|
I searched the forums and found nothing related to this, so I figured I would bring it up directly.
In the FAQ, the flyby stunt has the correct DC equation, but it changes the target. Instead of using the enemy's stats for the DC like the CRB states, the FAQ has it using your own ship.
Was that intentional? I would hate to think so as that means basically any Tier 1 ship could fly through almost any other ship hex without fear of provoking.
If it is, then me and my group are getting 1/2 tier fighters and flybying the bolts off of larger ships.
Especially since we can target any arc. Focus fire four or five little ships, each equipped with as heavy a forward weapon as possible.
You'll lose in a hurry, especially if you pick a fight with a Colossal that has DT 15. Even with the buff, Tiny ships really struggle to have a purpose, since their action economies are so poor, and light weapons are so bad. Maybe you could make something compelling happen with Shuttles, but I'm pretty skeptical. It takes a lot of buffing for the Tiny and Small ships to compete with the Explorer chassis.
Okay, so what did you use for the skill levels of thea crew of the larger ships? Saying you put higher level characters into the fighters is great, but it frankly sounds like you intentionally padded the results of the test by doing so. Did you account for a full crew in the larger ships with equivalent skill modifiers, and have them use all of their available actions as appropriate?
I've done this same thing with players in a high tier ship and the same players in a lower tier ship. The current rules incentivise you to have low tier ships and flyby is the worst offender. In fact it has become the defacto acton for my players if they lose the pilot initiative check and have to move first as it's actually better in some ways than if they had won and got to go second. I understand that the DCs of the starship combat needed to be addressed, but there are still some problems.
Also changed at the same time was the wording on divert to shields. The new wording makes it such that the balance action is early needed and you can make a ship practicly invulnerable by pumping shields and power core to high levels for a given ship tier.
quindraco I just ran a quick mock fight with a squadron of 6, tier 1 fighters against 2 Tier 6 ships.
The fighters owned with these rules. Not quite sure what you mean by lose.
Not sure what you ran, but something I just realized we hadn't openly discussed was crew complement - NPCs have magic filling their ship, but a PC party can't field more ships than they can crew, so we shouldn't have this discussion in a vacuum. We should specify how many crew are available on each side for a fight, and what their levels are, if we're discussing higher level characters in lower level ships. I freely admit I may have overlooked something vital, in that all the analysis I've done up to this point has assumed NPC crews, meaning 6 T1 ships have L1 crew, while 2 T6 ships have L6 crew. Everything's different if those assumptions change. It's also important to specify BP budgets - did you field 310 BP against 330, or did you adjust one of the two sides? Did your mock fight include paying BP for things like Drift engines (the T6 ships can far more easily afford to pay taxes for systems not immediately useful in a dogfight)?
My first inclination with a 310 BP budget (the cost of that Fighter squadron) would be to make 1 T11 ship, probably on an Explorer chassis, but I'm not sure how I'd allocate all 12 of my assumed crew. Certainly I'd experiment with a Dreadnought (are those even on the table? what exactly are we comparing? can we take larger ships and just assume the roleless crew positions are filled with stock NPCs with no skill ranks?) if I knew I was going up against T1 Fighters, because Fighters have to pay a relatively large amount of overhead to bring linked coilguns to the fight, and very few light weapons other than that can scratch DT 15, but I'd have to run the math on it to see if I were going to commit.
The biggest problem with Tiny ships is their inability to bring Heavy weapons to the party. If I bring a Dreadnought, all of your damage rolls of 15 or less do nothing to the hull at all. But that's poor ship design - I shouldn't assume I'm fighting Fighters, just like you shouldn't assume you are or aren't fighting a Dreadnought. More broadly, if we're having a 310 BP fight with 12 crew on hand, this is the sort of ship you should worry about fighting - I didn't design it specifically for this or any other fight, I just threw it together at 310 BP:
Lashunta Problem Solver (Fully Statted Crew, due to PC rules)
Explorer, T11
Expansion Bays: 3x Power Core Housing
Power Cores: 4x Nova Ultra (PCU 1200), Common Guest Quarters (Holds 6)
Thrusters: M12
Shields: Superior 540
Defenses: Mk 3
Armor: Mk 3
Sensors: Budget Long-Range (Range Long, Mod +0)
Computer: Mk 2 Duonode
Weapons: Turret-Mounted Linked Persistent Particle Beam (Range Long, Damage 20d6)
Crew: 12:
Pilot: Level 11 Lashunta Damaya Ace Pilot Hacker Operative with Skill Focus (Piloting, Diplomacy, Intimidate), Sky Jockey, Skill Synergy (Diplomacy, X) and Dexterity +7/Intelligence +5/Charisma +3. Racial bonuses are to Piloting and Engineering.
