One of my general gripes about spaceship combat is that no one but the pilot has any choices and sometimes it feels like no one but the gunners have any effect.
To that point I'm in the middle of a Play by post starship battle and looking to see if overpowering the weapons (or overpowering everything) would be a good idea. It doesn't seem to be worth it.
Average of 4d4 = 10
Average of 4d4= 11
Reroll 1s
Average of 5d6= 17.5
Average of 5d6= 18.3
Reroll 1s
Average of 8d8 =36
Average of 8d8 37
Reroll 1s
At low levels a lil damage goes a long way as you're trying to cut through shield regen, but even that's... not a lot of impact.
Both in my experience and in posts I've read, science and engineering end up being critical roles to keep your ship going. I would not dismiss them so quickly.
That said, I do not dispute your math on this one ability. (But you don't reroll 1s. 1's become 2's. Math is still right)
Oh right, 1s--->2s
It's definitely a suboptimal choice. The only time it might maaaaybe be worth it is the first round if you didn't take any shield damage yet, your pilot doesn't need a speed boost, and your gunner is firing lots of (perhaps linked) coilguns and railguns with d4s galore.
Sirshua, your averages are wrong. The mean damage is not the median damage when using the divert to weapons ability.
Coilgun changes from 10 avg to 11.
Any weapon with D4s comes out to a 10% increase in expected damage, and that percentage drops SHARPLY as die size increases.
The way the ability was implemented, it is nearly worthless, unless you are literally comparing it against doing nothing, or doing it as a bonus effect on overpower, when you wanted to boost shields and engines.
Both in my experience and in posts I've read, science and engineering end up being critical roles to keep your ship going. I would not dismiss them so quickly.
That said, I do not dispute your math on this one ability. (But you don't reroll 1s. 1's become 2's. Math is still right)
But what is the engineer doing every time except restoring the shields? (which most engineers can do automatically or nearly so) Without an effective other option to do there isn't a real choice of your action:
Restore the shields: kinda useful
Power the weapons: approximately useless
Divert power to science: A small bonus to something that is itself a small bonus
Divert power to the engines : okay, comes up occasional
Divert power to three systems: has a MUCH harder DC . If you need the shields that badly you really can't risk it for the other bonus.
Having choices means MEANINGFUL choices. If your options are Hamburgers, cale, and brocoli, your only choice is hamburger.
Brocoli can be good if cooked in a broth and smothered in cheese...... >.> you can not do anything with cale that stuff is just foul.
You need to massage it first and then it's okay
Well, there is patching critical damage and restoring hull points with Miracle Worker, once incoming firepower outpaces shield restoration.
There could still stand to be other options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there is patching critical damage and restoring hull points with Miracle Worker, once incoming firepower outpaces shield restoration.
There could still stand to be other options.
Right, but that isn't really a meaningful choice to affect the combat. There's little to no agency on the player if the only effective thing you can do is fix X
The fix is to just not use starship combat if you want characters to have interesting choices instead of repetition.
|
It's something for the engineer to do when he doesn't need to do anything else.
It may be a very minor boost, but at least it's something.
Just like when the science officer has finished scanning the enemy ship and doesn't want to rebalance the shields she can target an enemy system. In practice, target system rarely makes a difference (5% extra crit but still has to get through shields). But at least it's something.
Just like when the science officer has finished scanning the enemy ship and doesn't want to rebalance the shields she can target an enemy system. In practice, target system rarely makes a difference (5% extra crit but still has to get through shields). But at least it's something.
Target system is actually pretty decent.
The next attack made by your starship that hits the enemy ship scores a critical hit on a natural roll of 19 or 20. If that attack deals critical damage, it affects the chosen system.
These are independent sentences. Your next attack that hits scores a crit on a 19 or 20. Additionally, if that attack (whether or not it scores a 19 or 20) deals critical damage (because it crossed the CT or because of a 19 or 20 or some other ability or condition that grants a crit), you choose the affected system.
If you're starting to do decent hull damage and want your eventual crit to hit a particular system, target system is a good use of a science officer action. There's still the possibility that your first hit in a round doesn't cross the CT, but the second or third does, but you can't have everything.
you choose the power core (because if you chose weapons you have to win the lottery to randomly get the weapon you want) , but have to do that 2 or three times to have any effect (more if they're patching the systems as you go). If you've crossed the crit threshold that many times, they're probably toast anyway.
