death rules, and crits (the number one low level PF PC killer) aren't as deadly in Starfinder. As long as you don't run out of Resolve Points, you aren't likely to die and with little else to spend Resolve on at low levels, you aren't likely to run out unless you are constantly going down in combat.
Thanks for the feedback, gang. I think I'll single attack against level 1 players.
I'll try the following guidelines...
Intelligent creatures (INT +0 or higher) start with single attacks, but if they're hitting with rolls below 11, then they'll switch to full attacking. The justification being, they know they can hit it so they'll take it down faster.
Ravenous, bloodthirsty, or otherwise emotionally unstable creatures will full attack always.
Dumb creatures will full attack always.
|
|
I agree Starfinder battles at 1st & 2nd seem to be more difficult than Pathfinder as it is much more difficult to have a heavy damage dealer from the get-go. Only a strength-based character with a Reach Weapon seems to come close to a comparable damage output to a typical Pathfinder character. Add in the fact the NPCs get Attack and Damage bonuses even at CR 1/2 that the PCs cannot match and things can indeed get difficult.
However, I would stop short of using the word "deadlier" as, despite the fact I have seen many PCs go down in combat at low levels, I haven't seen a single death due to the fact that Starfinder has more generous death rules, and crits (the number one low level PF PC killer) aren't as deadly in Starfinder. As long as you don't run out of Resolve Points, you aren't likely to die and with little else to spend Resolve on at low levels, you aren't likely to run out unless you are constantly going down in combat.
My math was entirely from the perspective of: this is how many rounds on average it takes to down an enemy vs how many rounds it takes for an enemy to down a PC. And at 1st and 2nd level that ratio is in the enemy's favor in Starfinder, and definitely not in the enemy's favor in Pathfinder, at least not on average. There are fewer surprise crit deaths in Starfinder, but the PCs tend to take a larger % of their HP+SP pool in damage than an equivalent Pathfinder PC over the course of a fight (mostly because Pathfinder PCs end fights way faster). That said, I'd agree that deadlier isn't the right word. Resolve adds a very reliable buffer vs. death that keeps bad RNG from taking you down without a fight.
As an anecdote... the very first fight in Dead Suns, I had a party member that ran out into the engagement and was shot at 3 times with laser pistols. Two hits, one crit, and total damage high enough to bring him down immediately. Since the laser pistol has a burn effect, on his turn he lost 1 RP to the burn (taking damage while dying deals 1 RP damage) and spent an RP to stabilize. He attempted a reflex save to stop burning and failed. Next turn he took 1 RP damage from burning and spent 1 RP to stabilize. This time he succeeded at his reflex save. If he hadn't, he would have been at 0 resolve with incoming damage next round.
|
|
Given the Starfinder cover rules...
So we're back to somebody having cover in a five foot wide corridor with no obstructions?
I tend to ignore that particular interpretation, but the cover rules do make it harder for allies to avoid providing cover for enemies and attempting to hide behind cover now usually provides cover for the enemy, as well.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Given the Starfinder cover rules...
So we're back to somebody having cover in a five foot wide corridor with no obstructions?
Yeah I think that one is worth trying to get an FAQ for.
Sure, the old "shoot around the hard corner" thing was a bit cheesy, but this looks even sillier.
|
|
But crouching at a corner shooting braced against the intersection of walls is exactly what people IRL do. The only reason it looks odd is we constrain our models to be in the middle of 5ft squares when in this instance they "squeeze" themselves into a 2ft area with 6in hanging out of the corner.
It makes sense. Shooting around a corner isn't exactly an accurate combat method.Given the Starfinder cover rules...
So we're back to somebody having cover in a five foot wide corridor with no obstructions?
Yeah I think that one is worth trying to get an FAQ for.
Sure, the old "shoot around the hard corner" thing was a bit cheesy, but this looks even sillier.
|
FWIW, in my profession, I have to be familiar with and train to shoot a handgun from standing behind cover, kneeling behind and shooting around cover, and prone (as well as other positions). A "normal" person who has undergone similar firearms training will hit 30+/40 rounds center of mass in these circumstances. The only question in my mind is whether or not a Starfinder who is proficient in the use of a firearm has undergone a similar type of training to garner proficiency; my answer is yes. It is highly doubtful that a Starfinder proficient in small arms has never practiced and gained proficiency in shooting said small arm while leaning around a corner in a standing or kneeling position with an appreciable level of accuracy.
|
|
FWIW, in my profession, I have to be familiar with and train to shoot a handgun from standing behind cover, kneeling behind and shooting around cover, and prone (as well as other positions). A "normal" person who has undergone similar firearms training will hit 30+/40 rounds center of mass in these circumstances. The only question in my mind is whether or not a Starfinder who is proficient in the use of a firearm has undergone a similar type of training to garner proficiency; my answer is yes. It is highly doubtful that a Starfinder proficient in small arms has never practiced and gained proficiency in shooting said small arm while leaning around a corner in a standing or kneeling position with an appreciable level of accuracy.
How good they shoot behind cover is irrelevant as it is only half the equation. You need to compare how good they shoot when not behind cover to how well they shoot when behind cover to determine if there should logically be any measurable penalty.
|
|
The point I was implying was that 75% accuracy from behind cover is a significant reduction, but still good. To elaborate, assuming a 95% success rate in combat with no cover (which no sane person would do under threat of fire) 95% is a reasonable accuracy level. This 20% reduction is comparable to the reduction of d20-4, it is still a 20% reduction of your basic ability to shoot from what you would have achieved without cover.
|
|
The point I was implying was that 75% accuracy from behind cover is a significant reduction, but still good. To elaborate, assuming a 95% success rate in combat with no cover (which no sane person would do under threat of fire) 95% is a reasonable accuracy level. This 20% reduction is comparable to the reduction of d20-4, it is still a 20% reduction of your basic ability to shoot from what you would have achieved without cover.
I get that. My point was that your original post did not include a base-line for comparison.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
There's some hubbub in the rules forum about the Starfinder cover rules. The problem seems to come from one example (#2) which seems to be in error, since it contradicts the rule it's providing an example for. (It turns "from any corner" into "from every corner" and "through" into "along")
If you ignore that example then the Starfinder cover rules basically apply the Pathfinder ranged cover rules to all types of cover.
Which is probably good: it simplifies the rules. The major consequence for melee is that you no longer want to be standing in the doorway to bottleneck people, but behind it, since hard corners don't provide as much cover anymore.
And it meets what I think is the baseline requirement for a playable cover rule: that someone using a defensible position tends to gain more defense than the enemy he's shooting that's in the wide open. In many cases, cover should not be symmetrical.
|
|
There's some hubbub in the rules forum about the Starfinder cover rules. The problem seems to come from one example (#2) which seems to be in error, since it contradicts the rule it's providing an example for. (It turns "from any corner" into "from every corner" and "through" into "along")
If you ignore that example then the Starfinder cover rules basically apply the Pathfinder ranged cover rules to all types of cover.
Which is probably good: it simplifies the rules. The major consequence for melee is that you no longer want to be standing in the doorway to bottleneck people, but behind it, since hard corners don't provide as much cover anymore.
And it meets what I think is the baseline requirement for a playable cover rule: that someone using a defensible position tends to gain more defense than the enemy he's shooting that's in the wide open. In many cases, cover should not be symmetrical.
That's a major change in interpretation from most people I have talked to. Given how common use of the cover rules are, how major a change this is from the typical interpretation, and the fact that the rules have been out of almost 6 months, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have issued a clarification.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
You find it hard to believe they haven't gotten around to something?
I'm not sure what the "typical interpretation" is. I think there will be (A) heaps of people who haven't realized anything has changed since Pathfinder, (B) there'll be people who focus mostly on the #2 example, and (C) people (like me) who reject it because it has fuzzy language leads to absurd situations like someone standing down a 5ft unobstructed corridor gaining cover. I think the example was poorly copied from Pathfinder. I don't think there's a consensus so much as "oh, Bob has read the new book really thoroughly and he says..."
The question has been asked several times, but no official clarification has come down.