| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basic Version PDF (Each suit in the basic version is just a standard suit of powered armour providing the basics for people who feel like that is missing from the current system.)
Enhanced Version PDF (This version gives each type of suit a special ability fitting its purpose for people who think the basic version is lacking compared to existing powered armour. This is much harder to balance, so be wary.)
---
Reasoning for making this:
Recently it came to my attention that powered armour has some problems with its progression that the upgrading rules listed in Armoury doesn't solve. As you progress up the levels, you jump from unique suit to unique suit, each with wildly different properties.
For example, at level five, you're in a basic Battle Harness. You want to replace your armour with another medium size suit at, say, level 9? Your options are either two levels below or two levels above, and even then, leave something to be desired. You reach level 12 and get into some Celerity Rigging; Fast power armour, that's really cool. But then you progress a few levels, and find that there's no similar options either above or below the Rigging in levels, and upgrading it to stay level with you is exorbitantly expensive. Plus there's another five level gap in Medium scale armour between 12 & 17.
That's why I decided to make this, so users of Powered Armour can maintain a consistent playstyle as they level up, rather than jumping from special suit to special suit, in some cases ending up worse at things you value (Like speed, or size) because there's no higher level options for you.
---
If anybody has any feedback, it'd be appreciated. It's hard to tell what the numbers will be like in actual play, but they match up to the progression curves I plotted, so they should be reasonable enough.
I think it would be better to take a suit of power armor, do the upgrade math one at a time, and take the price of the final upgrade as the cost to upgrade the armor.
Taking celerity rigging to level 17 in one go would then cost 292,359 Cr, which is only ~15% more than the level 17 extradimensional armor.
Upgrading the commander's harness would be about 3,000 Cr cheaper than the extradimensional suit.
Obviously this would require GM approval and smoothing of edges. Improving the level 6 brawler frame to level 17 would be something like 1.3 million Cr, because, well, math. Taking a fe examples at random, it seems like this method breaks down at roughly 6 levels of upgrades at once.
But letting a player sit down 2-5 levels after grabbing their power armor, and only charging the price of the final upgrade seems perfectly in line with buying a new suit. I think that also covers most gaps, and you can have those 'upgraded suits' available for sale if they don't already have power armor, but are at a gap level.
tl;dr - Going up one level at a time is way too much, skipping ahead to the final upgrade cost seems to line up with higher level armor costs.
I looked into methods of fixing the existing powered armour upgrade system in the process of making this doc (Calculator linked), and found that the numbers required a fair bit of fudging to make fit in satisfactory ways, and that it actually seemed simpler to just make a new table of powered armour which I could use some maths to fit into Starfinders progression system without needing to make a system that requires moving parts that can adjust for any suit of armour.
In short, I believe this is actually simpler than trying to make the armour upgrade system work in a satisfactory manner.
I'm also not one hundred percent certain why doing so would be a better solution than simply making a table of armours to fit styles of play at different levels; we don't have or need a way to upgrade light/heavy armours, after all, we just have sets numbered I-VI that you can swap to as you progress.
Certainly anybody who wants to make the upgrade system work is welcome to try, all power to them, but for people who don't want to have to dig into starfinders number guts, this is something where I've done all the maths in the background and it doesn't require any more thought.
Personally I would have filled in a few gaps, by including options for more huge, gargantuan, and colossal power armor, but again that's just me.
Seems cool, otherwise.
I love the idea of powered armour bigger than large, but I don't really know how to make them mechanically distinct in a way that does them justice while staying within Starfinders pretty tight number curves. Even the one existing example seems a bit, lackluster, to say the least, for a gargantuan object.
I think I'd probably lean towards something like Umbral Reavers excellent Mechfinder homebrew for things of that nature, personally.
I've seen mechfinder before and even made a post about it here when I found it on Reddit. My only issue is it's a little unnecessary for mechs and other gigantic objects to function any differently than smaller objects do. I mean if the Kyokor, Endbringer Devil, and even the Ultimatum Hover Carrier use normal combat rules, then mechs shouldn't be any different.
