ghostunderasheet |
When it says it says to use your ranks in a skill it does not want you using your ability mmodifier, class bonus, or misc mods, right? So if your lvl 2 you are adding just the 2 ranks and not the 3 from class bonus nor the bonus 3 from ability modifier or the 3 from misc mods.
I have seen people adding thier bonuses to thier ship combat skill checks to doing things. But at my table such things are not allowed.
The Diehard Bard |
Depends what you’re using them for! Crew actions use the full bonus (class bonus, ability mods and all), except for gunnery, which can use your ranks in piloting in place of your base attack bonus. Also, the pilots ranks in Piloting are added to the ship’s AC and TL.
HammerJack |
When it very specifically says ranks, like needing 6 ranks in engineering to use the overpower action, that means ranks.
When you make a skill check, it means skill check, not 1d20+ranks.
breithauptclan |
Some starship actions use a character's full skill modifier, and others only use the skill ranks in the calculation of a new modifier specifically for that starship action.
For example, the gunnery check: you can use your ranks in piloting in the calculation of the gunnery modifier.
For another example, a Divert engineering action: you make a normal engineering skill check using your full engineering modifier - ranks + class skill bonus + INT modifier + any other bonuses you have.
So yeah. Read carefully on what check the action is asking for and whether it calls for a regular skill check or a new calculated modifier that uses only skill ranks.
breithauptclan |
Our space combat is amazingly..... agonizingly..... cripplingly slow.
Sorry to hear that. It will probably get better with more familiarity with the mechanics of the system.
Might help to have the players take a mostly permanent role and start learning the rules for that specific role on the ship.
What is TL?
TL = Target Lock. Which is a slightly misleading name. It is similar to AC. The difference being that it applies to tracking weapons (missiles essentially). So if an enemy ship launches a missile at you, the enemy gunner would roll the gunnery check against your ships TL rating.
so gunnery is the only skill check that does not apply raw talent to the check. So i show run away from being a gunner.
Well, gunnery is one of the roles that feels like it always has impact on the outcome of the dogfight. So some people like it for that reason.
And the gunnery check is using either your character's base attack bonus or piloting skill ranks and you always add your DEX bonus. So it does use your character's raw talent in the check.
Wingblaze |
Generally, the rules say exactly what they mean.
1. When it says "ranks" it means ranks. No ability bonus, feat bonus, no bonus from it being a class skill, etc. Ranks. Just ranks. It's a way of level-limiting things.
2. When it says a check (i.e. gunnery check) then it's that, and it explains what that means. If it's a skill check (computers, engineering, diplomacy) then it's the usual skill check with all usual bonuses.
3. Make sure you're using the updated DCs from the errata. It's huge.
ghostunderasheet |
I am the the party's away team medic,pretty much. I am not built for shace ship skills. If you sucked as badly as i do at rolling. Which weapon would you chose to man. I tend to use area of effect spells and weapons on the ground so i do not have to roll to hit. And if i do i have it stacked hard core in my favor.
Magyar5 |
Give me an idea of what stats you have chosen to focus on.
Your GM might allow you to grant a circumstance bonus to an ally if you assist them on a check.
I actually had a similar problem with my Vesk Soldier. He had a terrible intelligence and I focused him on Athletics, Acrobatics, and Intimidate skills. Since he was melee oriented, all my bonuses and items went to enhance melee combat. As a result, my ranged attack bonus was quite terrible.
I finally broke down and replaced my MK1 ability enhancer with an intelligence based one instead of Str and made my Mk2 Strength based. I then dumped the new skill points in to Piloting just to make it possible to hit enemy ships as the Gunner.
Xenocrat |
Magyar5 wrote:I actually had a similar problem with my Vesk Soldier. ... I then dumped the new skill points in to Piloting just to make it possible to hit enemy ships as the Gunner.But if he's a soldier, doesn't he have full BAB anyway? Max ranks of piloting would match what you already had...
Yeah, the issue here is low dexterity, piloting can’t ever help a full BAB class be a better gunner.
Wingblaze |
I am the the party's away team medic,pretty much. I am not built for shace ship skills. If you sucked as badly as i do at rolling. Which weapon would you chose to man. I tend to use area of effect spells and weapons on the ground so i do not have to roll to hit. And if i do i have it stacked hard core in my favor.
Personally I believe every PC should build themselves with a role in ship combat in mind. Every PC expects to have to have a role to play in regular combat; so too should they plan for ship combat. Many times it's an afterthought and then someone wonders why they suck at ship combat when they didn't design for it.
You may want to shift some skill points around or something to help. But it's hard to say without details. It's certainly true that some classes don't naturally lean towards a ship role.
You say "medic". That could mean a soldier with medicine, a mystic, an envoy or something else. Mystics definitely have challenges in building for a ship role. Soliders have their BAB to work with.
Magyar5 |
Hmm. It looks like there is a glaring oversight or mistake in the rules as written and thanks to this post we can get an answer.
Every check made in regards to Starship combat is a skill check with the exception of the Gunnery check. As written, the Gunnery check uses either your base attack bonus or the ranks in your piloting skill. Until Xenocrat pointed out, in regards to my post about changing my soldier to get piloting ranks, I hadn't given it much consideration that it specifies ranks. So i decided to do some research and it seems that either Paizo misprinted that description or they are willfully breaking their own rules.
Take a look at all of the starship examples in the core rulebook. Isn't it odd that most of the Gunnery check modifiers line up almost exactly with the Piloting check modifiers. If Paizo were using ranks in this calculation there is no way that such high gunnery modifiers could be achieved.
Look at the Blackwind Sepulchre (tier 5). How can the Gunnery check modifier be a +11? The gunner has either 5 ranks of piloting or a BAB of 5. He would have to have a dexterity modifier of +6 to get that Gunnery check modifier. Slightly impossible with the rules as written.
In addition, if you look at the ships it's almost uncanny how the Gunnery check modifier almost always lines up with the Piloting check modifier which would include skill bonuses.
This seems to me inconsistent. Paizo need to clarify. If the Gunnery check only uses piloting ranks it's going to make Starship combat extremely lopsided in favor of the enemies.
Ravingdork |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The enemies don't use character creation rules, either in tactical play, or in starship combat. They're allowed to have impossible modifiers as a result.
Many of the NPCs in the modules and in the Alien Archive have skill modifiers that are literally impossible for PCs to obtain.
I suppose this could be something of a concern, but I don't think it's a mistake, and it's definitely not something new.
Xenocrat |
The enemies don't use character creation rules, either in tactical play, or in starship combat. They're allowed to have impossible modifiers as a result.
Many of the NPCs in the modules and in the Alien Archive have skill modifiers that are literally impossible for PCs to obtain.
I suppose this could be something of a concern, but I don't think it's a mistake, and it's definitely not something new.
Agreed. This also works in the PCs favor sometimes, many humanoid NPCs have ACs too low for their listed gear and dexterity; the Aeon Guard has a reflex save that is way too low given its dex modifier.
Magyar5 |
The enemies don't use character creation rules, either in tactical play, or in starship combat. They're allowed to have impossible modifiers as a result.
Many of the NPCs in the modules and in the Alien Archive have skill modifiers that are literally impossible for PCs to obtain.
I suppose this could be something of a concern, but I don't think it's a mistake, and it's definitely not something new.
That's actually the subject of another post I am organizing. What lead me to begin this investigation of the rules and rule structure was the alien archives and some things I've noticed at our table. Our Mystic uses Mind Thrust a lot in game. I noticed that our GM was making his saving throws quite regularly. So often in fact I started keeping track of it. At lvl 7 we fought a couple of shobhad war leaders and our Mystic had a DC 16 saving throw. So of course the enemy saved on an 8 or higher. That got me wondering. If any of you have seen me on these forums I'm a bit of a statistical junky, and the numbers never lie.
So I started looking at the arrays in the back of the alien archive I noticed a disturbing trend. Saving throws climb at a much higher rate than Saving throw DCs. Saving throw DC`s are relatively flat in this game. They move upwards at very defined points. However saving throws for NPCs climb quite high as the game progresses.
For example. When a character first is able to use lvl 6 spells at lol 16 the normal DC of a lvl 6 spell is going to be 22 - 24. You can optimize to bump this however, you can't get it much higher. I think the theoretical max is 27 or 28.
At lvl 16, enemies already have a +14 or +18 saving throw modifier. As you progress, your DC won't change but the enemy saving throws will. This makes landing a spell vs a strong save almost impossible and vs a weak save a 50/50 proposition if you optimized. If you haven't, then it gets even worse.
Anyways, the point is that the numbers seem to tell an underlying theme on the design of the rules and I'm seeing a pattern in them. Still deciphering and learning, but I will get there and see what people think when I finely figure them out.
My advice to my Mystic is to choose spells that offer no saving throw or an effect you desire should they the spell fail. That way your spells have a good chance of being helpful even if the enemies save.
Xenocrat |
Saves on high level Starfinder monsters are working as intended, given the PF2 playtest monsters. Use Summon Creature (which is quite strong), or debuff before launching spells with Intimidate (Mystics of appropriate connections or Envoy allies), Connection powers (Geneturgh can do sicken, Mindbreaker can use Sow Thought), or the Technomancer's Mental Mark (self debuff for the next spell if they fail, big debuff if succed - best used with a group attack like Slow or Mass Rewire Flesh, then followup/finisher on whoever failed their will save). Technomancer's can also bump their DCs with the Digital Holodeck.
Optimized save or die/sucks that have a reliable chance of success on the first round are a relic of PF1. Paizo doesn't want them going forward.
Xenocrat |
Also, while I agree that they don't use the same rules it seems like a flaw or oversight to create a subset of rules specifically for NPCs. Still though. I think the Gunnery skill is incorrect.
Gunnery is also working as intended, because PCs should be building much more optimized ships (heavy turret weapons and big shields) that are flat better than their opponents at the same tier. Plus PCs have the resolve actions they can take. The enemies have bad ships, but at least get to hit most of the time.