I love Starfinder. I love starship's combat. There are a few things that need to be tweeked (for example, giving a few more options to engineers, captains and science officers that include decisions to have), but that part is easy, and I tend to tweak every RPG I play anyway.
But I have a serious problem with starship building. It's a total mess. It's way too easy to build a ship right, and totally outclass similar tier NPC ships that are built bad on purpose. It's not even optimization, it's just that the *best things to have* are the *cheapest things* anyway, like shields, movement, and the best weapons are the cheapest weapons too (compare Chain Cannon and coilgun, for example. Coilgun is better *and* much cheaper) And a lot of not-really-that-usefull stuff is incredibly expensive, making it a non-starter for the players, and a waste of BP for NPC.
The most clear example, is shields. Let's see, for example, the NPC ship Tyrant, the Vesk battleship. It has 200 shields, which cost it 22 BP. It also has Mk 10 armor, which cost it 21x size category, or 144 BP. Reducing it to Mk9, will cut the cost to 18 x size category, saving 21 BP in the process. That will allow us to raise the shields to a whooping SIX HUNDRED POINTS, and still have 3 extra points to do whatever, like upgrading core to pay for the extra PCU. Because the AC is horribly expensive, specially for big ships, while shields are stupdily cheap.
Several costs are tied to ship size. While it's "realistic" that a bigger ship has a bigger monetary cost to put armor on, fact is BPs aren't really money, they are an abstract value to balance out ships. And because armor is much more expensive for big ships, it has the counter intuitive side effect that having armored big ships is WORSE than having the same armor on a smaller chasis. The 144 whooping points that the Tyrant had to pay for it's armor, it's a mere 42 points for a small ship. Given the fact that both have the same points to spend if both are tier 16, coupled with the fact that Colosal ships have lower AC because of size, (plus the small sized one gets a bonus), it's easier to have more armor in the smaller frame than in the big one. In addition, although the Tyrant has more hull points, as the NPC waste points in stuff, while the PC go for the good low hanging fruits like Shields, the extra shields a Tier 16 PC small or medium shuttle will have makes up for it.
There are a lot of other examples that make no sense cost wise. An antipersonal azimuth laser cannon to protect your door will cost you the same than a freaking heavy laser cannon, while the former will rarely be useful at all in most campaigns. A biometric lock in the door cost you 5 whopping BP. That's the diffeence between 200 shields, or 320 shields. I mean, it's cool to have a finger print in the door to open it. Most smartphones do it now. But if the oportunity cost is 120 freaking shields, no way I'll buy it.
The problem with "fixing" this, is that it's a whole mess. It's not something you can tinker, with a small change here or there. The whole thing makes little sense. It's counterintuitive, and many things are more expensive for bigger ships when it shouldn't. Yes, it makes sense that, for example, movement is more expensive for big ships. But ARMOR, should not. SHIELDS, sould not. COMPUTERS, should not. There are so many things that "need" change in my opinion, that the final system would not look at all as it is now, making it hard as hell to convert all the current ships.
Of all the game systems in starfinder, I feel starships is, by far, the more rushed one, and the one that would had benefited more from open playtest. It's sort of admited, actually, given the fact that they had to rebuild the whole DC for actions because it simply didn't work.
I don't know if there is any plan to fix this in the future by Paizo, or if there is any 3pp alternative that does it. But right now, it's just a broken toy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most clear example, is shields. Let's see, for example, the NPC ship Tyrant, the Vesk battleship. It has 200 shields, which cost it 22 BP. It also has Mk 10 armor, which cost it 21x size category, or 144 BP. Reducing it to Mk9, will cut the cost to 18 x size category, saving 21 BP in the process. That will allow us to raise the shields to a whooping SIX HUNDRED POINTS, and still have 3 extra points to do whatever, like upgrading core to pay for the extra PCU. Because the AC is horribly expensive, specially for big ships, while shields are stupdily cheap.
There's a minor issue with your proposal, as the Tyrant doesn't have enough PCU to run 600 point shields (50 PCU for the 200 point shields versus 160 PCU for the 600 point shields) along with everything else. Its already running close the limit on its 500 PCU power core (may not even be able to fire all its weapon already). Given Colossal ships only have once class of Power Core (Gateway Ultra, 500 PCU for 50 BP), and that converting an Expansion bay to a spare Power Core housing costs 10, the total conversion you are proposing would cost 78 points (50+10+18), which would involve dropping the armor by dropping the armor from +10 to +6 (21x7 to 9x7). At a minimum, thats roughly a 26% increase in expected damage (i.e. if you need a 6 to hit, now you hit on a 2).
Assuming we're talking about taking the tyrant out in a single round, then your proposed shield change would increase the effective hit points from 800 to about 952 (1200/1.26=952).
However, in longer fights, the Tyrant normally restores 0.05*500 = 25 shield points with the divert action. Its unclear to me from the wording of the divert power action whether you sum the value of multiple power cores together or whether you're diverting from a single power core.
If its from a single power core, then a tyrant with the lower AC is only getting 25/1.26=19.8 effective shield points back a turn. If combat takes 10 turns, we're now talking about 1050 effective hit points versus 1150.
Which is a lot closer comparison than 800 to 1200.
I'm not saying you don't have a point in general, but the ship building rules are a bit more complicated than you're presenting here, at least for the Tyrant example.
While shields are cheap, the real limit on smaller ships is the PCU more than the BP in the late game.
I did not take in account that Colossal ships only have 1 type of power core, but that raise another concern.
A gargantuan ship would be able to have max shields cheaper than a Tyrant, by virtue of being able to put 2 Gataway light, which gives 600 PCU for 60 BP, giving you the 100 extra PCU needed for 600 shields. This only moves the point a bit, but it still remains: Shields are still very cheap, and Cores are still very cheap, compared to other options, and Armor is too expensive when the ship is big, which is counterintuitive. Big pieces of metal have a hard time being tougher because it's more expensive for them. The fact that Colossal vessels can only have one type of core kind of increase this problem, because it has less flexibility than Gargantuan ones to raise their PCU for shields.
Also, in the example you gave, you don't have to buy the extra power core housing (huge ships can have 2 cores, gargantuan can have 3, and colossal can have 4), which saves you 10 point, and reducing your AC by 2 or more gives you back 1 TL, which saves you another 5 (and 2 PCU), because you can reduce your countermeasures from 10 to 9 and still have the same TL than before. So we have to save 55 points, which is 3 AC (21x7 to 12x7, giving you some BPs to play with), or 2 AC points and something else somewhere. Plus you increase your turn rating as well. which is harder to calculate its value mathematically, but it's something valuable.
Besides that, AC itself has less value for high Tier ships. A Tyrant Model A (the one in the book) fighting vs a Tyrant Model B (the one with 3 less AC, but 600 shields) both hit with ALL weapons ALL the time. It has +33 gunnery, and 5 gunners, which allow to shoot up to 10 weapons with +29 to hit using the Fire at Will action. The A model has AC 28, so the fact that Model B has AC 25 is of little value, because both will hit with 2+, even after the first range increment. The fact that Model B has four freaking hundred more shields WILL matter, tho.