While that may be the case, that still doesn't really solve my problem of existing huge+ vehicles/powered armours being underwhelming for what they are, and it's not really within the remit of what I set out to do here to solve that.
Obviously this would require GM approval and smoothing of edges. Improving the level 6 brawler frame to level 17 would be something like 1.3 million Cr, because, well, math. Taking a fe examples at random, it seems like this method breaks down at roughly 6 levels of upgrades at once.
I'll note brawler frames are level 9, not 6. Its a typo in the book. Also, their stats are way out of line for level 6 as well. Lastly, their cost is of a level 9 armor. So going to 17 is 8 improvements. 14,500 * (1.5^8) = 371,619, which is only about 100,000 credits more than typical level 17 armors. When expected wealth is around 1.1 million at that level, its not an unreasonable cost.
Is there any Power Armor that's really worth it when compared to Heavy Armor?
It looks like the Celerity Rigging is the only one that might be worth it.
An important factor to me is having 1/hr per charge use. The minute per charge powered armor are all basically worthless IMO.
The next consideration is, is the AC better than what Heavy Armor offers at that level? (Or at least can you get about the same AC for about the same price Heavy Armor).
What is the speed? Dropping below 30 ft is pretty harsh for melee characters.
What is the strength? If it's less than what my character has...it's not an option.
Power armor is something that needs building around.
The AC is not really that much better than heavy, the speed is typically slower, and you actually want to use it with a dex build, not a strength build. Having your dex capped by armor is less punishing than it was in pathfinder, but it might still rub some people the wrong way.
Because of the feat investment, it's more a soldier/exocortex mechanic bonus thing than something you really want to pick up with any ol' character.
It lets you have multiple (depending on suit) heavy weapons always at the ready. Oh, in addition to the weapons held in hand, which are probably melee weapons. Some of them have nifty abilities on top of armor upgrades. It gives the character with good dex and min required strength a melee option.
So... really, the ideal character built for power armor is some sort of switch hitter. They have a couple nice heavy weapons they can use, or when the enemy is close, they can use their advanced melee weapon and smack them upside the head.
Whether that's a good character or not is up for debate.
Honestly, larger power armors are probably better for such a character. That way they enjoy all the benefits of being a ranged focused medium character, but then they can jump into their power armor in certain situations and be large+ for melee.
While that may be the case, that still doesn't really solve my problem of existing huge+ vehicles/powered armours being underwhelming for what they are, and it's not really within the remit of what I set out to do here to solve that.
I guess since there isn't any on going discussion, I'll ask. What makes huge+ size power armor/vehicles particularly underwhelming? I understand power armor, since it has no HP pool, but what about vehicles?
While that may be the case, that still doesn't really solve my problem of existing huge+ vehicles/powered armours being underwhelming for what they are, and it's not really within the remit of what I set out to do here to solve that.I guess since there isn't any on going discussion, I'll ask. What makes huge+ size power armor/vehicles particularly underwhelming? I understand power armor, since it has no HP pool, but what about vehicles?
Size in and of itself doesn't get you anything in Starfinder innately. It doesn't get you more HP, damage, slots, strength, or anything like that. All that is controlled by item level. On the other hand, it doesn't make you harder to hit either.
Basically, all it does is make it harder to move around and easier to provide cover to others.
It does give better reach, but since there's currently no equivalent to Combat Reflexes, having super big reach isn't nearly as useful in Starfinder as it was in Pathfinder.
While that may be the case, that still doesn't really solve my problem of existing huge+ vehicles/powered armours being underwhelming for what they are, and it's not really within the remit of what I set out to do here to solve that.I guess since there isn't any on going discussion, I'll ask. What makes huge+ size power armor/vehicles particularly underwhelming? I understand power armor, since it has no HP pool, but what about vehicles?Size in and of itself doesn't get you anything in Starfinder innately. It doesn't get you more HP, damage, slots, strength, or anything like that. All that is controlled by item level. On the other hand, it doesn't make you harder to hit either.
Basically, all it does is make it harder to move around and easier to provide cover to others.
It gives vehicles more ramming damage.
