|
I can see the validity of the argument that starship combat causes specific character builds. I would strongly disagree however that it is majorly because of starship combat. Or that somehow starship combat is affecting things negatively.
Operatives are good at practically everything. Not always the best, but definitely good. Ranged soldiers are and should be among the best in combat.
All of that said, I would venture to say that, though starship combat plays a part, it is unimaginative optimizers that causes the similarity in builds. Players whose desire to "win" supersedes their desire for a creative or unique character. "Solarian's are cool in concept but because Cha is a key stat and Cha means nothing in combat, they are just too MAD." Those players.
To be clear, I am not saying that such players are playing incorrectly. People can play how they want to. But if there is a complaint that builds are bland, or too common. You need only look to the builders.
P.S. Maybe it is just my play group that noticed this, but the penalty of losing starship combat is never death. There have been a couple times when the players just said, "We surrender, let's move on."
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the validity of the argument that starship combat causes specific character builds. I would strongly disagree however that it is majorly because of starship combat. Or that somehow starship combat is affecting things negatively.
Operatives are good at practically everything. Not always the best, but definitely good. Ranged soldiers are and should be among the best in combat.
Your statement exemplifies the point you seem to be completely missing. Yes. Almost every SF class can be effective in Starship combat without even trying. The ‘almost’ is the problem. Mystics and Weapon Solarians actually HAVE to try and they usually have to try more than just a little.
All of that said, I would venture to say that, though starship combat plays a part, it is unimaginative optimizers that causes the similarity in builds.
I find this statement to be grossly inaccurate and insulting.
Players whose desire to "win" supersedes their desire for a creative or unique character.
You say “desire to win.” I say, “desire to be an effective contributor to the party.”
"Solarian's are cool in concept but because Cha is a key stat and Cha means nothing in combat, they are just too MAD." Those players.
Have you ever built a Solarian? They get 4 skill points per level, have no use for Int outside of skills, and the only class skills they have that can be used in starship combat are Diplomacy & Intimidate, i.e. Captain only. This means, at the very least, they would have to take a Background that gave them a more useful starship combat class skill to be even useful in a non-Captain position. Sure, if I tried, I COULD build a Solarian that could be useful in starship combat. But he will never be as useful an Engineer as a Mechanic that didn’t try; never as useful a Science Officer as a Technomancer that didn’t try; never as useful a Pilot, Engineer, Science Officer or Gunner as an Operative that didn’t try; never as good a Gunner as a ranged based Soldier that didn’t try; and only on par as Captain with an Envoy that didn’t try. And all this would come at the cost of effectiveness in standard combat so that he would never be as useful as a Soldier, Mechanic or Operative that didn’t try. So, sure, I could build a character that would NEVER get a chance to shine at the table because every other class could outshine him, but why? Just so I can live up to some notion of being ‘more imaginative?’
As an aside, thanks to the Soulfire Weapon Fusion, Charisma does actually matter for weapon Solarians in combat now.To be clear, I am not saying that such players are playing incorrectly.
You may not be saying it, but you are definitely implying it.
People can play how they want to. But if there is a complaint that builds are bland, or too common. You need only look to the builders.
Sorry, but I 100% disagree. This is a design problem. Five out of the seven classes can be effective at starship combat without trying very hard. But why only five? Shouldn't that be true for all of them?
P.S. Maybe it is just my play group that noticed this, but the penalty of losing starship combat is never death. There have been a couple times when the players just said, "We surrender, let's move on."
I don’t disagree with this point, but PFS players have been programmed with the idea that all combats SHOULD be winnable, so if they lose, it is a failing on their part. And in most cases, it would be incorrect to make your assumption from an RP stand point. This discourages the type of metagame thinking you are suggesting. As a case in point:
Our group was good, but not great, at starship combat. But we were totally outclassed by the enemy here. This appeared to be by design and the author no doubt fully expected a fair number of people to lose and gave an out for it if they did and the only penalty was not getting a boon on the chronicle sheet. Fair enough. Except that we, as players, didn’t understand that until afterwards. As a result, we tried our darndist to win, because we thought we were supposed to. So, we burned several boons to fight a 3+ hour grueling and ultimately depressing starship combat that, had we understood the pointlessness of it, we could have ended in ½ an hour without the pain, suffering and resource expenditure.
|
|
I suppose I am bored enough at the moment to respond.