Rolls:
Pilot: 38 without Rolling (autosuccess)
Gunnery: 1d20+18 base
Captain, Non-Orders: 31 (autosuccess)
SO: 33 (autosuccess)
Engineering: 35 (autosuccess except for Patch Wrecked)
Gunner: Copy of Pilot.
Science Officers and Engineers: As above, but Intelligence +6/Dexterity +6/Charisma +3, with racial bonuses in Computers and Engineering. There are 9 of them.
Rolls:
Pilot: 35 (autosuccess)
Gunnery: 1d20+17 base
Captain, Non-Orders: 31 (autosuccess)
SO/Engineer: 36 (autosuccess)
Captain: As above, but Charisma +6/Dexterity +6/Intelligence +3, with racial bonuses in Diplomacy and Intimidate.
Rolls:
Pilot: 35 (autosuccess)
Gunnery: 1d20+17 base
Captain, Non-Orders: 36 (autosuccess)
SO/Engineer: 31 (autosuccess except for Patch Wrecked)
Practical Stats:
Speed 13, Turn 1
AC 31, TL 31, Taunt DC 31, Enemy Science DC 24
HP 75, CT 15, SP 540 (maximum in 1 arc at start of fight: 378; evenly balanced at start: 135 per arc), Divert Regeneration 60
+2 to any 2 actions (typically initiative and the gunshot)
Typical Gunshot: Range 20 hexes, 1d20+26 to hit (18+Computer+Lock On+Encourage) (average 36.5), Damage 20d6 (average 70, 73.33 with Divert/Overpower). Note that usually Divert chooses the shields, but usually Overpower chooses shields, weapons, and engines. Once the Gunner and the Pilot have both shot using Demand instead of Encourage (1d20+28), remaining Demand shots are at 1d20+27, so the ship can take a maximum of 2 +28 shots and 10 +27 shots per fight.
This was done with Lashunta, because they're the best at Starship Combat as a single race (mostly due to arbitrarily assignable racial bonuses, including to Computers, which no one else gets at all, combined with racial bonuses to two Starship Combat-relevant stats). Other races won't do as well, which will be much more noticeable at some levels than others. It was done with Operatives, as for most purposes, they're the optimal crew, as they can get their bonuses up high enough to take 10 on the various skill checks and just make them happen. Note that Ordering a Gunner is so hard there's no build that can do it well, but also useless - any Captain good at Ordering a Gunner is drastically better at being a second Gunner that round.
The fight is also heavily biased by happening at L11; most of the really hard skill checks only become available at L12, so it's easier to build the entire ship while assuming DC 20+1.5xTier checks will never happen. At L12 and higher, even Lashunta have to fundamentally change their approach and assign more dedicated builds to various roles.
|
|
This was assuming the same bonuses and all available positions filled.
Yes I used all available actions and resources, otherwise it wouldn't have been a fair test.
I encourage you to do it yourselves. Don't take my word for it.
And that was JUST an example.
Obviously a larger class ship with something like DT 15 would have a better chance, but he PRINCIPLE of the issue remains.
What I mean is, even if we aren't talking about tier 1 ships you are incentivized to use smaller ships. The best example of this is to simply list out the Flyby DC's in question.
Tier 1: 16
Tier 2: 18
Tier 3: 19
Tier 4: 21
Tier 5: 22
Tier 6: 24
Tier 7: 25
Tier 8: 27
Tier 9: 28
Tier 10: 30
Tier 11: 31
Tier 12: 33
Tier 13: 34
Tier 14: 36
Tier 15: 37
Tier 16: 39
Tier 17: 40
Tier 18: 42
Tier 19: 43
Tier 20: 45
This is the crux of my issue. At the extreme ends of this list, the same character with that +15 piloting has either a 100% chance of success or a 0% chance once you hit Tier 14. But not because of the level of the other ship that is the actual target, but because of one's own ship.
Another simple way to look at it is the BP system. BP is used to represent all ship resources including how powerful/advanced some parts are. The current rules state that a smaller, less armored, less armed, less advanced engines, less advanced computer, less advanced power source, etc etc etc... is still more capable of flybies than the ship that has literally dozens of times the resources focused on a single vessel.
