|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a player with a combat drone with the Skill Subroutines Mod. This gives it skill ranks equal to the PC level and the ability to use the skill on its own. The PC chose engineering as the skill. The drone can use this skill without direct control being needed.
It seems reasonable to me, that the PC can give the drone a command, like keep diverting power to the shields. This would free up the party of four to take up the other four stations and have the robot be the engineer doing that one function. Every time using divert power to shields as the PCs take their actions. Would it also be reasonable to have some conditional instructions, like if-then statements, to have something like If the shields are full already, then divert power to weapons. Would this be reasonable for an 8 intelligence robot? I probably will allow this for them, since it would be fun for them, but just wondering others thoughts on this.
I've had this discussion before. There is no part of the RAW that I have found that indicates that you must be a Player to take on a crew role. This is essential because NPCs can also take on crew roles. From what I'm reading the RAW specifies Characters fill crew roles, not necessarily players. So the question is whether the Drone is considered a separate character from the player for the purpose of starship combat.
I personally consider the Drone to be a separate character for purposes of starship combat. It has its own levels and skills and is specifically able to take engineering actions on its own without direct control from the player as long as the player is conscious and able to issue commands. I believe that is really all it needs to be roughly equivalent to an NPC in terms of ability to take crew actions aboard a ship.
They would absolutely have to have either manipulator arms and a toolkit or a tool arm, but I'm almost positive that drones are intended to be able to be used as starship crew in a pinch, especially in a two person fighter situation.
Star wars quotes as justification seem to be popular here so my example is "R2, that stabilizer's broken loose again, see if you can't lock it down"
Some people argue that only a max level drone should be able to do this, when it attains True AI and can operate autonomously. I argue that this is overkill, as it is perfectly capable of acting independently enough to qualify as a character capable of taking on a crew role even at first level if it has Engineering as a skill - either through Skill Unit, Bonus Skill Unit or Skill Subroutines.
The primary argument I see regarding drones not being "separate characters" is "They are a class feature and can not be used in starship combat" to which I would respond "They are a partially separate character that you get as a class feature, and are therefore an exception to this rule"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has come up several times with no resolution or FAQ attention.
The strongest argument I've seen in favor of drones in starship combat is this FAQ on skill bonuses in Starship Combat
Mechanics with a drone should be roughly balanced to a mechanic with an exo-cortex. A mechanic's exo-cortex's memory module provides a Skill Focus feat, clearly covered by the above FAQ.
Applying the exo-cortex's memory module for a skill focus in Computers or Engineering is only a +2 bonus at lower levels since it doesn't stack with the Mechanic's Bypass ability which also provides an insight bonus. That bonus disappears at level 9 when Bypass grants a +3 to Computers and Engineering, the same as Skill Focus.
But a drone is also only really useful at lower levels as a starship's science and engineering checks quickly outpace a drone's skill bonus.
So in the end my advice is to not be petty about this - the player clearly put time into making their drone and excluding it from starship combat would reduce their enjoyment of the game. They built it to be helpful so let them have it, but since drones aren't fully autonomous they have to serve in the same role acting in the same phase. That helps keep it from bogging down starship combat.
At least until there's an official clarification on this.
Yeah I am really hoping we eventually get a clarification on this one as it does come up a LOT. That was a really insightful comment.
I disagree. A society GM cannot contradict a rule, but there's no rule clearly either for or against this. It is thus up to the individual GMs judgement.
As a society GM, I allow drone use in combat and will continue to do so until official clarification is made against it. In practice, I've found it has almost no mechanical impact on combat or the scenario but adds to the players enjoyment of the game.
The reason we want this clarified in the FAQ is so every GM either will or will not allow it, having something so critical dependent change from session to session is intolerable.
I throw this in only because you mention a four man crew. Whether or not the GM allows the drone to operate, it would still need a ship that allowed at least 5 active crew members/actions.
Whether or not the GM allows the drone to operate, it would still need a ship that allowed at least 5 active crew members/actions.
All Society ships support a crew compliment of 4-7, and yes if you have 7 players at the table this is a great reason for the GM to say "there's not enough room in the engineering bay for you both to work, either you or your drone need to stay in your crew quarters".
Perhaps this question should be asked in the Starfinder Society forums for a specific ruling?
There have been multiple threads on this dating back to August, at least one in the Starfinder Society forum, and no official response.
The best we can do at this point is go to the thread with the most FAQ votes (currently 9) and click the FAQ button to add more votes to it. Add it here and to the others, too, until someone official notices the ruckus and responds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
As a society GM, I allow drone use in combat and will continue to do so until official clarification is made against it. In practice, I've found it has almost no mechanical impact on combat or the scenario but adds to the players enjoyment of the game.
And as a society GM I would not allow a drone because it is clearly a class feature and thus not allowed.
I understand the desire because of the whole Star Wars and R2D2 thing. But per the CRB, they are not allowed.
We do agree that a FAQ clarifying this is needed urgently. So please everyone click the FAQ button.
There has to be an impact because the PCs have more actions with a 5th "character".
Anyways, an old debate between us that will not be resolved until the powers that be make a clarification. The fact they have not speaks volumes to me that no clarification is needed because drones are a class feature and not an independent entity.
All Society ships support a crew compliment of 4-7, and yes if you have 7 players at the table this is a great reason for the GM to say "there's not enough room in the engineering bay for you both to work, either you or your drone need to stay in your crew quarters".
Ah, apologies then. I'm not involved in that.
And as a society GM I would not allow a drone because it is clearly a class feature and thus not allowed.
Class features and items affect crew actions only if specifically noted in the class feature or item
I know we've been down this road many times before, but since new people are in the discussion lets lay the debate bare;
First, is a drone an creature or a class feature? I would say that being able to build the drone is a class feature, but since it can act as a semi-autonomous creature and its ability to take crew actions of its own is not the same as affecting your PC's crew actions.
Second, there's the issue of balance within the mechanic class itself. The FAQ pretty clearly allows an Exocortex's memory module to provide the +3 insight bonus to skills used in starship combat;
When actions taken in starship combat call for a skill check, any class feature that grants bonuses to or allows rerolls with the relevant skill applies when using that skill as part of starship combat.
Since the exocortex's Memory Module is roughly analogous to a drone's Skill Unit, drones should be permitted.
Both of these options are only useful at low levels of course, by level 9 the Memory Module no longer provides any bonus in computers or engineering beyond the insight bonus provided by their Bypass feature, and by level 9 the starship action DCs will become far too high for drones to realistically help with.
I understand the desire because of the whole Star Wars and R2D2 thing.
Of course they do! Robot companions assisting in starship combat is all over the scifi and sci-fantasy genres. Virtually every new player creating a mechanic imagines their drone being able to plug into the ship's computer to fire guns or assist them in patching systems as they blow out.
... and every time I've seen a GM say "no" to this, I've watched disappointment wash over the player's face. There's so many possible resolutions to this that would make the experience more fun for players, like instead of drones taking starship combat roles they could tie into the ship's computer to provide their mechanic an assistance bonus.
Anyways, an old debate between us that will not be resolved until the powers that be make a clarification. The fact they have not speaks volumes to me that no clarification is needed because drones are a class feature and not an independent entity.
Or they simply haven't decided yet. I doubt Thurston is empowered to make such a fundamental call on his own, this requires the developers to come to a consensus on.
The FAQ updates so far for starship combat have all been class-agnostic. Obviously they need to address this and many other class-specific issues.
... and frankly, I think by now they must realize how broken the starship combat rules are and are looking for a more generalized solution. Even with the 1.5x FAQ update the DCs still don't scale well, we still don't have boarding rules as were promised at PaizoCon 2017, and the classes are still wildly imbalanced.
... and frankly, I think by now they must realize how broken the starship combat rules are and are looking for a more generalized solution. Even with the 1.5x FAQ update the DCs still don't scale well, we still don't have boarding rules as were promised at PaizoCon 2017, and the classes are still wildly imbalanced.