Your statement exemplifies the point you seem to be completely missing. Yes. Almost every SF class can be effective in Starship combat without even trying. The ‘almost’ is the problem. Mystics and Weapon Solarians actually HAVE to try and they usually have to try more than just a little.
I'm not missing the point I just disagree with it. I will address this more later as you more or less repeated this point.
I find this statement to be grossly inaccurate and insulting.
Really? Grossly inaccurate? How many characters in your play group have higher dex/int than their other stats? I can tell you that a majority of my personal characters do. That makes me fairly unimaginative. The statement of unimaginative is a non-opinion claim. Based on the limited information, I understand x to fall into the definition of.... You can be insulted by that I suppose. I'm not and I directed it at myself, so...
You say “desire to win.” I say, “desire to be an effective contributor to the party.”
I will make reference to this next.
Have you ever built a Solarian?...
Yes I have, and is he the best in any particular role in starship combat? Nope. He will never be. And I'm okay with that. I do not derive my joy in this game from how well my character performs mechanically. I just enjoy the game. But hey, that's just me, which leads me to....
You may not be saying it, but you are definitely implying it.
I added that in because text does not allow for the other forms of communication, therefore added words are important. If you chose to derive that was my implication, then that is up to you. I hold no responsibility for your incorrect processing of my words when I plainly state otherwise. What I was implying (and still am) is that is not how I choose to play, or whom I desire to play with.
Sorry, but I 100% disagree. This is a design problem. Five out of the seven classes can be effective at starship combat without trying very hard. But why only five? Shouldn't that be true for all of them?
How good are you at fixing your own car 100%? How about your electronics? How about your plumbing? How about your....I could go on. No I don't believe it should be all of them. All classes have things that they are good at and things that are unrelated to things they are good at.
As for your last point, I agree that both the writer and the GM should inform the players, vaguely, that they are up against a challenge that they were meant to lose. It is unfair to the players to backhand them without context.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grossly inaccurate? How many characters in your play group have higher dex/int than their other stats? I can tell you that a majority of my personal characters do. That makes me fairly unimaginative. The statement of unimaginative is a non-opinion claim. Based on the limited information, I understand x to fall into the definition of.... You can be insulted by that I suppose. I'm not and I directed it at myself, so...
If being 'imaginative' means you have to create an ineffective character, how is that not a design flaw? Why should the players be faulted for choosing to make effective characters instead of imaginative ones? Shouldn't they be able to do both?
How good are you at fixing your own car 100%? How about your electronics? How about your plumbing? How about your....I could go on. No I don't believe it should be all of them. All classes have things that they are good at and things that are unrelated to things they are good at.
If I were 100% effective at real life I wouldn't be playing an escapest Science-Fantasy TTRPG. Real life should not be the issue here. I am talking about player enjoyment, i.e. the reason most people play the game.
Let's look at it this way. If I had a character that sucked at standard combat, I can still shoot a laser for 1d4 or aid another a player. Even though I sucked I would be contributing and participating without hindering the combat effectiveness of the remaining players. But Starship Combat doesn't work quite the same way. Both Enginner and Science Officer require being trained in the skill to even be a secondary Engineer or Science Officer who could aid the primary (assuming you had spare crewmen). And while anyone CAN pilot a ship or shoot a ship's weapon, the positions are too critical to allow someone who can't do them well to do them. So while in standard combat, there is always something the player can do to be helpful, it is actually possible that the best tactical choice in Starship combat is for a player with poor starship skills to do nothing while those that can, do. You can say that's how real life works as much as you want, but that isn't going to make the player who sits out an entire combat twiddling their thumbs any happier. This is, from a game design perspective, why every class should be capable of building an effective starship combat character without having to make large sacrifices.