Tier 1 BP: 55
Tier 20 BP: 1,000
A pilot in that Tier 20 would need a MINIMUM +25 with a NAT 20 to flyby that tier 1 ship. Again, this is the extreeeeeeme comparison, but that should only point out the issue all the more.
|
It used to be DC 60 at level 20. DC 45 is easily doable with a dedicated pilot.
Let's go with a good pilot (non-Lashunta Ace Pilot Star Shaman) 20 ranks, +3 class, +6 dex (22, easily achievable at level 20 if you start with 14 dex and put the +2 upgrade on it), -2 for it being a colossal dreadnaught, +8 insight, +1 theme = 36. Giving her a success on a 9 or higher. Add in captain encouragement for a +4 to drop it to a 5+, or give her the +10 bonus from the mk10 duonode computer if she really needs to succeed.
A highly specialized lashunta ace pilot operative would be at 20 ranks, +2 racial, +7 insight, +3 class, +9 dex (start with 18 dex, to get it to 22, then +6 upgrade), +1 theme for 42 on her own, -2 from the collossal dreadnaught, getting the +4 from captain encouragement is autosuccess on a 1 for the flyby. Doesn't even need the computer.
A half-decent pilot (human soldier) would be at 20 ranks, +3 class, +6 dex, +3 insight -2 colossal ship and thus would need both the computer and captain encouragement to get to +44 and thus autosucceed.
I'd even want to argue that pilot in a tier 20 ship should not be a scrub with only a +25 in piloting as that one will nearly always act last if the dice don't roll in her favour, considering the sample tier 16 already has a +28 piloting with 16 ranks.
|
|
I also want to note that I agree with their new x1.5 numbers instead of x2.
I agree that the DC's should go up in this manner.
I agree that enough of a tier discrepancy means some fights are finished before they begin.
What I don't agree with is basing the DC of an offensive move off of the attacking ship, as opposed to the defending ship. Especially when it was written to be against the defender like every other similar mechanic in the first place.
Edit: Also, your numbers just kinda prove my point. A properly leveled and skilled pilot shouldn't need the help of their captain and computer just to get the same auto succeed for flyby on a tier 1 ship. In fact, your example works better than mine did at explaining my issue.
|
|
Maybe my disconnect is in that I don't see tier 1 and tier 10 ships as equal in every intertial aspect.
To me, a higher tier ship represents among others more stuff bolted on, different weight distribution, etc, changing the parameters of the difficulty of piloting the ship.
Which is why an ace pilot can actually do those stunts in that higher tier ship, while having almost no issue in doing those stunts in lower tier ships and the scrub pilot can manage in the lower tier ships, but fails in the higher.
For my own curiousity I created a spreadsheet with 4 different pilots and their succesrate on tier approrpiate ships (and their skill through the levels as I envisioned them)
Not even the most specialized character I can envision can autosucceed in tier appropriate ships without help, and the good and specialist pilots actually stay fairly samey on their succeschance through the levels, representing them learning to actually do a flyby stunt with a carrier or dreadnaught for example.
|
What I don't agree with is basing the DC of an offensive move off of the attacking ship, as opposed to the defending ship. Especially when it was written to be against the defender like every other similar mechanic in the first place.
Agree with you. It made more sense to me when it based on the opponent ship.
I don't think any of the DCs should be tier based, outside of emergent properties that imply that they are, such as instead basing them on the skills of the enemy officers, which for NPCs will be the same thing. I can't think of a single starship action where tier alone makes any sense at all as the DC setter. I also strongly disagree with you guys about Flyby unless you also include Audacious Gambit, because usually, Audacious Gambit is Flyby, but better.
For example, Pilot checks should be based entirely on how easily you can manipulate your ship with your thrusters, meaning it should be based on factors like maneuverability, thrusters, armor (since that explicitly adds bulk), and debatably size. Options include the ship's maneuverability class, turn rating, speed, size, base TL modifiers from armor and/or size. For Audacious Gambit and Flyby, it should be harder to ignore free attacks from more competent Gunners.
For another, Science Officers should have more trouble balancing more powerful shields, while the other actions should be primarily based on the opposing ship's computer, defenses, and possibly science officers.
And so on. I'd argue the one that makes the absolute least sense right now is Taunt, where somehow the same personnel are easier to mock on cheaper ships and harder to mock on pricier ones. I'd probably base that one's DC primarily on the target Captain.
|
|
The whole idea is to make starship quick and enjoyable. Is a DC based approach the best? No
But adding in all the factors you suggest would turn off a lot of players who want to roll the and have a fairly straight forward way of determing success. It would also slow down something that a lot of players find slow already.
|
|
Damanta, again that is my exact point. This system encourages you to use lower tier ships because it is easier than using tier appropriate ships. All the math we throw at this just further proves my point that the system is not balanced the way it should be.