I house ruled that turrets can only have weapons 1 size smaller than the maximun size for the ship, minimum light weapons. So medium sized explorers can have heavy weapons in the front ark (or port/starboard, if you fancy them), but only light weapons in turrets. However, linked weapons makes this hot a great difference, because twinlinked light weapons are pretty decent too. Still, it makes the front arc weapon matter more, which means maneuvering is important (players want to face the enemy). This makes the combat more interesting than with all the main weapons being placed in turrets.
However, the problem is not just AC. That's a more glaring issue with NPC vessels (specially big ones, which are INCREDIBLY expensive to raise AC). But the fact that many role-playing items are so blatantly overpriced does not help. Things like anti-personnel weapons, counter hacking, biometric scans, a med lab, luxury rooms, or a brigg, are way too expensive. Both from a balance point of view, and from a lore point of view.
A turret with a lvl 1 reactive Cannon (character-size weapon) cost 6 BP. That's the cost of a Coilgun, which is a 40d4 weapon if somehow you manage to hit a creature with it. For the cost of a red star plasma cannon (character sized), which is 13 BP, you could buy A FREAKING NUCLEAR MISSILE LAUNCHER. I understand that BP and credits need to be separated, and I agree with that core principle. But why does the system then charge you 5 BP plus the lvl of the weapon in BP, for a freakign anti-personnel weapon that is more of a bragging rights thing and will probably never see use in game?
I house ruled that turrets can only have weapons 1 size smaller than the maximun size for the ship, minimum light weapons. So medium sized explorers can have heavy weapons in the front ark (or port/starboard, if you fancy them), but only light weapons in turrets. However, linked weapons makes this hot a great difference, because twinlinked light weapons are pretty decent too. Still, it makes the front arc weapon matter more, which means maneuvering is important (players want to face the enemy). This makes the combat more interesting than with all the main weapons being placed in turrets.
However, the problem is not just AC. That's a more glaring issue with NPC vessels (specially big ones, which are INCREDIBLY expensive to raise AC). But the fact that many role-playing items are so blatantly overpriced does not help. Things like anti-personnel weapons, counter hacking, biometric scans, a med lab, luxury rooms, or a brigg, are way too expensive. Both from a balance point of view, and from a lore point of view.
A turret with a lvl 1 reactive Cannon (character-size weapon) cost 6 BP. That's the cost of a Coilgun, which is a 40d4 weapon if somehow you manage to hit a creature with it. For the cost of a red star plasma cannon (character sized), which is 13 BP, you could buy A FREAKING NUCLEAR MISSILE LAUNCHER. I understand that BP and credits need to be separated, and I agree with that core principle. But why does the system then charge you 5 BP plus the lvl of the weapon in BP, for a freakign anti-personnel weapon that is more of a bragging rights thing and will probably never see use in game?
I think that by necessity the ships defenses have to see use in the game.
It's the same as the rope trick thing in other games - the players have an ostensibly safe place to retreat, recharge their batteries, rest, AND it has the inbuilt ability to fly off to a different planet. Starfinder amplifies the problem of players resting/retreating/resupplying too easily if this is left unchecked. (Especially given you can always return to absalom station very quickly)
The best solution I can think of to this is to challenge the players assumption of safety by having enemies be willing (as they would logically do) to attack, infiltrate or steal the player ship. This encourages the players to value this asset, rewards them for choosing defenses, and makes it feel more grounded in the world if the world interacts with it.
Also, players will be very glad for that red star plasma cannon if they have to stage a fighting retreat into their ship (like many scenes with the falcon in Star Wars).
I think the imbalance between the player and npc ships comes from two places;
#1 the rules explicitly state that an "average" challenge for starship combat is a lower tier, because the consequences of losing are pretty extreme (basically an automatic tpk if they don't have escape pods, and losing their ability to travel anywhere). Designs are probably suboptimal because of fear of causing a TPK.
#2 npc ships have in-universe considerations player ships don't - they have to operate for a certain cost, limited by regulations, military doctrine, politics, etc, and many vessels are likely 40 year old designs (because militaries often keep using the same weapon for decades). These things all result in suboptimal design choices.
#3 player ships are supposed to be modified, souped up custom jobs like the falcon, inherently more efficiently optimised than default ships, so they allow space for optimisation over the top of the defaults
Still, I think space combat and it's balance does have a lot of flaws.
A few problems with your assumption than the ship will be challenged come to mind.
1) if you play APs, that won't happen often, if ever.
2) this could be one of those situations where spending points to do something, make everyone worse at it. Because you spent points in antihacking measures, NOW someone will try to hack it
3) even if situationally useful, those things are not cost effective. You could sacrifice a Coil Gun to pay 6 BP to get hacking counter measures 2. But that only rise the DC to hack your ship by 2. If some one was going to hack it before, he will do it now too, except he will steal you one less Coil Gun. And if nobody was going to steal it, maybe you opened a flood gate by asking for it with your antihack measures.
4) that 14 BP for a lvl 9 Aphelion laser Cannon is not going to be that useful with +9 to hit in a lvl 9 fight, compared to what those 14 BP would mean for starship combat if spent in shields, guns, or extra core. At best, it is something cool to have it fire a few times while you retreat to the ship once in a while, so instead of killing 6 stormtroopers before you flee, you might kill 7. To pay 14 freaking BP to be cool once in a while is way too expensive
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forgot to mention your #3. Yes, but the Millennium Falcon flees when he faces imperial destroyers. In SF, you can take the destroyer down.
There is a destroyer in Dead Suns book 5. The PCs kill it, and do it with ease if their ship is properly built. That destroyer has 90 shield. The PC's Milleniun Falcon Clone could have 300+ if they want, even 600
IMO, all we need to "Fix" this would be something added that incentives having a large ship.
Right now, there are downsides to going Large or bigger without much of an upside. If we had a big enough advantage (like, say, a couple powerful weapons or expansion bays that require a massive ship), any disadvantage, such as worse armor, would be worthwhile.
Do I have an answer for what that is? No. But I didn't have an answer for fixing rogue in PF either. They ended up doing that pretty well.
A posibility, is to divorce "size" from Armor cost. Instead of 21x Size, for example, it might be 21 x 3, for example. That way, it doesn't cost you extra to have an armored battleship compared to an armored fighter. Right now, for the cost you can put AC 5 to a battleship, you can put Armor FIFTEEN to a fighter. That makes fighters, scouts and explorer ships naturally more inclined to have tougher armor at the same Tier, which makes little sense. The fact that size gives you a negative modifer to AC (because they are harder to miss), makes it worse. The first 4 points of armor you buy in a dreadnought, just offset the size bonus. While the fighter gets +2, so effectively your fighter is buying Armor 17 by the cost your dreadnought buys Armor 1.
