|
What are some ways I can get my players to be a little more creative with starship builds? They have found out that you only really need three things; Big power core, Big shields and a big gun(s) on a turret. If you maximize those three, the pregen enemy ships get plowed through. It removes the tactical facings completely when you have a turret that doesn't need facing, which is one of the biggest parts of starship combat. It makes the combat very bland and just going through the motions. My knee-jerk thought is eliminate turrets on PCs and enemies. Wondering other folks thoughts on this.
I think that cat is out of the bag. If your group has gotten used to turret/sphere of death as the norm for spaceship combat forcing them to worry about facing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are some ways I can get my players to be a little more creative with starship builds? They have found out that you only really need three things; Big power core, Big shields and a big gun(s) on a turret. If you maximize those three, the pregen enemy ships get plowed through. It removes the tactical facings completely when you have a turret that doesn't need facing, which is one of the biggest parts of starship combat. It makes the combat very bland and just going through the motions. My knee-jerk thought is eliminate turrets on PCs and enemies. Wondering other folks thoughts on this.
I experienced a bit of this myself. One solution I often used was adding more enemy ships to the starship encounters. You can try adding a squadron of weak, tiny fighters. I added support craft like this, as it creates situations where the PCs have more targets to consider, and positioning becomes more important. I was careful to give them only enough hull points to survive a hit or two, although, they were occasionally destroyed on the first hit.
Additionally, I utilized hazards and obstacles, such as clouds of radiation, clouds of leaking engine coolant, asteroids, a black hole, etc.
One of my favorite encounters was a double encounter featuring a starship combat, and a character based tactical combat aboard the PCs' starship, which limited what the PCs could do in the starship portion of the encounter. That was loads of fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, first off, your players are right. Which is to say they have found an optimal way of designing a ship given the rules. But I don't think disallowing turrets is the thing to do. "You're ruining my fun so I'm changing the rules!" is not a good thing for a GM to do.
That said, I'm assuming your group is there to have fun. Some options include:
1. Have a conversation. Tell the players that this doesn't seem to be fun. Some players will be willing to "play nice" and make some changes. Other groups want to min-max and "WIN!" and may not. But if you and your group have a different idea of what "fun" is, you have a bigger problem than this.
2. Environmental effects: Fly into the nebulae, shields are at 25% strength. Waves of small ships come - go crazy. The possibilities are endless.
3. Weapons with the irradiate property - use with care. I have only skimmed it and it might have unintended consequences.
4. Minefield of tracking weapons
You're also not limited to just one of these.
The other thing to remember is that starship combat is a little mini-game in Starfinder. It's not backed by decades of playtesting, and it's not as robust as it might be. The rules as written have a lot of limitations. Maybe they'll be improved someday, and maybe they won't. But there may only be so much we can do with it right now. Don't let it ruin the fun of the rest of your game.
Give the NPC ship one extra turret weapon and half a dozen resolve points. Have it flyby as often as possible targeting the same quadrant on the PCs ship, and the sci-officer targeting weapons system while the gunner uses broadside. As soon as enemies can go through the shield and glitch or malfunction their turrets, they'll start sweating. In my experience, NPC ships hit more often than the PCs, although for way less damage - mitigating with more weapons seems fair.
Asteroids and ship-sized monsters passing through might work as a spice.
Haven't tried the extra ships yet, might put that on the plate for the next combat.
Now that's interesting. And impacts both sides equally
|
|
One homebrew solution my gm came up with was making it so a turret can only rotate one arc from where it fired the previous round.
So if you fired at a ship off your port side. The next round you couldn't fire it starboard side (but you could hit something forward aft or port again)
In most combat scenarios it didn't actually change too much but it did reintroduce tactical positional and gave players a little more interesting decisions.
That is a very neat solutions. I really like that! It removes the unlimited arc aspect, but still gives it 3/4 arc versatility. It is also something to RP seeing the way the turret is facing and keeping out of its range that turn if you win the piloting check. It would also encourage them to have more than just a turret for a weapon. Since we are on book 5 of the adventure path, I will still run core RAW until we finish and start the next adventure path.
The one thing I did shoot down was their "Nuke Mobile" with tac nukes in all 4 arcs and the turret. That was what they came up before the death sphere when they were 6th level. I just flat removed nukes from the game unless a special enemy has them.