You see bulk in a high tier ship, I see more powerful engines, more powerful thrusters, more efficient armor, more advanced control systems, and of course one huge upgrade to the CPU running everything. (Though anything regarding bulk is also almost entirely mitigated by the fact that in space it's pretty easy to get stuff moving about. Especially with the higher tier equipment that should blow some cheap fighter out of the water in every respect.)
As for how it sits now, I found my first spaceship combat slow but the next few amazingly simple. Their system is just that, simple. Ish. At least compared to something like Pathfinder.
Though if they REALLY wanted simplicity, they could have instead opted for a dice vs. dice method that a plethora of ship-oriented games already utilize.
Instead of DCs, have different kinds of bonuses/negatives based on current modifiers. In fact this is a PERFECT opportunity to utilize all of those dice we all have.
Lower end parts would only add a 1d2 or 1d3, but the better you go the higher the bonus. You could even break that down further into parts that have a static bonus of +1 or something similarly small that is both easy to use and fun to count. (Let's be honest, we love to count our die totals. Or at least I've never met a player who didn't.)
Each part can grant a simple bonus/negative system. Your heavy missile might give a bonus of 1d10 on your offensive rolls but because of it's size, or perhaps placement or whatever justification that can be easily used, it is slightly unwieldy and so it also gives a single negative to piloting.
As for the possibility of a lot of math going around, that is what a well documented ship sheet is for. There is no reason all of the applicable modifiers and bonuses shouldn't be decided upon and on paper for easy reference once a game has begun. And yes it might just be a little weird rolling 1d4+2d6+1d8+(character bonus) or what have you as opposed rolls. But I'd argue that is only because the d20 is currently king.
That is just what I could come up with over the past 45 minutes. It's far from perfect but the more I think on this the more I am wondering if I am going to lose sleep fleshing out the idea just to see where it goes. Though I have no one to blame but myself if I do I suppose!
|
|
I didn't say bulk :) I said inertia. Mass is still a thing, even in space.
Yes more powerful engines and thrusters and stuff make it easier to move bigger mass, but that doesn't mean it gets easier, even with more advanced control systems :).
I pretty much think that the system is set up to be challenging as long as you use tier/level appropriate stuff, which includes enemies, spaceships, and equipment.
Yes flyby is extremely potent, which is why I agree that the DC shouldn't be based on your's (or even the enemy's) starship tier.
I think it should actually be based on opposed rolls between the two pilots.
I like that idea, that flyby should be an opposed piloting check, as that's basically the premise of the maneuver. If you were to so it normally you get shot. I stead you try to do it in such a way that YOU get to pick a shot. I think an opposed pilot check plus 5 to the defending pilot sounds perfect.
After preparing for my own campaign and going over the starship rules with a fine tooth comb I think if anything the new Starship action DCs are too low. They are laughably easy until well into late game for a dedicated pilot and even late game are even marginally difficult. In my opinion they over corrected.
I agree that the DC being based on your own ship for flyby makes no sense and should have remained the enemy ship.
As for the DC's in general its the scaling thats all out of hand with things being laughably easy at lower tiers and scaling too quickly at higher tiers. As far as I can see its the system for figuring DC's at fault and one that isnt easily fixable.
|
|
I didn't say bulk :) I said inertia. Mass is still a thing, even in space.
Yes more powerful engines and thrusters and stuff make it easier to move bigger mass, but that doesn't mean it gets easier, even with more advanced control systems :).I pretty much think that the system is set up to be challenging as long as you use tier/level appropriate stuff, which includes enemies, spaceships, and equipment.
Yes flyby is extremely potent, which is why I agree that the DC shouldn't be based on your's (or even the enemy's) starship tier.
I think it should actually be based on opposed rolls between the two pilots.
I don't see anywhere in fiction or real world that says more advanced and powerful systems wouldn't make it easier for a pilot to control the vehicle. In fact we have evidence to the contrary with things like power steering that allows drivers to turn without needing to be moving first. Granted it's not in space but these are all fictional anyways so we are a bit beyond that.
Otherwise we are in complete agreement about everything else. I agree that it is a system that is trying to balance itself, and my whole point is that it fails to do so in a compelling way.
Besides, the original issue is something we all seem to agree on which is also my original post. It shouldn't be your own ship. This offensive roll should go against a defensive stat/roll.