I think the embryo to make bigger ships tougher, is there. The other thing big ships have, beside capital weapons, is Damage Treshold. But two problems with that: it only works for really big, big, big ships (a huge ship only has DT 5, which is pointless against anything bigger than a fighter), and it only works against really light weapons. Changing DT to damage reduction will make a difference. Changing Armor to add to DT (with or without the change of DT to DR) might work too, but then we might enter in the "Fighters with high armor are invulnerable" problem. Maybe a limit factor for Armor, based on your size (like, you can't buy armor that's higher than twice your size. So a medium transport could buy up to 6 or 7 armor, a huge cruiser up to 11 armor, and a battleship up to 15 armor.
Just spitballing ideas, but probably Cores should be MUCH more expensive in BPs, and/or more limited by size (so instead of medium ships being able to hold up to Nova Ultra, they could hold up to Pulse Blue, for example). Removing the Power Core Housing will help too. Increasing Shields cost in PCU, coupled with more limited cores for smaller ships, will naturally put a ceiling on the shields you can have in a smaller ship. Which also makes a lot of sense, lore wise. The biggest limiting factor to put up an energy field that repel attacks, is the amount of energy you can have, and it makes sense that huge-sized nuclear reactors, the size of a nuclear plant, produce much more energy than the engine you can have in the Millenium Falcon or an X-Wing.
Was checking now.
Things that are waaaaaaay too cheap for their effect:
Thrust. Moving from M6 to M12 cost just 3 BP. There is no reason, ever, for any medium ship, to move less than 12. 3 BP is absurdly cheap, and movement is really powerful
Turrets. Having a weapon mount (or upgrading an existing one) in turret cost just 2 more than without turret. That's too cheap for a full 360º fire arc.
Linked weapons. 50% cost of second weapon is too cheap for what is effectively an extra firing order or +4 to gunnery (you shoot 2 weapons at full attack, instead of just one, or two at -4 with Fire At Will).
Increasing weapon mount size. It's cheap as hell to increase light weapon mounts to heavy weapon mounts, diminishing the value of "combat frames" that come up with those mounts for free. Heavy weapons are much more effective than light weapons, and being able to mount heavy weapons on light frames (compounded by the fact that you can put them in turrets and twinlinked) make those small ship effectively as powerful offensively as more warlike combat ships.
Things that are way too expensive:
Anything that is not combat related. 3 BPs could bring your ship from movement 6 to movement 12, or give a +1 to the DC to hack your computer, which I suppose might be useful if you ever have someone wanting to do that and somehow that +1 is a deterrant. Smuggler compartments, bioscaners, gymnasiums, luxury quarters... all those things are really expensive for what they do.
Drift rating. In particular for pseudo big ships, or when you go to higher drifts, which get diminishing returns. Going from drift rating 2 to 3 is more expensive than going from 1 to 2, but it is worse. If you rolled 12 in the drift roll, drift rating 2 reduce the travel by 6 days. Going to drift 3 reduce it by 2 days (4 vs 6). Raising it to 4, reduce it by 1 day (3 vs 4). But it's exponentially more expensive to get even less return every time.
AC. In particular for bigger ships, who also have to pay extra to offset the AC penalty for size.
Having multiple weapons in multiple arcs.
Something I'm missing?
Talking to one of my players, I realized than one of the biggest cognitive disonances between what we see, and what we expect, is the fact that player's ship earn BPs.
I mean... look at the Millenium Falcon. Yes, it's not a basic light freighter. It's a modified smuggler light freighter, with faster engine, a smuggling cargo board, and other stuff.
But that's it. It is what it is. Instead of, say, a Tier 3 light freighter is a Tier 6, or whatever, light freighter. It does not double the number of torrets between A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, and it doesn't get stronger shields, a faster hyperdrive, and some torpedo launchers between Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi. It's the same ship, basically, in the prequel Solo, and in The Last Jedi.
In Starfinder, every time the PC level up, the ship also levels up. Which is what cause the cognitive disonance, when PC are lvl 15, their modified light freighter IS also Tier 15. WHich means that it's on par with other tier 15 ships, which include things like carriers, battleships, and dreadnoughts. It has the shields, the armor, and the weaponry of a Tier 15 ship... because it IS a tier 15 ship.
And that's a problem, if you pretend to recreate Star Wars/Star Trek/Firefly and other stuff. Because what you get in game, it's not what you expect to see in those shows.
This - the auto-leveling of the PCs ship - is something that I hope will be addressed in a future supplement. I think for the CRB the goal was to establish the idea of the PCs' starship as a core component of play. The CRB suggests multiple GM "reasons" for the earning of BP but the main point made is that the ship not fall behind. I'm with you in that it doesn't align with genre sources of inspiration as presented but the SF CRB had a LOT of ground to cover.
Looking at every other subsystem/minigame presented in PF and its APs, however, there is usually activities that have to happen to generate your Kingdom's build points, your rebellion points, you pirate spoils, etc.
Until - and I believe it will be a 'when' rather than 'if' - supplemental mechanics are presented, I'm trying to come up with house rules that extrapolate from those PF1 subsystems to provide a means of generating BP rather than just freely awarding it.
Downtime skill checks, buying/selling cargo, collecting bounties, passenger transport, etc. could "pay" in BPs along with/in place of credits. It's still an abstraction but seems like a preferable alternative to answering the "hey, where did all these BPs come from?" question.
Until - and I believe it will be a 'when' rather than 'if' - supplemental mechanics are presented, I'm trying to come up with house rules that extrapolate from those PF1 subsystems to provide a means of generating BP rather than just freely awarding it.
Downtime skill checks, buying/selling cargo, collecting bounties, passenger transport, etc. could "pay" in BPs along with/in place of credits. It's still an abstraction but seems like a preferable alternative to answering the "hey, where did all these BPs come from?" question.
But the "leveling up" of starships is meant to be an abstraction from the get go:
CRB 305
"As the PCs go on adventures and gain experience, they need
an increasingly powerful starship to face tougher challenges.
When the characters’ Average Party Level increases, so does
the tier of their starship.
The PCs receive a number of Build Points equal
to the Build Points listed for their starship’s new tier – those
listed for its previous tier, which they can use to upgrade their
starship.
This could represent salvage gathered during their exploits,
an arrangement with a spacedock, or called-in favors from a
wealthy patron. Some GMs might require PCs to visit a safe,
inhabited world before they can spend these Build Points, but
this shouldn’t be allowed to impact the campaign too much.
It's all fluff.
I don't see Paizo creating new rules for this, not until an ultimate campaign type of book, with optional rules galore.
Unless your homebrewed adventure makes a point of justifying every new upgrade, it is not suppose to matter, much less get in the way.
But the "leveling up" of starships is meant to be an abstraction from the get go:CRB 305
"As the PCs go on adventures and gain experience, they need
an increasingly powerful starship to face tougher challenges.
When the characters’ Average Party Level increases, so does
the tier of their starship.
The PCs receive a number of Build Points equal
to the Build Points listed for their starship’s new tier – those
listed for its previous tier, which they can use to upgrade their
starship.
This could represent salvage gathered during their exploits,
an arrangement with a spacedock, or called-in favors from a
wealthy patron. Some GMs might require PCs to visit a safe,
inhabited world before they can spend these Build Points, but
this shouldn’t be allowed to impact the campaign too much.It's all fluff.