As another example, I recently played a mod with starship combat with an all first level party of 5. I was playing my Solarian who I purpose built to be good at the one position he could be good at, Captain. But the Envoy was better at it even though I had been purpose built for it. And since you can have only 1 Captain, I got bumped out of the one thing I could do well. Science Officer and Engineer were out because I didn't want to put any of my piddling skill points in non-class skills that I would have sucked at anyway. And with only a +1 to piloting from Dex, that left me out as Pilot, as well. The only reason I even got to take a gunner position was because my chance to hit with a single weapon was the same as the primary gunner's chance to hit firing 2 weapons. Had that not been the case, the most effective thing I could have done with my character would have been NOTHING. Could that sort of thing happen in real life? Absolutely! Does that make for a fun game? Nope.
|
There is a chronicle sheet boon out there that can make a mystic an effective gunner, but it should not be necessary to have random useful boons to make a character even slightly effective at starship combat.
This Boon (and another) has been referenced already, and I largely agree that no Boon should be required to make a core element of the game function, but SFS *does* have an opportunity to address the problem with Starship Combat by utilizing Boons:
Create an "Ally" Boon for Starship Combat.
I *love* the Ally Boons in the Roleplaying Guild Guide. Every one of my characters has one (and every Ally has a different personality or appearance/theme).
Those Allies cannot be used during Starship Combat, but if another Ally Boon were released in the Roleplaying Guild Guide that could fulfil a Starship Combat role, I think that would solve the problem of having a PC who can't contribute on a Starship.
Make the Ally not as good as a dedicated PC, but something more effective than the 08 Int, 12 Dex Solarion with Athletics, Acrobatics and Culture.
|
|
As long as it's not a tradeable Boon, I'll be happy.
That Wisdom-for-Gunnery Boon is the most sought after trade item for this very reason.
Then you run the risk of having a character sit out of starship combat because the ally is better at it
This isn't true of the other Allies.
I can't see it being true for this.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
Getting enjoyment out of the game in a different way is okay. Even when I disagree with you, I think you have very interesting points to make.
Same with Roysier, by the way.
Roysier, if you are still reading this, I do hope you can figure out a way of balancing things for yourself so that you can keep enjoying your GMing. We need great GMs to be able to love what they are doing, because it will be a loss to your community and to all of us if you decide that you can no longer GM.
Hmm
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to disagree with most people's sentiments. I can accept this. I clearly get enjoyment out of this game in a different way. I will crawl back into my hovel and disturb your rants no more.
Sorry if I came across as a bit harsh. But I do really believe that if the best tactical choice for a party member is to not participate in a battle, then there is a design flaw.
And to be clear, I am not trying to be too harsh on the designers either. Starship Combat is a completely new element to the system, one I really want to enjoy, and I think there are some true sparks of genius in its concept. But it doesn't have the 19 years of playtesting the standard combat system essentially has had.
|
|
As long as it's not a tradeable Boon, I'll be happy.
That Wisdom-for-Gunnery Boon is the most sought after trade item for this very reason.
Then you run the risk of having a character sit out of starship combat because the ally is better at itThis isn't true of the other Allies.
I can't see it being true for this.
The master hireling
Beneft: This boon acts as Basic Hireling Access, except the total
bonus to your ally’s skill check is now equal to 8 + your level
8 plus level is a class skill maxed ranks and a +5 stat. Thats not all in like an envoy with a +6 a d6 a reroll and a partridge in a pear tree but it's a lot more than full ranks a class skill and a +2 stat.
|
|
Getting enjoyment out of the game in a different way is okay. Even when I disagree with you, I think you have very interesting points to make.
Same with Roysier, by the way.
Roysier, if you are still reading this, I do hope you can figure out a way of balancing things for yourself so that you can keep enjoying your GMing. We need great GMs to be able to love what they are doing, because it will be a loss to your community and to all of us if you decide that you can no longer GM.
Hmm
I'm still here. Enjoying reading everyone else's' comments. I can see why things can tip so easily one way or another. I also see why some characters are simply left out with no role to play as given in the Solarian example in a previous post. The solution seems pretty simple. Allow a new starship roll "assistant" that Role can assist any other crew nember.
I started playing a different sci-fi role playing game but am still playing SFS also. I'll play them both for a few months and see where I fall.
Thanks for the compliment and it was nice meeting you at Gencon.