I'm actively annoyed that these options make it look like you're doing something when you're not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you choose the power core (because if you chose weapons you have to win the lottery to randomly get the weapon you want) , but have to do that 2 or three times to have any effect (more if they're patching the systems as you go). If you've crossed the crit threshold that many times, they're probably toast anyway.
I'm actively annoyed that these options make it look like you're doing something when you're not.
Having actually used both these options in practice that's a matter of opinion. My team feel both these options do plenty, particularly when combined.
Increasing minimum damage by 4 (the average number of weapon die on our ship) for multiple attacks as we have multiple gunners consistently gets us over the shield recharge cap of our enemies. And Target System is our science officer's literal most used action, because the extra damage puts us over that crit line more often, and forcing penalties to the system of our choice (generally engines to gimp their piloting initiative rolls and keep advantageous positioning) is almost as powerful as the captain's 1/combat taunt.
So simply because one cannot see the utility due to averages, doesn't mean there isn't any.
So simply because one cannot see the utility due to averages, doesn't mean there isn't any.
Just because you feel them doesn't mean that they are there, especially when the math says otherwise. Just because you feel your minimum damage being increased is important doesn't mean that it is. On a 4d4 you only roll minimum damage one time in 256. If that is a regular occurrence for you, you are either playing WAY too much starfinder or should see a spiritual specialist about breaking the curse your dice are under.
As shown, the increase is actually regressive as you level and get larger dice on your weapons.
Having actually used both these options in practice
You're not the only one here thats actually played the game either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolute minimum, yes. However each individual chance for a 1 is 25% on 4d4, and as you move to larger dies on the starship weapon scale, linking and dice pools increase more often.
Even your maximum, say the 10d6 persistent particle beam, or the 7d10 grazer, you're looking at damage variance going from 10-60 and 7-70 to 20-60 and 14-70, with a 10%-16.67% of scoring the 1 on each die involved. Double that for linking and it becomes 20d6, with that 16.67% on any of those 20 die of getting the 1. New variance of 20-120 without divert, 40-120 without. 14d10 with 10% per die, 14-140 vs 28-140.
And as you didn't address, the 5% crit chance, with additional benefit of forcing negatives where you want them (save for the gun lottery, at which point it is a matter of still hitting all guns in the arc you get) is beneficial.
Quantifying this all against Starfinder as a whole though, these benefits are on par with the types of actions you can pull off in regular combat. The difference is that you are 4-6 (generally) people operating one character. One Starship character with 4-6 actions per round all contributing to the whole.
An example, Target Systems is mechanically on par with Demoralize. You're attempting to force a -2 on actions to an opponent requiring a die roll. The difference, Demoralize has set rounds based on success, versus Target being permanent until patched, and also having damage added on top of it all. As well, forcing the opponents engineer to be patching a critical system to avoid penalties is a turn where they aren't shoring up their shields to prevent further critical damage.
So again, the average is minimal, but the variance is much better, and put into actual practice it is better.
I for one don't think starship combat is monotonous at all! Especially if the GM adds a bit of environmental/terrain element to the map.
Reposting from here:
Finally got my first taste of starship combat during an organized play event at a convention today.All I can say is HOLY COW! It is SO much fun, and quite difficult to wrap one's head around.
Had two encounters, one against an equally powered ship in open space in which I played the gunner, and another in an asteroid field against a superior foe in which I was the pilot.
The first encounter was relatively straight-forward, but we quickly learned just how important positioning and firing arcs are! In the second encounter, we played tag around the asteroids, being very careful not to expose our aft, as it had no weapons and minimal shields. I could not believe just how much more the pilot could do! Having competent gunners is hella' important, but man, when you're the pilot, it sure seems like you're the focus, nevermind the captain, engineer, or science officer. They all help out, sure, but they all basically live or die based on your ability to pilot the ship into an optimal position every round.