I don't see Paizo creating new rules for this, not until an ultimate campaign type of book, with optional rules galore.
Unless your homebrewed adventure makes a point of justifying every new upgrade, it is not suppose to matter, much less get in the way.
That's pretty much what I said.
I have no doubt that it would only appear as something in a supplement dedicated to starships or an Ultimate Campaign-style of book and will be a completely optional subsystem.
Is it required? No, not anymore than kingdom building, downtime, rebellion, plunder & infamy, or other supplemental rules are.
However, Starfinder is a deliciously crunch game just like Pathfinder. I think there would be an audience for such rules, especially for those seeking something more satisfying that the current hand-waving method.
The BP adquisition, and the increase in tier, is an abstraction, yes. But it is alsp the source of problems. It is not that the PC "tune in" their ship slightly through levels. They completely transform it. It becomes the combat equivalent of a battleship, given time. It is like the Millennium getting 6 photon torpedo tubes, the Firefly getting fighter Docks, it the Enterprise getting a Yamato Gun planet killer Cannon.
It is counterintuitive. Genre wise, he players should destroy the death star or the cyborg Cube by making daring maneuvers, looking for a weak spot, and miracously defeating an invincible enemy. Not by facing it toe to toe with his small freighter loaded with 600 Shields and artillery weapons.
Most combats in most RPG assume the PC are victorious. But in this genre, it is typical that the characters flee from bigger ships/fleets. That does not work well in game currently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The BP adquisition, and the increase in tier, is an abstraction, yes. But it is alsp the source of problems. It is not that the PC "tune in" their ship slightly through levels. They completely transform it. It becomes the combat equivalent of a battleship, given time. It is like the Millennium getting 6 photon torpedo tubes, the Firefly getting fighter Docks, it the Enterprise getting a Yamato Gun planet killer Cannon.
It is counterintuitive. Genre wise, he players should destroy the death star or the cyborg Cube by making daring maneuvers, looking for a weak spot, and miracously defeating an invincible enemy. Not by facing it toe to toe with his small freighter loaded with 600 Shields and artillery weapons.
Most combats in most RPG assume the PC are victorious. But in this genre, it is typical that the characters flee from bigger ships/fleets. That does not work well in game currently.
Instead of a problem, it seems the game system simply doesn't fit your expectations.
But it never meant to. Tactical combat in Starfinder is all about high bonuses and huge amounts of damage. Likewise, starship combat has monstrous weapons and benefits from the biggest amount of damage in the shortest amount of time. As a matter of fact, long starship combats in starfinder are quite boring.
You are comparing it to Star Wars and Star Trek. But it's more like the big finale battles in Macross and Legend of Galactic Heroes, or any military sci-fi literary series.
The BP adquisition, and the increase in tier, is an abstraction, yes. But it is alsp the source of problems. It is not that the PC "tune in" their ship slightly through levels. They completely transform it. It becomes the combat equivalent of a battleship, given time. It is like the Millennium getting 6 photon torpedo tubes, the Firefly getting fighter Docks, it the Enterprise getting a Yamato Gun planet killer Cannon.
It is counterintuitive. Genre wise, he players should destroy the death star or the cyborg Cube by making daring maneuvers, looking for a weak spot, and miracously defeating an invincible enemy. Not by facing it toe to toe with his small freighter loaded with 600 Shields and artillery weapons.
Most combats in most RPG assume the PC are victorious. But in this genre, it is typical that the characters flee from bigger ships/fleets. That does not work well in game currently.
Agreed. However, while it's a bug to us I'm sure others view it as a feature. On this particular front, I think we're stuck finding solutions via house rules. I don't foresee Paizo changing this particular facet of the game.
I'm playing in a Starfinder game where we are just beginning to utilize starships and I've just started to run a campaign that hasn't involved starships yet, so my experience with building starships is limited at present. However, a couple of options I'm planning to explore in hopes of addressing the problem you are citing include:
1. Tier caps & minimums on ships. You can have a space superiority interceptor but it may cap out at Tier 6 (or 8 or wherever you want to set the cap). A civilian freighter caps out at Tier X. Military ships start at a higher tier; large capital ships don't exist below Tier 10, etc. This would force the players to upgrade to a larger, more advanced ship or remain with a "maxed" ship after a certain point.
2. Resetting/scaling starship encounters. Just because the default assumption is that the startship will upgrade with the players doesn't necessarily mean that it has to. The reason for doing so is so that they don't get outclassed by other starships. Just as you can scale NPCs, you could scale ships to the Tier that better aligns with what a ship can do. Advanced ships, capital ships, etc. can certainly be more powerful ala Millenium Falcon vs. Death Star but some additional house rules/plot armor are probably going to be necessary. The biggest unknown for me is the interplay between higher-skilled crew and lower-tiered ships (and vice versa).
These two options might exist independently or co-exist. Home capaign probably equals just Option 1. Running an AP will likely require both Options 1 & 2.
Things such as leveled gear and Tiered starships were two of the original things that were off-putting to me. After playing and closer reading, the leveled gear isn't as much of an issue for me. Starships rules as written seem like they may stress that limit more but I'll have to wait and see.
At a minimum, however, I would certainly enforce the suggestion of the ship reaching a safe port before spending BP and I would take it further to stipulate time in drydock retrofitting systems, etc.
Instead of a problem, it seems the game system simply doesn't fit your expectations.
That's a bit of an oversimplification of the problem gustavo iglesias cites, especially given that both Star Wars and Star Trek are cited as inspirational media in the CRB.
The idea of upgrading a ship or "special modifications" is hardly new. To use a more recent example than the Millenium Falcon, in the Mass Effect games upgrading the Normandy is a significant element, especially in ME2. However, while the Normandy gets upgraded systems across the board, it doesn't stop being a frigate or suddenly outclass a battlecruiser.
Starfinder having ships level with the PCs is strictly there as a gaming mechanism. That's perfectly acceptable from a game perspective but it's hardly unreasonable to want a better, more immersive, in-world method of addressing it in a role-playing game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of a problem, it seems the game system simply doesn't fit your expectations.
So much this. After playing a lot of sci-fi games that had starship combat that ranged from using weaponized tractor beams and mining equipment for a starship melee class to watching the enemy ship disable it's own power supply to avoid being cooked to death because I shot off their heat radiators, I kinda toss expectations out the window.
While I admit that there's a lot to be desired for starfinder starship combat, I find the current upgrade system very interesting. Ship hulls behave more like computer cases where they are the pretty much frame for the actual hardware. The only reason to get a bigger frame is to fit more stuff or be compatible with certain modules. Which would make sense in the pactworlds setting given the wide disparity of technological advancement in equipment. This would handily explain hyper optimized PC ships, as they are essentially sleeper builds.
The BP adquisition, and the increase in tier, is an abstraction, yes. But it is alsp the source of problems. It is not that the PC "tune in" their ship slightly through levels. They completely transform it. It becomes the combat equivalent of a battleship, given time. It is like the Millennium getting 6 photon torpedo tubes, the Firefly getting fighter Docks, it the Enterprise getting a Yamato Gun planet killer Cannon.