But is the extra bookkeeping worth it? Specially if you are fighting more than one enemy and has 2 or 3 turrets.
But is the extra bookkeeping worth it? Specially if you are fighting more than one enemy and has 2 or 3 turrets.
To avoid death sphere ships? Yes.
Turrets definitely need a nerf. Currently, none of our game's ships (player's ships and NPC's) have turrets at all. I am still kicking around houserule ideas for them. I also removed the 'Turn in Place' action once our PC pilot started trying to use the ship itself as a turret.
Without turrets on the ships, the piloting phase of starship combat is actually really interesting. Some of the other roles are a bit lacking though.
Early on I thought you had to choose an arc for the turret at the start of the turn (meaning it could be useless if the movement/timing doesn't work out in your favor).
Later I learned that nobody plays it that way. And yeah, I still think that's totally broke.
Early on I thought you had to choose an arc for the turret at the start of the turn (meaning it could be useless if the movement/timing doesn't work out in your favor).
Later I learned that nobody plays it that way. And yeah, I still think that's totally broke.
I thought that turret were easier to crit giving them some balance.
What do you mean "easier to crit?"
Critical damage to weapons systems affects an arc, not a weapon. That includes turrets only when they are firing into the affected arc, which makes turreted weapons better at working around the penalties.
I honestly think that the biggest problem is that turret weapon mounts have a flat cost of a few build points. There should probably be a cost multiplier on any weapon mounted in a turret, instead, to encourage the use of actual arcs.
What do you mean "easier to crit?"
Critical damage to weapons systems affects an arc, not a weapon. That includes turrets only when they are firing into the affected arc, which makes turreted weapons better at working around the penalties.
For purposes of crits turret weapons count as being in all arcs. It's unclear if that means they suffer crit effects only when firing at a target within an arc suffering a weapon crit effect, or that turrets always suffer crit effects if any arc is suffering a weapon crit effect. In the latter interpretation, a turret weapon is always "in" all arcs simultaneously, so it suffers the crit penalty even if it fires at something in an unaffected arc.
I think the latter is probably (60%) intended and is the most balanced approach, but it doesn't really matter that much.
What do you mean "easier to crit?"
Critical damage to weapons systems affects an arc, not a weapon. That includes turrets only when they are firing into the affected arc, which makes turreted weapons better at working around the penalties.
Turrets actually go down faster than any other weapon arc.
CRB 321
Critical Damage Effect table
31-60
Weapons array
Randomly determine one arc containing
weapons; condition applies to all gunner
actions using weapons in that arc (a
turret counts as being in all arcs)
The latter would be a slightly better balance, but I've seen the former reading prevalent with everyone I've played with. I can definitely see how that could be wrong, though, rereading it.
If the latter reading is correct, it still wouldn't make shoving all you weapons into a turret not be always the most powerful choice. I will stand by by statement that turrets should cost significantly more.
I see no room for interpretation, though. Turrets always go down first, or at the same time if an arc is being specifically targeted.
|
Interesting perspective; so if the forward arc were crit to Glitching, the turret would take a -2 firing in all directions. If the aft arc were also hit, the turret would still be taking just a -2 firing in all directions. If the forward arc was hit again, going to Malfunctioning, the turret would be at -4 in all directions.
I don't really think that's what is meant though. I think it's meant more like: if you hit the forward arc to Glitching, then if the turret is firing forward, it also takes the -2, but if it's firing to starboard then it takes the penalties applying to starboard (if any).
---
When encouraging players to be more creative, I think the first thing to realize is that they're currently right: the rules really are borked in that there's one true design that's just optimal. So invite them to take off their player hat and put on a designer hat and consider if this is the way they want the game to be, or if there's changes they want, applying both to them and enemies.
For example, I'd propose that since turrets are 4x more versatile than arc weapons, at first glance a 4x cost increase seems appropriate. But that's probably too much. My second idea is that you want a rule saying that any weapon you can put in a turret performs worse than when you put the same weapon on a stationary mount in an arc. Less damage, less range or something. Turrets are still useful, as "always something that can fire" weapon or for mounting anti-missile defenses. But your BFG would be directional.
Interesting perspective; so if the forward arc were crit to Glitching, the turret would take a -2 firing in all directions. If the aft arc were also hit, the turret would still be taking just a -2 firing in all directions. If the forward arc was hit again, going to Malfunctioning, the turret would be at -4 in all directions.
I don't really think that's what is meant though. I think it's meant more like: if you hit the forward arc to Glitching, then if the turret is firing forward, it also takes the -2, but if it's firing to starboard then it takes the penalties applying to starboard (if any).
If that's what they meant, they should have said "a turret counts as being in the arc it fires in." But by saying it's in "all arcs" without any further limitation or clarification, that makes it subject to any penalty affecting any arc at all times.
As I said up thread, I weakly believe they intended the result that they actually wrote - any weapon arc glitch makes the turret always glitch. Turrets don't need any favors, and this isn't a pervasive problem, so I see no reason not to trust that they mean what they said.
A space chase might be fun. start a couple up and watch the pilot look at you like "wut? steer?"
I've seen a number of Society GMs run it like The Ragi states.
A space chase might be fun. start a couple up and watch the pilot look at you like "wut? steer?"
No. Nuar
I was also thinking just disallowing heavy weapons in the turret of medium ships and smaller. And two weapon slots for a heavy weapon in the turret of a large ships (the biggest ship PCs could meet the minimum crew requirements on their own)
But I do kind of like the turret as a broad arc weapon that can move one arc a turn.
take a page from Elite Dangerous, turreted weapons are less powerful than their fixed-fire counterparts and generally eat more energy to boot. Lower their damage by a die type or somesuch and increase the power cost by 1 or 2 points.
These all sound like solutions to make starship combat last even longer.
Well, that's because the other elephant in this room is the low price of large shields.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These all sound like solutions to make starship combat last even longer.
then keep turreted weapons the same and up the damage of fixed weapons.
|
|
I think one thing that could balance things are having tiers or levels on starship upgrades like the equipment does. Then you could place the recommended limits of not purchasing things more than 2 above your current tier. This way, you don't have a tier 9 medium ship with a power plan like a battlecruiser
I suppose if the DeathSphere is too extreme, there's also the Adversarial GM answer to it, though I would consider carefully before employing that particular hammer.
Did they spend any of their build points on locks and computer security?
I think the complete starship building and combat rules need a overhaul to clarify some parts (how many turrets can a ship have? the rules only state that you can have 2/3/4 weapons per turret, but how many turrets?).
For my game I would rule that "turrets" is simply another weapon arc, so a ship can have 2/3/4 turret mounted weapons, which reduces the "death ball" a little bit.
So Paizo when do you guys announce the "Starfinder Armada" Book?^^
While I completely agree that the guild system needs to be overhauled, I think it's pretty clear that when they say "2/3/4 weapon mounts per arc (and per turret)" that means the total number of turreted wrapons is 2/3/4, not that you can have x number of turrets with 2/3/4 weapons apiece.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the complete starship building and combat rules need a overhaul to clarify some parts (how many turrets can a ship have? the rules only state that you can have 2/3/4 weapons per turret, but how many turrets?).
For my game I would rule that "turrets" is simply another weapon arc, so a ship can have 2/3/4 turret mounted weapons, which reduces the "death ball" a little bit.
You're ruling what the rule is. There are no "turrets" any more than there are forwards, ports, afts, or starboards. There is a turret arc, and it can hold an appropriate amount of weapons for its hull size, just like the other arcs.
These all sound like solutions to make starship combat last even longer.
If it's fun I don't see that as a problem. Ball of death, cheap shields, and the science officer/engineer being mostly passive are the biggest problems I see with stopping the fun.
I don't see the "ball of death" problem. You can only have up to three weapons (on a medium/large ship) on turrets.
If you align your ship correctly you can double these numbers (turret + one arc) and also use other weapon arcs to fire on secondary targets.
So the turrets are some sort of "backup" if the enemy wins the initiative, but they are only a part of the ships weapon complement.
I also took it a little bit further in my game and made a houserule for tracking weapons.
They can now target every ship in sensor range (regardless of the arc they are in).
Once launched they have to move half their speed straight away from the ship and will then turn and try to hit the target.
Other question:
Does anyone created some houserules to let the gunner do something else then attack? (it feels a little boring compared to the other roles which have multiple options each round).