Anyway, I prefer that a creature's archetype and level determines its damage and health rather than size category. A colossal combatant shouldn't be significantly more powerful than a smaller combatant of the same CR because of a size difference. Just personal preference.
While that may be the case, that still doesn't really solve my problem of existing huge+ vehicles/powered armours being underwhelming for what they are, and it's not really within the remit of what I set out to do here to solve that.I guess since there isn't any on going discussion, I'll ask. What makes huge+ size power armor/vehicles particularly underwhelming? I understand power armor, since it has no HP pool, but what about vehicles?Size in and of itself doesn't get you anything in Starfinder innately. It doesn't get you more HP, damage, slots, strength, or anything like that. All that is controlled by item level. On the other hand, it doesn't make you harder to hit either.
Basically, all it does is make it harder to move around and easier to provide cover to others.
It gives vehicles more ramming damage.
Anyway, I prefer that a creature's archetype and level determines its damage and health rather than size category. A colossal combatant shouldn't be significantly more powerful than a smaller combatant of the same CR because of a size difference. Just personal preference.
It's a reasonable preference to have, but it doesn't match up with mine, really.
When the 800 foot long hovercarrier can be demolished in half a minute by an equivalent level soldier swinging a weapon (who, incidentally, can actually have more stamina+HP than it.) or annihilated by a single heavy missile from a medium starship a bunch of tiers lower than it, that is 15% of its length (Which it has absolutely zero chance of harming substantially in return), it seems a lot less impressive, and a lot less like the 'pinnacle of military technology' it is described as.
Edit: Another fun fact I remembered, the 4 million credit level 20 hovercarrier actually has less hit points than a 10 foot x 10 foot section of concrete wall. It also has less than a third of the hit points and almost half of the hardness of a 10x10 section of normal starship interior material.
This feels like a strawman.
An 800 ft hover carrier is going to have a lot of HP and probably a high hardness.
We're not really given rules (IIRC) to build our own vehicles and as far as I know it's not an example provided.
And while I agree if a character can easily total a 800 ft vehicle, it makes sense to me that a starship with weapons designed to destroy things with shields and other weapons can probably take it out with relative ease.
Is there a source for this 800ft hover carrier?
Interesting.
Honestly I feel like the main thing here is that it should just be given more HP.
The damage it deals should be fine against most things.
But lets think about this for comparison, a road train, which is a really long semi-truck-trailer mainly used in Australia. Normally they usually just do like 3 trailers together max, but the world record is nearly a mile. But just because it's big and long doesn't make it resilient. It's still just a tractor trailer. You could pretty easily cut through it (enough to disable it) it a pretty short time.
Now, it's also not an armored personnel carrier.
So perhaps something like this probably should have had higher hardness (for reinforced armor) probably had an on board shield system, and higher hit points.
To me, this is more a failing of designing this piece of equipment than a problem with how the system generally works. This carrier listed here sounds a lot more like the mile long road train (that will be just as fragile as a regular semi) than an actually armored personnel carrier.
Interesting.
Honestly I feel like the main thing here is that it should just be given more HP.
The damage it deals should be fine against most things.
But lets think about this for comparison, a road train, which is a really long semi-truck-trailer mainly used in Australia. Normally they usually just do like 3 trailers together max, but the world record is nearly a mile. But just because it's big and long doesn't make it resilient. It's still just a tractor trailer. You could pretty easily cut through it (enough to disable it) it a pretty short time.
Now, it's also not an armored personnel carrier.
So perhaps something like this probably should have had higher hardness (for reinforced armor) probably had an on board shield system, and higher hit points.
To me, this is more a failing of designing this piece of equipment than a problem with how the system generally works. This carrier listed here sounds a lot more like the mile long road train (that will be just as fragile as a regular semi) than an actually armored personnel carrier.
If the existing system is fine for you, that's great, I'm not requesting it be changed or even suggesting a house rule on how to fix it at this point, simply stating why I'm not going to make powered armour bigger than large.
Vehicles are an odd case. They tend to be unaffordable, but amazingly useful at levels greater than character level. They also tend to be affordable, but only situationally useful if bought at item levels much less than character level.