It is counterintuitive. Genre wise, he players should destroy the death star or the cyborg Cube by making daring maneuvers, looking for a weak spot, and miracously defeating an invincible enemy. Not by facing it toe to toe with his small freighter loaded with 600 Shields and artillery weapons.
Most combats in most RPG assume the PC are victorious. But in this genre, it is typical that the characters flee from bigger ships/fleets. That does not work well in game currently.
Instead of a problem, it seems the game system simply doesn't fit your expectations.
But it never meant to. Tactical combat in Starfinder is all about high bonuses and huge amounts of damage. Likewise, starship combat has monstrous weapons and benefits from the biggest amount of damage in the shortest amount of time. As a matter of fact, long starship combats in starfinder are quite boring.
You are comparing it to Star Wars and Star Trek. But it's more like the big finale battles in Macross and Legend of Galactic Heroes, or any military sci-fi literary series.
There are 2 different things. One is give expectations, the other one is ghat the tactical game itself (the building minigame itself) is broken.
Any point buy system is based in a kind of balance. Best things are more expensive, mediocre things are cheap, so you have to value if you pay extra for premium things, OR you get a few mediocre things for the same cost, covering more bases.
The game makes the best things also the cheapest ones. See Thrust M12 VS drift 5, or Coil Gun vs Chain Gun, or raising your shield 200 points vs raising your AC 1 point.
Besides the fact that it doest fit genre expectations, the system itself, as minigame, is broken
Starfinder having ships level with the PCs is strictly there as a gaming mechanism. That's perfectly acceptable from a game perspective but it's hardly unreasonable to want a better, more immersive, in-world method of addressing it in a role-playing game.
Problem is, even as a gamist mechanism, it does not work well. I like the tactical minigane itself (the actions, te movement, etc). But the build your ship minigame is bad. Because it is not a mental challenge. You don't have to decide if you prefer to have a few long range weapons, or worse, but more, short range weapons. It is not a Choice between 1 CoilGun, or several Chain Guns. It is a "choice" between the superior, clearly better AND cheap option VS the weaker, pretty much worse option, which is also more expensive.
Starfinder having ships level with the PCs is strictly there as a gaming mechanism. That's perfectly acceptable from a game perspective but it's hardly unreasonable to want a better, more immersive, in-world method of addressing it in a role-playing game.
I do not see how the leveling mechanisms and immersion are at odds here, at all. You can describe your character going to turretmart and bolting the new one on there or just running more power into the old turret in some spectacular warranty voiding engineering to customize it.
Because diverting more energy to the Shields for example, can be explained by virtue of being a better engineer. But replacing your ship"s old infirmary and downgrading your drift engine from 2 to 1 so you can transform the Aft Chain Gun in a turret twin linked plasma cannon is harder to conceptualize without going to a shipyard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because diverting more energy to the Shields for example, can be explained by virtue of being a better engineer. But replacing your ship"s old infirmary and downgrading your drift engine from 2 to 1 so you can transform the Aft Chain Gun in a turret twin linked plasma cannon is harder to conceptualize without going to a shipyard.
"Wait, you made the aft chain gun HOW hot....
" 6.4 yakowatz, why...?
"Thats not just going to vaporize the metal its going to disassociate the electrons from the protons....
"exactly!
*facepalm*
I do not see how the leveling mechanisms and immersion are at odds here, at all. You can describe your character going to turretmart and bolting the new one on there or just running more power into the old turret in some spectacular warranty voiding engineering to customize it.
You're making my point. While the CRB mentions that a GM can require in-game explanations, it's not required. Nor is it required for a ship to be upgraded in a safe port. A party could upgrade their ship in-flight while in the Drift with the RAW. All that is hard-wired into the game is that the Build Points "appear" so that the ship can be leveled as the PCs level.
Options for earning/explaining Build Point acquisition, etc. instead of leaving it up to GM or player-handwavium would be an immersion feature for some.
Whilst I do agree BP economy is a little off balance, there are distinctly good options made enormously cheap and alternative options that are simply more cost effective... My team and I don't find an issue with the upgrade system, or starship combat so far.
There are a plethora of in-universe methods for upgrade, they are fluff and up to GM tastes. Our team had a couple of goblin stowaways who wanted to "upgrade" things. Docked in Castrovel we called in a few favors to retrofit our ship while we were out adventuring. Our Mechanic and Operative got a good deal on a new power core and have been waiting for some downtime to install it, etc. You get what you put in in that regard, so if your table simply views it as a by the numbers level up that's fine, but to force rules on how it works would alienate campaign types. Look no further than the Personal Upgrades for the fact Starfinder favored player fluff over hard coding into particular paths. They're three examples but the full entry says they can be literally anything.
As for comparing starship combat to the Millennium Falcon, yeah. PC starships aren't small smugglers, but if you read the full rules and tried to recreate things... Each X-Wing counts towards the players' APL, so all those squadrons, all those cruisers versus the giant death star does actually fit that each of them would be low tier small and mediums with a few upgrades, and the Death Star is a supercolossal high tier craziness. Perhaps we will see future releases for starship "dungeon" combat, where the PCs ship has to navigate tight quarters on a planet-sized station in order to get into the core area to destroy it, dealing with low tier threats along the way. Perhaps we will get those boarding rules we were promised that will make more use of some of the options presented like biometric locks and anti-personel weapons. The whole system has room to grow.
Until then, starship combat is more close to Star Trek, with the intership workings being more important. The Trek crews have dealt with all sorts of nonsense in the Enterprise, including Borg Cubes. Alternatively I prefer comparing it to something like Gundam, where one ship (yes, I know we can't have mech ships but lemme finish the comparison) is armed to the teeth in order to power it's way through thousands of smaller ships, or can cleave a colossal enemy in two in a high action scene. Or Voltron, where one ship with five pilots working together can take on an empire solo.
Complaining the PCs have no incentive to upgrade to larger sized ships is entirely true. PCs rarely have the 20 crew members to run a huge ship, and only some tables will even have 6 to run a large without NPCs. The options are there for the idea of say, having the aforementioned Mass Effect Normandy crew, where it's got the compliment of main crew (you and your high end teammates), and then a handful of nobodies who keep up operations. There is a pretty heavy push though to keep PCs in a smaller ship with fewer expansion bays.
The new gun took up more space so it expanded into the infirmary and you stole parts from the drift engine to pump up the plasma cannon
For some people, "a wizard did it using handwavium" is not immersive enough.
Options for earning/explaining Build Point acquisition, etc. instead of leaving it up to GM or player-handwavium would be an immersion feature for some.
So then you're looking for the mechanics to force the flavor of upgrade you want because.. why?
Linked weapons. 50% cost of second weapon is too cheap for what is effectively an extra firing order or +4 to gunnery (you shoot 2 weapons at full attack, instead of just one, or two at -4 with Fire At Will).
If I'm not mistaken, the e xtra linked weapon costs an EXTRA 50%, not 50%. So a 20 BP gun would cost 50 BP to link (20 for one, 30 for the second).