Other question:
Does anyone created some houserules to let the gunner do something else then attack? (it feels a little boring compared to the other roles which have multiple options each round).
I feel like this is where various forms of obstacles come in. by which I mean debris. In one society scenario, there are asteroids that unleash molten rock if fired on, which can cause huge amounts of damage. Stuff like that could be good.
I personally have no problem with the gunner being able to do the captains enemy intimidate action instead of a captain. trash talking the target e.g.
|
|
Other question:
Does anyone created some houserules to let the gunner do something else then attack? (it feels a little boring compared to the other roles which have multiple options each round).
I toyed around with that a bit here; for example:
* Choices between shooting more or shooting more accurately
* Shooting for more damage or trying to score crits
* Shooting to rip up shields or to damage the hull
I don't see the "ball of death" problem. You can only have up to three weapons (on a medium/large ship) on turrets.
If you align your ship correctly you can double these numbers (turret + one arc) and also use other weapon arcs to fire on secondary targets.So the turrets are some sort of "backup" if the enemy wins the initiative, but they are only a part of the ships weapon complement.
You can put big enough weapons on those three to reduce pretty much anything you're shooting at to its component atoms , and in fact there's no reason TO put your biggest weapons anywhere else: you might lose initiative or not have a good firing arc from your front afterall.
Why would you need more than 3 guns?
While I think the DeathSphere holds up far too well for a pretty long level range before you need more slots, you only need one gunner of level 6 or higher for 6-8 (3-4 turret, 3-4 facing) guns to be useful.
Of course after that, you may just end up with people adding a full rack of aft guns, and running directly away with maxed out speed so that their target will be in the aft arc even if they do lose init.
How many crew members do you have that you need more than 3 big guns?
If you have enough BPs and 2+ gunners at some point it makes sense to put a linked pair of weapons in the turret, and that third slot could be better served by a point defense weapon so you can put another pair of linked weapons in your forward arc. Or just leave the single spare turret slot open.
This won't come up at low tiers.
Why would you need more than 3 guns?
To end combat in the first couple of rounds!
Broadside (Gunnery Phase, Push)
At 6th level, you can expend 1 Resolve Point to fire all of the starship weapons mounted in one arc (including turret-mounted weapons). Each weapon can target any vessel in that arc. All of these attacks are made with a –2 penalty.
Couple of masers on the turret + point weapon, nukes on other quadrants! Although this kind of ruins the purpose of linked weapons.
As a GM I find myself having to upgrade every NPC ship to make it even last a couple of rounds... usually they only survive because the PCs are rolling poorly.
So then you would still want to max out the turret (because there's zero reason not to) and then max out one arc and face the ship that way and then have two gunners go broadside.
Close. One gunner goes broadside, and there's nothing left for the second one to fire.
So then you would still want to max out the turret (because there's zero reason not to) and then max out one arc and face the ship that way and then have two gunners go broadside.
You'd only need one gunner. He fires one arc and the turret weapons into the same arc as part of the same Broadside action. Just as with crits, your turret weapons are counted as in all arcs for "what can I fire" purposes, so only the arc you're firing into is the limiting factor.
So at 6th level your optimum build is six heavy tracking weapons (three forward, three turret) that you fire simultaneously every time you get an enemy within their first range increment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, after Broadside is in play, one Gunner is all you need.
If you had more than one, have the other guys move to Science Officer role and keep trying for a Lock On.
Which is precisely why you need more guns. Let that other guy shoot an enemy in a different arc, or unleash the molten magma asteroid of death, or whatever.
Yeah, after Broadside is in play, one Gunner is all you need.
If you had more than one, have the other guys move to Science Officer role and keep trying for a Lock On.
Which is ironic because for level 1-5 the science officer does a scan and then hops on a gun...
I'd love the ability to make multiple actions / round. So you can have a ship dump PC's in 1 crew ships and have little wasp swarms around an enemy ship XD
This hasn't been brought up yet but, has anyone toyed with the idea of giving the players more ships? (like a snub fighter or two, depending on the party size)
You'd have to design encounters around it, but giving the PCs several ships of the same tier to fight against several ships of the same/lower tier should work well, perhaps a bit slowly. I've considered two medium vessels before so there's more variety of action. Fighter frames tend to be more and more outclassed by the larger ship frames the higher tier you go.