I made tons of mistakes. There were at least two rounds in which I could have used evasive maneuvers, but I was so focused on where I was going to move and how I was going to move there, that I simply forgot to declare it until it was too late. One such round really cost us, as the enemy blasted us with their missiles, all of which would have missed if our TL was 2 points higher. :(
Ultimately, we hightailed it and ran from the enemy, which made us realize that we had superior range, so we kept our distance and sniped, forcing the enemy to take penalties to their attacks, giving us just enough edge to survive by the skin of our teeth.
It was so much fun. So exciting. The rules have a decent learning curve, and team work and communication are an absolute must, but we're starting to get the hang of it more and more.
If the gunners had missed their mark, if our engineer didn't keep the ship and shields together, if I didn't put the ship in place to fire our optimal weapons while protecting our weak spots, if the captain hadn't made certain checks possible, if any one person didn't do their part--well, I wouldn't be alive today to tell you about it. :D
No rules in ANY roleplaying game to date has made me feel more like part of a team than Starfinder's starship combat rules.
Thanks for the great experiences Paizo! Keep up the good work! :D
Absolute minimum, yes. However each individual chance for a 1 is 25% on 4d4, and as you move to larger dies on the starship weapon scale, linking and dice pools increase more often.
And the critic threshold increases meaning that that same 1 point of damage of difference becomes less and less likely to put you over the critical threshhold.
That is the opposite of scaling.
No. The engineer has a 10% chance of adding a 5% crit chance IF the science officer can't make his roll on a 1. A .5% crit chance. Maybe. on ONE hit. It does not apply to all of the weapons.
An example, Target Systems is mechanically on par with Demoralize. You're attempting to force a -2 on actions to an opponent requiring a die roll.
The math does not remotely bear this out. Target systems is a CHANCE to inflict the same penalty that the captain should be able to inflict 90% of the time. The specific chance depends on the weapon and your ability to drop your opponents shields, but its far less of a sure thing than the captains skill checks (likely with rerolls and d6s added to the rolls)
Claiming "Actual practice" is not an argument. Good data collection is hard.
I for one don't think starship combat is monotonous at all! Especially if the GM adds a bit of environmental/terrain element to the map.
The pilot has actual choices and the gunners have a lot of effect.
Its the engineer science officer and captain that are downright superfluous and repetitive. I've had captains "auto assist the big gunner .. okay i'm getting coffee" wander off and I can't blame them.
Demoralize is not the Captain's action, it's a use of the Intimidate skill outside of Starship combat with a similar DC scale. And again, the Captain's actions which are comparable can be only done once in combat.
It's clear you as usual don't value an opinion opposed to your own Wolf, I've been down this road with you before and it's really not worth my time. You play the game your way, others will play theirs and have fun. At the end of the day, that's what matters.
Demoralize is not the Captain's action, it's a use of the Intimidate skill outside of Starship combat with a similar DC scale. And again, the Captain's actions which are comparable can be only done once in combat.
It's clear you as usual don't value an opinion opposed to your own Wolf, I've been down this road with you before and it's really not worth my time. You play the game your way, others will play theirs and have fun. At the end of the day, that's what matters.
I value opinions that are informed and evidenced. I believe that good ideas can survive harsh scrutiny so I'm not afraid to give it to them. I do not value opinions that have nothing to show for them besides baseless claims of the superior geek fu of random people on the internet. If someone knows more, they can show more.
At 6th the science officers +2 to all guns against one ship (which is almost all attacks since you should focus fire even IF you get multiple bad guys) is really powerful but likewise becomes the only option unless you're out of resolve.
The mechanic trick Recalibrate Weapon starts as kind of a cool, interesting ship combat option, but the damage up, range down option doesn't scale well, so it becomes less interesting.
I changed "divert" to work as follows:
you gain 5% of PCU as shields, or +2 move, or convert all 1s in the max for that dice (so with 1d4 have 25% of 1s become 4, while in d10 have 10% of 1s becoming 10. It is essentially +1 per die)
HOWEVER, you have to divert the energy from somewhere. If you divert energy from weapons, all die roll that is the max of that dice becomes 1, you move -2, or you lose 5% of your PCU.
I also made a "push" action called Overpower that cost 1 resolve that gives you the equivalent of Divert to all the 3 systems, but then every system is glitching next turn.
Other options I made for engineers, Balance shields is now Engineering action.