Cheers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FYI, based on a boon from one of the APs, it appears Paizo is already planning on at least one solution for the Mystic starship combat issue. Namely, the introduction of Hybrid starship weapons, all of which appear to have the property of allowing Wisdom/Mysticism for Gunnery.
I am not sure I will ever fully understand why Paizo elected to not have spells, class abilities, and feats (with one exception) that could have at least some effect in starship combat. No Solarian Photon Revelation they could use to supercharge a beam weapon, or Graviton Revelation they could use to deflect an incoming torpedo; no Technomancer spell that could heal a small amount of hull damage or temporarily enhance the ship's computer; etc. I realize it would be a bit tough as no one would take those options unless they did other things like the Sky Jockey feat. But the lack of these greatly reduces options in starship combat that allow for effective use of characters (unlike normal combat). It drives me nuts that only your skills matter. I can only guess that the starship combat rules were new enough they didn't want to accidentally screw everything up without giving more time to understand potential repercussions, and/or would have made the core rules too big so they decided to save them for a supplement. Well, here's hoping for that supplement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is the new tier 2 Drake is overpowered with 2 turret guns and a foreward gun. You have a tier 2 ship averaging 23.5 points of damage a round. There are tier 2 ships who max in their forward arc doing 24 points if all dice are rolled max. That's the problem. I'll count up damage dealt and taken in next weeks Starship combat.looking at the enemy ship I know the damage will be less then 50% of the tier 2 drake. Probably around 35% of the damage output.
Following up on this post.
After action report. Spoiler for Book 1 of Against the Aeon Throne.
Roysier’s Starship Troopers vs. Azlanti Star Empire
This is the tier 2 starship combat in Against the Aeon Throne - book 1
The new tier 2 Drake with 4 players vs. a tier 2 Vanguard Voidsweeper.
The Starship combat lasted 5 battler rounds and about 20 minutes of real time.
The tier 2 Drake, averaged 21.6 points of damage a round against 20 total shield points on enemy ship
The Azlanti Vanguard sweeper, averaged 16.2 points of damage a round against 40 total shield points on enemy ship.
The players New tier 2 Drake took some hull damage but did not reach a critical threshold.
The players lost 4 out of 5 pilot rolls. The Drake was only using turret weapons so facing only mattered for which side was hit.
First round player actions; Science officer Scanned, Captain successfully Taunted the helm phase, pilot, and 1 turret gunner.
Round 2 through 5 player actions; Pilot, Engineer, and 2 gunners manning the 2 turret weapons.
|
|
The Starship combat lasted 5 battler rounds and about 20 minutes of real time.
You know I'm wondering if that's where a lot of the disconnect is coming from. Getting 5 mixed nuts geek sudukoed into their starship rolls usually takes longer than 10 minutes, much less doing 5 rounds of combat. A too short of a time for you has been a LOT longer for groups in my experience.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Starship combat lasted 5 battler rounds and about 20 minutes of real time.You know I'm wondering if that's where a lot of the disconnect is coming from. Getting 5 mixed nuts geek sudukoed into their starship rolls usually takes longer than 10 minutes, much less doing 5 rounds of combat. A too short of a time for you has been a LOT longer for groups in my experience.
I already said that I understand that things can shift one way or the other easily. I think the fast healing vampire post portrayed the problem beautifully. This particular combat was more even then others due to the players were not min/maxed for Startship combat.
So, yeah I agree starship combat can be a super easy waste of time for one group and a long drawn out borefest for another due to the system being to hard to pin point a CR that works well for all groups.
This combat would have been over much faster with a 5th player being a 3rd gunner on the front arc gun.
Also, I'm known for the speed I run things due to being super well prepared. So real time is impacted by my GM style. I should have left that out 5 battle rounds should be the focus.
But I will stand by my statement that pairing a tier 8 Drake vs. a tier 6 bad guy ship is way to easy and should stop.
Having 2 turret guns in the tier 2 Drake is way too easy for tier 2 combats for experienced players but maybe it's needed for beginners.
I also believe if the players are having a s+**ty time due to a 2 hour Starship Combat the GM is at fault. That combat should have been called long ago and the players given a victory.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I know what I do to prepare for ship combat, and my ship combats run nice and fast.