All of the above are true. From the perspective of someone who only recently started Starfinder, after years of Pathfinder, D&D, Shadowrun, Scion, White Wolf games, etc. From someone who's played a lot of systems and only recently picked SF up I find myself re-reading things and wondering if it's the intention.
Starship actions is a big one, as it's true they scale poorly. It's scaling that makes /some/ sense if you consider the idea of enemies needing to be tougher (so hacking their systems or taunting them), but why does adding one new gun to my own medium-sized explorer vessel make my DCs harder for myself? Why is it just as difficult to piloting stunt a tier 12 dreadnought and a tier 12 racer?
Nothing made me feel worse than the moment after I finished my Envoy Icon, happy at the idea of playing a captain-capable character with all the necessary skills, only to later peruse the Operative and find out not only is Operative's Edge a comparable boost to everything out of the box, but 2 additional free skill points a level. I picked the skill class and without effort the semi-combat class can easily out-do me and has more versatile functionality. There are more important things for the dev team to work out right now than individual interactions, however that said, they need to be working on them, and as much as I'm excited for PF2, I'm also disappointed that it's all we've been hearing about up the pipelines since it was announced.
That said, I'm of the type to say the drone is a perfectly viable crew member if it has the skills. I'd also like to see the idea of an SRO ship, or AI operated positions on a ship for tables that don't have a full compliment. I'd love rules for if the PCs want to instead of building one big ship, build a carrier and four tiny fighters like a Star Fox team.
Starfinder has a lot of potential, and s lot of flaws, I think largely for the same reason Ultimate Wilderness has flaws. They pushed them both out the gate with less playtest time than they should have gotten. Until such a time as they recieve the attention they deserve though, there's little point in tearing apart minor semantics that have little to no effect on the game as a whole.
I don't usually haunt the starfinder boards, so I'm not familiar with the arguments so can someone explain what part of a drone is affecting crew actions?
The restriction is fairly tightly limited, and in no way worded as a blanket prohibition from taking part in starship combat. The restriction is after roles are assigned - if they were intended to be prohibited from adopting a role you'd expect the prohibition to be much earlier in the text.
I am just a little disappointed in the silence we have had on this question as well as the debacle that is batteries.
I am hopeful that clarity will be given in the near future, either by a FAQ or for Society play, a campaign clarification.
Are you going to PaizoCon? There's a Starfinder seminar track Friday afternoon where we can ask about why they're not addressing these.
Also, if you are we should grab a drink.
Nothing made me feel worse than the moment after I finished my Envoy Icon, happy at the idea of playing a captain-capable character with all the necessary skills, only to later peruse the Operative and find out not only is Operative's Edge a comparable boost to everything out of the box, but 2 additional free skill points a level.
Yep, Operatives are crazy overpowered in starship combat. Add a theme or a skill synergy feat which gives Diplomacy as a class skill and you can have an operative which is better than every other PC at the table at every starship combat role.
And you're right, Envoy's should make superior captains - and they could if some of their class features worked between starship comms.
Mystics would be on the other end of the spectrum, even with the Star Shaman connection they're mediocre at best at piloting. Technomancers can at least make semi-decent starship engineers, but on purely technological ships a mystic is just worthless.
Many of the imbalances could be balanced by allowing boarding actions. Then the party could split into starship crew and boarding or defending party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*cough* When is a drone a class feature? When you get a drone as a result of your class. Which is to say, yes, the mechanic's drone is a class feature. If you get a drone through some other means, then yes, its not a class feature.
Also, R2D2 is not a class feature, either. R2D2 would be a character in his own right. If you want that kind of dynamic, you don't need a mechanic, you need a second player running an SRO.
In regards to drones acting on their own, whether they are a class feature or not is completely irrelevant as that particular clause never comes into play.
I for one am not arguing that it isn't a class feature. I am arguing as to whether it is a class feature affecting your crew actions.
Considering the specific wording of the restriction, and where it appears in the text, you can't use the drone to aid another or in any way assist you in a role, but nothing seems to restrict it from taking it's own role.
In regards to drones acting on their own, whether they are a class feature or not is completely irrelevant as that particular clause never comes into play.