I added a bunch of them to other roles too:
Science
Overload Sensors, reduce the attack bonus of a ship for 1 round
Guide Missiles, missiles that miss this turn aren't destroyed. They remain in game until next turn
Gunnery
Harrying fire and covering fire (like in regular game, bonus to hit or cover)
Captain
coordinate: before the turn starts, name a type of action for each role. Actions like that have +2 this turn (for example, "divert power to shields, evasive maneuver, target lock, fire at will!" will give +2 to all that actions in one turn. This makes the captain much more involved (note: he has to "guess" what's going to be needed before even the intiative roll happens), and also makes for interesting roleplaying situations (like if the captain ask for evasive maneuver, but then the pilot does a barrell roll because he thinks it's more appropiate once the enemy ships have moved)
I also changed all the actions, so they don't increase with Tier, but are based on the size and maneuverability of the ship, or other factors, but every 5 DC you get something extra, so all points you spend in skills still matter. For example, "evasive maneuver" is easier for smaller ships, but gives you +1 to AC, plus another +1 every 5DC. Good pilots in fighters are hard to hit. Big dreadnoughts, not that much. Same goes with options for Target System or Lock on, for example. The bonuses they give increase with the roll.
Maybe someone gets inspiration from this, and post back some other options.
The science officer gains more options in one of the AP books to control combat drones. Which looks awesome. There are also weapons that use ranks of mysticism instead of Bab. Options are growing.
The drone missiles are bad, the drone fighters are the least likely thing to ever fall into players hands, and the damage on the mysticism starship weapons is also bad. The radiant cannons are the only actually good Azlanti weapons. Assuming your GM ever lets you have any of their stuff.
I for one don't think starship combat is monotonous at all! Especially if the GM adds a bit of environmental/terrain element to the map.
The pilot has actual choices and the gunners have a lot of effect.
Its the engineer science officer and captain that are downright superfluous and repetitive. I've had captains "auto assist the big gunner .. okay i'm getting coffee" wander off and I can't blame them.
I certainly would not be opposed to more official options for those roles (or the starship combat rules set in general).
|
|
The science officer gains more options in one of the AP books to control combat drones. Which looks awesome. There are also weapons that use ranks of mysticism instead of Bab. Options are growing.The drone missiles are bad, the drone fighters are the least likely thing to ever fall into players hands, and the damage on the mysticism starship weapons is also bad. The radiant cannons are the only actually good Azlanti weapons. Assuming your GM ever lets you have any of their stuff.
You're not making a strong argument here.
The mysticism weapons are the highest damaging weapons that use mysticism to hit. Hitting for less is greater than not hitting at all.
Azlanti ships exist in 100% of official starfinder adventure paths. Creature stat blocks are also in the alien archive. The content is easily available for a GM to use. The book said the tech is uncommon and other sources could exist. It's not a big ask to allow access to these options.
From what I read, it did seem kind of implied that it would be a "big ask" for most things mentioned in the same book.
I thought mysticism was just an add on to existing weapons?
I think you're thinking of an SFS boon to make a weapon mysticism based. This is a couple of weapons that have that as a property, natively.
The science officer gains more options in one of the AP books to control combat drones. Which looks awesome. There are also weapons that use ranks of mysticism instead of Bab. Options are growing.The drone missiles are bad, the drone fighters are the least likely thing to ever fall into players hands, and the damage on the mysticism starship weapons is also bad. The radiant cannons are the only actually good Azlanti weapons. Assuming your GM ever lets you have any of their stuff.You're not making a strong argument here.
The mysticism weapons are the highest damaging weapons that use mysticism to hit. Hitting for less is greater than not hitting at all.
Azlanti ships exist in 100% of official starfinder adventure paths. Creature stat blocks are also in the alien archive. The content is easily available for a GM to use. The book said the tech is uncommon and other sources could exist. It's not a big ask to allow access to these options.
From an optimization POV you’d be a fool to install the mysticism weapon just to a Mystic can hit more often for weak damage. Make him invest in Piloting and put in a real weapon.
Yes, your GM can give you these bad weapons from an isolationist, totalitarian regime far across the galaxy. Will he? Ask.
Will he also give you a gargantuan or colossal ship (and crew) necessary to fit the drone hangars? I doubt it.
But yes, if he’ll give you a radiant cannon that debuffs the target and inflicts good damage, take one and put it in a turret.