But what do you do, Roysier? I think I need to learn from you if you're running 5 rounds at that speed! I ask because I've been thinking of putting together a full guide based on the article that I submitted to Wayfinder 19 on Ship Combat, and I'm wondering if I'm missing something. Five rounds is closer to half an hour or more for me if I have to explain things to players.
Hmm
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this case the 4 players and myself have all played 20+ starship combats. The exact same crew just went through another starship combat at the start of the adventure.
I speed things along by trusting the players are being truthful on what they are doing and I make my rolls while they are moving their ship or talking among themselves. Basically listening to what they are doing without looking at what they are doing and deciding and rolling for my guys at the same time. It helps when a player keeps the other players honest. I call engineering phase and we both do it at the same time. Not one then the other, I call gunnery phase and they roll while and determine results at the same time I'm rolling and determining results, etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are other things I do. Such as when the players are sorting out who is taking what role in the ship I'm writing down DC's to accomplish the probable star ship crew actions. (Restoring shields, evade roll, re-balancing shields, etc.)
If the players are moving first I'm rolling my science officers re-balance roll. If it's failed it'a already done with it. If it succeeds I move my ship and see which side end up facing the players and re balance shields in that direction.
As soon as I see the players are not doing something tricky with their movement such as trying to move right in from on my ship I roll evade. Since I'm doing that action 95% of the time anyway.
|
|
Then you run the risk of having a character sit out of starship combat because the ally is better at itThis isn't true of the other Allies.
I can't see it being true for this.
master hireling: the total bonus to your ally’s skill check is now equal to 8 + your level
8 plus level is a class skill maxed ranks and a +5 stat. Thats not all in like an envoy with a +6 a d6 a reroll and a partridge in a pear tree but it's a lot more than full ranks a class skill and a +2 stat.
But what you're worried about doesn't happen.
Level+8 is the Hireling cap.
It isn't the cap for a character's dedicated skills.
By the time you can acquire a Master Hireling, your dedicated skills are going to be Level+9, plus any insight, enhancement and circumstance bonuses.
This is the case for both of my characters with Master Hirelings.
No Hireling is going to be better than a dedicated character. Ever. They're meant and designed to fill as a backup when a dedicated character isn't available.
I think having the same system in place for Starship Combat would be ideal.
Maybe not Level+8, because miscellaneous bonuses are harder to come by with Starship rolls, but maybe StarshipTierx1.5.
That would give characters a solid 55/45 chance of making most DCs. Better than nothing, but not as good as a Lashunta Ace Pilot.
|
|
Level+8 is the Hireling cap.
It isn't the cap for a character's dedicated skills.
I know a lot of the intern allies can surpass a fairly decent level of investment in a skill (like max ranks and skill focus)
By the time you can acquire a Master Hireling, your dedicated skills are going to be Level+9, plus any insight, enhancement and circumstance bonuses.
Level plus nine is maxed ranks and a plus 6 stat. That is going all in a skill. If someone else has a +6 in a starship combat stat they aren't the person you need to worry about the intern replacing. That is far more than the "Fairly decent" level of investment I'm talking about. a 12 or 14 int and max ranks in engineering or the like.
|
|
A Starship Ally would replace the character with either nothing to do during Starship Combat, or the character who can't competently participate in Starship Combat.
Just like the current Hirelings replace the character who can't do [insert skill], or who can't competently roll [insert skill].
What is wrong with that?
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your (theoretical) hireling is filling in for you right? If my melee soldier doesn't do so well with starships, I can sub in my hireling. But if Joe's solarian doesn't do so well with starships, I can't sub in my hireling, but Joe could sub in his own hireling.
It seems to me that the sweet spot for an "able spacer" ally boon would be when they're skilled enough to have a decent success rate, but not as skilled as a PC with a serious interest in starships could be.
It might be an idea actually for the ally not to scale with your level, but with the tier of the ship you're using. You could just put on the boon a line like:
Pilot: ranks = ship tier, bonus = 5 + 1.5x ship tier (a constant 75% chance to succeed at DC 10 + 1.5T evade stunts; a risky 50% chance for flyby, but the ship, computer and captain can help pull it off).
So that their skill level is always appropriate for the ship you're using, and you have well-balanced odds of success.
---
The consequences of this might be that people stop investing as much in starship combat, at the cost of a boon slot. That's a mixed blessing; on the one hand it sounds like "easy mode". But I think there are compelling advantages:
1) It ensures everyone can participate decently in space combat. Reasonable odds of succeeding at a check (75% for most of them) makes for an interesting combat, more exciting than failing most of the time or succeeding even on a 1.
2) It gives breathing space to builds that are at a disadvantage in space combat. Mystics, solarians, strength vanguards, witchwarpers who want more in life than the captain's chair. Vesk and kasatha melee builds which tend to gain few class skill points and an intelligence penalty.
3) It makes dividing spaceship roles a bit easier because if everyone brought their star engineer PC, someone's hireling can sit in the pilot's chair instead.
4) You no longer need to write 4P adjustments to starship combat. Instead, if the party has too few members to fill all seats, the VC can send an extra hireling or two along to fill out the ship. This would conserve word count in scenarios and make it easier to design good encounters. After all, it's easier to write just one well-balanced encounter per tier rather than one regular and one softened encounter per tier that still has the same coolness.
|
|
My suggestion was to have it scale with Starship Tier, as well, for those same reasons.
If you have a 10 Dex Solarion or Mystic, you know you can't participate in Starship Combat, so you'd acquire the Boon.
If you have a Lashunta Ace Pilot, you know you can participate in Starship Combat, so you wouldn't.
|
|
My suggestion was to have it scale with Starship Tier, as well, for those same reasons.
If you have a 10 Dex Solarion or Mystic, you know you can't participate in Starship Combat, so you'd acquire the Boon.
If you have a Lashunta Ace Pilot, you know you can participate in Starship Combat, so you wouldn't.
Unless, of course, there is another Lashunta Ace Pilot at the table and that's all you can do*. Then maybe you want the boon anyway.
*Okay, if you are an Ace Pilot then you would be a good Gunner also, but you get the idea. If you are only good at one starship combat position you might have to compete. I know that has happened to me more than once.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Starship Ally would replace the character with either nothing to do during Starship Combat, or the character who can't competently participate in Starship Combat.
Just like the current Hirelings replace the character who can't do [insert skill], or who can't competently roll [insert skill].
What is wrong with that?
Your definition of competent seems a little high. Level +5 is a class skill and a +2 stat which isn't too shabby in most systems. Starship combat is a little rough in seeming to think that every check will be made by an operative.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your definition of competent seems a little high. Level +5 is a class skill and a +2 stat which isn't too shabby in most systems. Starship combat is a little rough in seeming to think that every check will be made by an operative.
Well, with DCs scaling at 1.5x level, the game itself seems to assume that. With level-based ability boosts tapering off after reaching 17+ and personal augmentation only taking you so far, you need a skill bonus to scales with level to keep up or get better.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands
|
In this case the 4 players and myself have all played 20+ starship combats. The exact same crew just went through another starship combat at the start of the adventure.
I speed things along by trusting the players are being truthful on what they are doing and I make my rolls while they are moving their ship or talking among themselves. Basically listening to what they are doing without looking at what they are doing and deciding and rolling for my guys at the same time. It helps when a player keeps the other players honest. I call engineering phase and we both do it at the same time. Not one then the other, I call gunnery phase and they roll while and determine results at the same time I'm rolling and determining results, etc.
I do the same as you Roysier, I speed things up on my side, while they plan what their engineering and/or science officer want to do with shields, tactics, scanning, planning what they want to do, I'm already rolling for my turn and getting it done.
Same thing like you said with gunnery, it saves so much time if we power through. I call out a phase, we do the thing, I call the next phase. The piloting is the longest part actually because we both have to move and if there are tactics the scenario specifically wants to follow, otherwise it's find a spot for all guns and fire!
I demo a lot, and as such, the speedy process is the best if I ever have people who want to try space combat (which happens) so it's far easier to learn the speedy process, and my regular SFS players have all done a bunch of space combat so that helps. I also prep all my DC's beforehand so it's easy for me. I'm all about maximum prep and ease of scenario run.