You also don't get extra attacks with linked weapons, just extra damage. (A 2d6 weapon would do 4d6 as a pair of twinned weapons for example.)
Am I wrong? Is there something I'm missing?
So then you're looking for the mechanics to force the flavor of upgrade you want because.. why?
Options for earning/explaining Build Point acquisition, etc. instead of leaving it up to GM or player-handwavium would be an immersion feature for some.
Indeed the balance of said system is something to discuss or debate but flavor / setting of how those upgrades are acquired should be completely left to the GM. People already think the game is to ingrained into the core setting, though Im not one of them. Giving the frame work for the system then saying its up to the GM to decide how those upgrades take place was the right call in my opinion. The how and why players receive upgrades are WAY to many to try to pinpoint down with unnecessary mechanics as each GM is going to tailor the how and why not only to their own settings but the situation at hand during any given campaign. Sometimes it will be conventionally at a space doc or the ship might be upgraded as a payment for a job well done by the PC's benefactor other times it could be adrift in space during a tense after action repair from a ship battle the PC's got on the wrong side of but have to get underway as soon as possible to save the day!
Hell you could waste a book alone on the possible why's and how's PC's acquire upgrades. Now if we want to talk about price conversion and economy balance that is something that possibly could be nailed down but an another discussion entirely.
If I'm not mistaken, the extra linked weapon costs an EXTRA 50%, not 50%. So a 20 BP gun would cost 50 BP to link (20 for one, 30 for the second).You also don't get extra attacks with linked weapons, just extra damage. (A 2d6 weapon would do 4d6 as a pair of twinned weapons for example.)
Am I wrong? Is there something I'm missing?
The thinking is not very linear, but the calculation is precise.
CRB 301
"If you install two of the same direct-fire weapon in the same firing
arc, you can link them together so they fire as one. This costs a
number of Build Points equal to half the cost of one of the weapons
(rounded down) and consumes a negligible amount of PCU."
If you have two identical 20 BPs weapons next to each other, you can link them for 10 BPs. Ergo, 50 BPs in total.
The extra damage is the appeal, since with this you can actually fire 3 weapons in your phase, with only two attack rolls.
Imagine 3 particle beams in your turrets, two of them linked. 24d6 of damage with only two attack rolls.
Eh. . . while I don't disagree with some of your points, I think you picked a poor example in Mass Effect. I'm pretty sure it was explicit canon that, between the various tech upgrades, the still-a-frigate Normandy by ME3 actually *did* outpower battlecruisers from the first game. Sure, it had fewer guns, but the guns it had were much bigger, more accurate, and on a smaller more maneuverable platform, so it evened out. This only was disguised because everyone else was engaged in some crash tech advancement in the post-ME1 world, too ( and the Normandy kept getting into fights with precursor godbeings rather than conventional militaries ).Instead of a problem, it seems the game system simply doesn't fit your expectations.That's a bit of an oversimplification of the problem gustavo iglesias cites, especially given that both Star Wars and Star Trek are cited as inspirational media in the CRB.
The idea of upgrading a ship or "special modifications" is hardly new. To use a more recent example than the Millenium Falcon, in the Mass Effect games upgrading the Normandy is a significant element, especially in ME2. However, while the Normandy gets upgraded systems across the board, it doesn't stop being a frigate or suddenly outclass a battlecruiser.
Starfinder having ships level with the PCs is strictly there as a gaming mechanism. That's perfectly acceptable from a game perspective but it's hardly unreasonable to want a better, more immersive, in-world method of addressing it in a role-playing game.
That is a very good point. The Normandy SR-1 from ME1 was a friggate, however in ME2 the Normandy SR-2 is twice as big as the original ship, and the one you end up upgrading further. Even the SR-1 was an optimized design in its universe with its stealth system and silent core, so looking at it as a hybrid ship with advanced tech, then a twice as big ship with said tech, then over the course you give it enhanced basically everything in order to not die horribly to a Collector vessel. A vessel mind you that it hundreds of times even the SR-2's size, but the SR-2 gets guns to be able to punch through it as one of it's upgrades. If their mission wasn't to rescue crew off said vessel, there's arguement they could probably have done some serious damage.
Then you take that vessel and upgrade again for ME3. Still the SR-2, but it has additional upgrading depending on how you ended ME2. So the Normandy SR-2 I think it a pretty good idea of a Large-Huge sized ship (based on crew size), and how upgrading even works for Starfinder as it gets everything from refits to military upgrades and crew members pulling in connections.
So then you're looking for the mechanics to force the flavor of upgrade you want because.. why?
Options for earning/explaining Build Point acquisition, etc. instead of leaving it up to GM or player-handwavium would be an immersion feature for some.
I dunno, probably for the same reason I thought Kingdom Building and Downtime rules in PF1 were cool.
I state, in almost every post I've made in this thread, that I would expect something along the lines of what I suggested would be optional subsystem(s). The other suggestions I made I said would definitely fall into the realm of house rules because I didn't think Paizo was likely to modify what was presented in the CRB.
Even in the post that you quote I state "options" and "would be an immersion feature for some." Are you not understanding what I'm writing or are you just not really reading what I've written? I didn't come to the thread and say "this is broken, Paizo must fix it".
Additionally, aside from my personal preferences for game-immersion, IF optional subsystems for generating/earning BP existed in official Paizo products, the existence of such rules could potentially stave-off rules disputes between GMs wanting more immersion attempting to apply the CRB suggestions for how BP is gained and a player who wants the simplicity of the CRB Method of spontaneously appearing. It would allow GMs to cite that supplement and say "I'm using these rules in the campaign". YMMV.
Linked weapons. 50% cost of second weapon is too cheap for what is effectively an extra firing order or +4 to gunnery (you shoot 2 weapons at full attack, instead of just one, or two at -4 with Fire At Will).
If I'm not mistaken, the e xtra linked weapon costs an EXTRA 50%, not 50%. So a 20 BP gun would cost 50 BP to link (20 for one, 30 for the second).
You also don't get extra attacks with linked weapons, just extra damage. (A 2d6 weapon would do 4d6 as a pair of twinned weapons for example.)
Am I wrong? Is there something I'm missing?
You pay 2 weapon slots in a turret, and 2 weapons. Now you have 2 weapons, which you can shoot with 2 actions (2 gunners), or 1 action and -4 to hit.
Twinlinking cost 50% of the weapon, to either give you a free action, or +4 to hit, depending what action you were doing before ( 2 gunners, or 1 gunner and Fire at Will)
So then you're looking for the mechanics to force the flavor of upgrade you want because.. why?
Options for earning/explaining Build Point acquisition, etc. instead of leaving it up to GM or player-handwavium would be an immersion feature for some.
Because the game forces you to create a flavor to upgrade the ship. That the ship WILL be upgraded it's not a question, the book flat out tells you that when you level up, the ship HAS to get BPs, and how many of them. Then it gives you some options to choose some flavor as HOW you get them, but the fact that at lvl 16, your medium sized explorer WILL pack the punch of a dreadnought, with the shields of a dreadnought, is somewhat a given.
It does not give you, as a GM, a lot of room to play with, say, the Millenium falcon all the adventure, without upgrading it a lot.
Sure, you could disregard the part of the book that tells you that ships get BP when you level up. Just as easy as you could disregard the part of the book that tells you that you gain HP when you level up. But expect a lot of player resistance, because the game TELLS you that the way to play is to have a lvl 16 medium sized ship that can destroy battlecruisers in 1 vs 1.
So then you're looking for the mechanics to force the flavor of upgrade you want because.. why?
Options for earning/explaining Build Point acquisition, etc. instead of leaving it up to GM or player-handwavium would be an immersion feature for some.Because the game forces you to create a flavor to upgrade the ship. That the ship WILL be upgraded it's not a question, the book flat out tells you that when you level up, the ship HAS to get BPs, and how many of them. Then it gives you some options to choose some flavor as HOW you get them, but the fact that at lvl 16, your medium sized explorer WILL pack the punch of a dreadnought, with the shields of a dreadnought, is somewhat a given.
It does not give you, as a GM, a lot of room to play with, say, the Millenium falcon all the adventure, without upgrading it a lot.
Sure, you could disregard the part of the book that tells you that ships get BP when you level up. Just as easy as you could disregard the part of the book that tells you that you gain HP when you level up. But expect a lot of player resistance, because the game TELLS you that the way to play is to have a lvl 16 medium sized ship that can destroy battlecruisers in 1 vs 1.
What are you talking about? You're assigning a specific play philosophy based on you interpretation. The book actually says this:
Often, the PCs’ first starship is designed by the GM and can be upgraded or even replaced as the characters gain experience. However, some GMs might allow the PCs free reign over their starship’s creation, letting them feel a sense of true ownership over the starship that will accompany them throughout the campaign.
The GM has full agency over the ship in the campaign, it is optional to let the players build it themselves. And from the GMs section of things:
As the GM, you set the law of your game, and your interpretation of the rules is the one that matters most. When complications regarding rules interpretations occur, listen to the players involved and strive to be fair, but don’t feel like you need to convince them. If the rule in question isn’t one you’re familiar with, you can go with a player’s interpretation, perhaps with the caveat that you’ll read up on the rule after the game and make an official ruling going forward from the next session. Alternatively, you can simply rule that something works in a way that helps the story move on.
The game doesn't tell you anything about medium sized ships needing to destroy battlecruisers. It more strongly supports the idea of the GM making a ship for the PCs that fits their view of the campaign. If that means a Normandy SR-2 that can blow a hole in a Death Star, that's good. If it's Biometric Locks and an on-board Anti-Personel weapon because the GM bought that nice map of the Sunrise Maiden and wants to put it to good use, then it's the GM's call.
This is also probably a good reason there aren't baked-in methods of generating BP, because the base rules don't put that control in the players hands. It is the GMs choice to give them that control, and thus it is the GMs choice on how they give it to them.
I suppose you forgot to add some relevant parts of that paragraph by mistake, but here is what the book says. Emphasis mine.
"Regardless of starships' size and purpose, they're all created using the same process. GMs and players alike can use the following steps to create an incredibly diverse array of vessels, from sleek science ships and nimble skirmishers to heavily armored combat frigates. Alternatively, you can use the prebuilt sample starships detailed later in this chapter (see page 305)."
"Often, the PCs' first starship is designed by the GM and can be upgraded or even replaced as the characters gain experience. However, some GMs might allow the PCs free reign over their starship's creation, letting them feel a sense of true ownership over the starship that will accompany them throughout the campaign"
"As the PCs go on adventures and gain experience, they need an increasingly powerful starship to face tougher challenges. When the characters Average Party Level increases, so does the tier of their starship (see Table 9-1: Starship Base Statistics on page 294). The PCs receive a number of Build Points equal to the Build Points listed for their starship's new tier - those listed for its previous tier, which they can use to upgrade their starship. Fore xample,a group whose APL increases from 2 to 3
receives 20 BP that the PCs can use to upgrade their starship.
This could represent salvage gathered during their exploits, an arrangement with a spacedock, or called-in favors from a wealthy patron. Some GMs might require PCs to visit a safe, inhabited world before they can spend these Build Points, but this shouldn't be allowed to impact the campaign too much.
What the above text says, is that the GM controls the FIRST ship. Like, "there is a ship in this meteorite, it's called the Sunrise Maiden, and it's yours now". From there on, it's THE PC who gain the BP, and it's THE PC who spend them. The GM "might" ask them to go to a planet before THEY can spend those BP, but he is encouraged to NOT do so.
About the quote in page 393, yes, that quote allows you to tell the PC that they don't get BPs this level. That quote also allows you to tell the PC they don't get Hit Points this level. Expect "some" player resistance, tho. The game tells you when the PC get BPs, how many and who spends them.
So then you're looking for the mechanics to force the flavor of upgrade you want because.. why?
Options for earning/explaining Build Point acquisition, etc. instead of leaving it up to GM or player-handwavium would be an immersion feature for some.Because the game forces you to create a flavor to upgrade the ship. That the ship WILL be upgraded it's not a question, the book flat out tells you that when you level up, the ship HAS to get BPs, and how many of them. Then it gives you some options to choose some flavor as HOW you get them, but the fact that at lvl 16, your medium sized explorer WILL pack the punch of a dreadnought, with the shields of a dreadnought, is somewhat a given.
It does not give you, as a GM, a lot of room to play with, say, the Millenium falcon all the adventure, without upgrading it a lot.
Sure, you could disregard the part of the book that tells you that ships get BP when you level up. Just as easy as you could disregard the part of the book that tells you that you gain HP when you level up. But expect a lot of player resistance, because the game TELLS you that the way to play is to have a lvl 16 medium sized ship that can destroy battlecruisers in 1 vs 1.
its assumed the ship is your home base and something you would want to upgrade but how you do that is entirely up to the GM. There is nothing stopping you from keeping the configuration of the ship the same and simply upgrading the existing systems on the ship to be appropriate to the challenges you as the GM are putting out there. Dont want PCs to be able to take on a battle cruiser..well its completely within your control to do so. Just like adjusting the CR of a encounter there is nothing stopping you from adjusting the NPC ships accordingly. The rules are a frame work but how you use them is and always will be entirely up to you as the GM unless your playing society.
its assumed the ship is your home base and something you would want to upgrade but how you do that is entirely up to the GM. There is nothing stopping you from keeping the configuration of the ship the same and simply upgrading the existing systems on the ship to be appropriate to teh challenges you as the GM are putting out there. Dont want PCs to be able to take on a battle cruiser..well its completely within your control to do so. Just like adjusting the CR of a encounter there is nothing stopping you from adjusting the NPC ships accordingly. The rules are a frame work but how you use them is and always will be entirely up to you as the GM unless your playing society.So then you're looking for the mechanics to force the flavor of upgrade you want because.. why?