Really, the reason vehicles are underwhelming, is that they are campaign dependent. Trying to shoehorn a vehicle into an existing campaign is likely to be a waste of money. A campaign that involves vehicles likely requires the GM to provide them in the first place.
I like that PCs can just buy hover cars and tanks and whatnot, but really, vehicles might have been better off using starship rules. They show up when the plot needs them, but otherwise everything involving them is offscreen.
In the same vein, anything bigger than large is going to have problems fitting into the typical adventure. If you have to leave your hovertank/huge power armor outside the station/building/starship/bunker, it was a waste of money.
While that may be the case, that still doesn't really solve my problem of existing huge+ vehicles/powered armours being underwhelming for what they are, and it's not really within the remit of what I set out to do here to solve that.I guess since there isn't any on going discussion, I'll ask. What makes huge+ size power armor/vehicles particularly underwhelming? I understand power armor, since it has no HP pool, but what about vehicles?Size in and of itself doesn't get you anything in Starfinder innately. It doesn't get you more HP, damage, slots, strength, or anything like that. All that is controlled by item level. On the other hand, it doesn't make you harder to hit either.
Basically, all it does is make it harder to move around and easier to provide cover to others.
It gives vehicles more ramming damage.
Anyway, I prefer that a creature's archetype and level determines its damage and health rather than size category. A colossal combatant shouldn't be significantly more powerful than a smaller combatant of the same CR because of a size difference. Just personal preference.
It's a reasonable preference to have, but it doesn't match up with mine, really.
When the 800 foot long hovercarrier can be demolished in half a minute by an equivalent level soldier swinging a weapon (who, incidentally, can actually have more stamina+HP than it.) or annihilated by a single heavy missile from a medium starship a bunch of tiers lower than it, that is 15% of its length (Which it has absolutely zero chance of harming substantially in return), it seems a lot less impressive, and a lot less like the 'pinnacle of military technology' it is described as.
Edit: Another fun fact I remembered, the 4 million credit level 20 hovercarrier actually has less hit points than a 10 foot x 10 foot section of concrete wall. It also has less than a third of the hit points and almost half of the...
20th level characters are supposed to be ridiculously powerful. Their CR is equivalent to the living apocalypse, which is a monstrosity known for destroying entire worlds. A 20th level soldier isn't the equivalent of a skilled grunt. Makes sense that they could destroy a skyscraper sized cruiser.
Starships and terrestrial creatures/vehicles are not supposed to interact. They're not allowed to deal x10 damage to anything but structures since they are not allowed to target anything else besides that. They have to use damage as if it were a hazard. Likewise, attacks against starships on ground treat the starship as an object, like how hover carrier is an object, for example. If it were meant to participate in both forms of combat, they would use two sets of statistics, such as the endbringer devil.
Mind you that we're all aware that concrete walls have way too much health. Even full damage with a heavy nuclear missile launcher doesn't destroy it.
You're fine to disagree with how they handle it, because I'm not trying to change your mind on anything.
So perhaps something like this probably should have had higher hardness (for reinforced armor) probably had an on board shield system, and higher hit points.
To me, this is more a failing of designing this piece of equipment than a problem with how the system generally works. This carrier listed here sounds a lot more like the mile long road train (that will be just as fragile as a regular semi) than an actually armored personnel carrier.
It has nearly 500 hit points, 20 hardness, and 37/35 KAC/EAC. I'm not really seeing how this is too low to represent an armored cruiser. You don't have to jack its statistics through the roof to represent that, just because it happens to be over 800' long.
20th level characters are supposed to be ridiculously powerful. Their CR is equivalent to the living apocalypse, which is a monstrosity known for destroying entire worlds. A 20th level soldier isn't the equivalent of a skilled grunt. Makes sense that they could destroy a skyscraper sized cruiser.
Starships and terrestrial creatures/vehicles are not supposed to interact. They're not allowed to deal x10 damage to anything but structures since they are not allowed to target anything else besides that. They have to use damage as if it were a hazard. