Is it me or did they completely over correct the DC's of Starship combat. So far my players have zero trouble hitting them. In fact its so generous at low levels that beyond a fumble here or there or and extremely low roll of 5 or less success is a forgone conclusion for most of the actions.
Is this really intended? I dont mind them being somewhat easy to do but as it stands now there is almost no tension what so ever in starship actions. Its simply choose whats most optimal for each turn and do it.. which is kinda lame. I much prefer some risk and reward.
I am considering going back to the DC's as originally written. Once you take into account computer bonuses and bonuses from other ship actions the DC's still seem very doable. What happened?
My understanding is that the DC's were changed because the scaling didn't make sense, and actually punished players for levelling up their ship. (I personally have no problem with the revised DC's, it seems to me most of the described actions should be routine excepting mishaps or extreme circumstances.) Presumably going back to the old DC's would reintroduce the scaling problem to your game, so it would depend on whether you're okay with that.
|
My understanding is that the DC's were changed because the scaling didn't make sense, and actually punished players for levelling up their ship. (I personally have no problem with the revised DC's, it seems to me most of the described actions should be routine excepting mishaps or extreme circumstances.) Presumably going back to the old DC's would reintroduce the scaling problem to your game, so it would depend on whether you're okay with that.
Agreed. With the base assumption in the rules seeming to indicate how wide spread starship use and access is, it doesn't make sense for starship anything to be as challenging as it was in the original math.
Hitting another starship in combat still averages out at about the same rate that hitting and missing in normal combat does which works well considering that shooting at a moving target while moving would be the most difficult part outside of piloting the ship itself. But an engineer or science officer to be so inherently unable to do their role makes absolutely no sense.
An actual pilot would be able to do most of those things if they were certified to fly so regularly failing at piloting checks also doesn't make sense.
I have found that most of the tension comes from an enemy doing damage to the player's ship, the same as normal combat. Tension because there are enemies sounds like a role playing problem and not a problem with the changed math for the mechanics. The math is easier for the enemy too so if the enemy is attempting to do what is most optimal, there should be plenty of damage trading and interesting encounters
As I said I have no problem with the actions being "mostly doable" but as they stand now there is little reason to even roll. Besides the odd fumble there auto successful. Even the supposedly push / challenging DC's are successful on a roll of a 5 or more for the most part.
What is the point of having rolls at all if they are successful 95% of the time. They might as well have just been options to choose from and then at that point the active participation part of the players becomes more like choose your own adventure path choices.
It seems to me that the DC's now are no better than they were before and I would argue after preparing for my campaign and running my own math they ere doable before the change. Most players are going to optimize for one roll or another. Now they are trivial to the point of being almost pointless to roll.
Of course the question of whether to roll or not is entirely up to you. You could quite easily just decide to forego checks except where unusual situations arise, or go back to the old DC's if you prefer them and the scaling question doesn't trouble you.
There's maybe a bigger question of gaming, uh, philosophy at play, I guess? Not to sound too grandiose or anything? In the larger sense of "to roll or not to roll," I don't have a problem doing checks even where chances of failure are relatively marginal, be it in or out of starship combat, whenever checks are dramatically appropriate. My players still get a charge out of nailing a check and feeling like their character is capable no matter how easy the task was -- within reason -- and they still sweat even a marginal chance of failure and the possibility of the dread nat-1 appearing at the worst possible time. (When I'm a player I generally feel the same way.) This means that I find checks are almost always appropriate in any form of combat; I don't give players automatic hits on enemies they're highly likely to hit in melee, and I don't give them automatic successes on check in starship combat even if chance of failure is remote. But that's me.
If you find the dynamic is boring you or boring your table, there might be another solution than just resetting the DC's. I find starship combat is way more satisfying and nail-biting when you add complications to it. If your players are fighting while swerving through a buffeting Star Wars-y asteroid belt and their engineer is trying to fix sparking panels and compensate for glitching systems while attempting to divert power to the shields, it provides a way of upping the stakes and making rolls feel a lot more clutch and meaningful*. That kind of scenario really made my last starship combat session pop, maybe you'll find it useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course the question of whether to roll or not is entirely up to you. You could quite easily just decide to forego rules except where unusual situations arise, or go back to the old DC's if you prefer them and the scaling question doesn't trouble you.
There's maybe a bigger question of gaming, uh, philosophy at play, I guess? Not to sound too grandiose or anything? In the larger sense of "to roll or not to roll," I don't have a problem doing checks even where chances of failure are relatively marginal, be it in or out of starship combat, whenever checks are dramatically appropriate. My players still get a charge out of nailing a check and feeling like their character is capable no matter how easy the task was -- within reason -- and they still sweat even a marginal chance of failure and the possibility of the dread nat-1 appearing at the worst possible time. This means that I find checks are almost always appropriate in any form of combat; I don't give players automatic hits on enemies they're highly likely to hit in melee, and I don't give them automatic successes on check in starship combat even if chance of failure is remote. But that's me.
If you find the dynamic is boring you or boring your table, there might be another solution that just resetting the DC's. I find starship combat is way more satisfying and nail-biting when you add complications to it. If your players are fighting while swerving through a buffeting Star Wars-y asteroid belt and their engineer is trying to fix sparking panels and compensate for glitching systems while attempting to divert power to the shields, it provides a way of upping the stakes and making rolls feel a lot more clutch and meaningful. That kind of scenario really made my last starship combat session pop, maybe you'll find it useful.
I like your philosophy and overall agree with what you said here. My approach is very similar to what you suggest. I guess I was just shocked that they went so far the other way with the DC's. To me they still seem imbalanced just in the other direction now. I mean I know I am arm chair game designing and I generally trust in the designers and their intent. Is just jarring to see them swing from what was perceived as nearly impossible all they way to basically trivial. I fully intend to implement the things your suggesting however.
Awesome, I hope it works for you! Have fun!