Options for earning/explaining Build Point acquisition, etc. instead of leaving it up to GM or player-handwavium would be an immersion feature for some.Because the game forces you to create a flavor to upgrade the ship. That the ship WILL be upgraded it's not a question, the book flat out tells you that when you level up, the ship HAS to get BPs, and how many of them. Then it gives you some options to choose some flavor as HOW you get them, but the fact that at lvl 16, your medium sized explorer WILL pack the punch of a dreadnought, with the shields of a dreadnought, is somewhat a given.
It does not give you, as a GM, a lot of room to play with, say, the Millenium falcon all the adventure, without upgrading it a lot.
Sure, you could disregard the part of the book that tells you that ships get BP when you level up. Just as easy as you could disregard the part of the book that tells you that you gain HP when you level up. But expect a lot of player resistance, because the game TELLS you that the way to play is to have a lvl 16 medium sized ship that can destroy battlecruisers in 1 vs 1.
Again, NO. You can't do that, anymore than you can tell the players what armor they can buy.
The game tells you WHO get BPs, and WHO spend them. And it's the players. A GM might rule against that, just like a GM might rule that there's no leveling in his game and everybody is stuck at lvl 1 forever. That's not the base assumption, tho, so arguing about this is pointless. A GM can do whatver he want with the rules, including GMing a differnt game. But the rules say that the Players GET those BP, and the players SPEND those BP.
Sure but the gm can say that some upgrades aren’t available for purchase
Yes. He can also say that you can't pick certain class abilities, or you don't get feats, or some skills aren't available, you don't add your Wisdom to your Will save, or ranged weapons always have 20% miss chance when shooting against melee combatants, plasma weapons explode on a natural 1, or batteries self-replenish. He can house-rule whatever he wants.
Don't see how that's relevant to the game's base assumptions. Which is that a lvl 16 group get 600 BP and spend them however they see fit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can also play the highlights game.
"Regardless of starships' size and purpose, they're all created using the same process. GMs and players alike use the following steps to create an incredibly diverse array of vessels, from sleek science ships and nimble skirmishers to heavily armored combat frigates. Alternatively, you can use the prebuilt sample starships detailed later in this chapter (see page 305)."
So reading the entirety, "can" prefaces the optional nature, GMs is a viable choice, and this is referencing the creation rules in general.
"Often, the PCs' first starship is designed by the GM and can be upgraded or even replaced as the characters gain experience. However, some GMs might allow the PCs free reign over their starship's creation, letting them feel a sense of true ownership over the starship that will accompany them throughout the campaign"
Often and might, both again deliberate choices implying the optional nature of the rules. You're right, the quote is talking about the first ship.
Your last choice of paragraph to pull was more relevant. Read carefully and you will notice my favorite words, "can" and "might" which exist to allow flexibility within the rules. Things you seem to know very well from your choice to go ALL CAPS in an attempt to drive your interpretation of it home as correct over everyone elses.
You have failed to provide evidence to the claim I was disputing which is that the game says "the game TELLS you that the way to play is to have a lvl 16 medium sized ship that can destroy battlecruisers in 1 vs 1", because it doesn't. The game tells the GM to have the reigns, understand the rules, and give the players the tools they will need to accomplish the goal of the campaign. As you even highlighted: "this shouldn't be allowed to impact the campaign too much."
If the players recieve the Sunrise Maiden, but want to trade it in for a model with a swimming pool (an actual thing my party wanted to do) it is in the GMs hands to say no, as that would have a large impact on the campaign. If the campaign uses a small smuggling vessel then it is as easy as the GM to have, before they leave port or whatever the case, to say "hey, this ship won't do, you'll need a smuggling compartment if you're going to get past security scans". Or even "your benefactor has said your ship must meet these specifications for the mission". Alternatively the campaign could involve needing to be in a 20 person crew on a huge vessel.
What I am saying, is the campaign dictates the ship. Having an armed to the teeth explorer will not work in every campaign. Your arguement relies on dismissing everything except the premise that at some point on your adventure you will be staring down a Star Destroyer, which is just blatantly not true.
Sure but the gm can say that some upgrades aren’t available for purchaseYes. He can also say that you can't pick certain class abilities, or you don't get feats, or some skills aren't available, you don't add your Wisdom to your Will save, or ranged weapons always have 20% miss chance when shooting against melee combatants, plasma weapons explode on a natural 1, or batteries self-replenish. He can house-rule whatever he wants.
Don't see how that's relevant to the game's base assumptions. Which is that a lvl 16 group get 600 BP and spend them however they see fit.
Except saying something isn't available from equipment is a legitimate part of being GM. It's not a house rule to say "settlement" does not have any access to items above level 5 or cyberware, and that can directly apply to starship parts.
The series of examples you presented are all "house-rules" seemingly designed specifically to make the game more difficult. No rational person would force them on players.
Whilst less relevant, in Pathfinder retraining was an optional rule, and in its specifications if you wanted to retrain a feat choice you needed someone there to teach you that feat. Starfinder's starship systems with its cans, mights, and oftens puts the choice on how to do things with the GM, rather than outright decide for them "the players need to do x, or have access to x". This lets the game flow more smoothly for those that don't want to deal with all that, and lets those who do like that partake in it to their hearts content without "house-ruling" anything.
Again, NO. You can't do that, anymore than you can tell the players what armor they can buy.
The game tells you WHO get BPs, and WHO spend them. And it's the players. A GM might rule against that, just like a GM might rule that there's no leveling in his game and everybody is stuck at lvl 1 forever. That's not the base assumption, tho, so arguing about this is pointless. A GM can do whatver he want with the rules, including GMing a differnt game. But the rules say that the Players GET those BP, and the players SPEND those BP.
Yes.. you can. Your missing my point. Nothing im saying prevents the ship from leveling or the PCs from leveling. What im saying is you can manipulate the starship challenges and the starship to be anything you want. You want a Starship enterprise that keeps relatively the same load out the entire adventure..well you CAN do that and maintain relevance just by upgrading the existing systems to the next tier / lvl to stay relevant. You dont have to trade in the ole phasers for dual linked torpedo launchers for instance. By rules you can yes.. but you dont have too and can still keep upgrading the PCs ship and maintain the Millennium falcon / Enterprise stick if you want too. Also you can manipulate challenge ratings and enemy starships all you want to meet a lower or higher CR.. your the GM the rules are a frame work for you to play with and make fit your own story. OBVIOUSLY your not afraid of doing just that as ive seen you mention house rules before..
Best thing is you dont even have to house rule what im talking about you CAN do just what you want with the rules given. However if your stuck believing you have to be bleeding edge, milk every last damage point with each choice type of gamer than the "flavor / setting cause its cool" approach obviously lends itself better to upgrading your ship as per normal.
at the end of the day its all theater of the mind anyway
As long as the GM explains, in the very first session, that he'll restrict the usage of BPs and access to gear beyond even what is recommended in the book... he and all the players that didn't leave will probably have a good time.
A few problems with your assumption than the ship will be challenged come to mind.
It's not an assumption that it will happen - I literally said "it needs to happen" not "it will happen". There's a big difference there. Saying "I need to see my dentist" isn't assuming that I will see my dentist - it's saying I need to. Things that need doing often go without getting done.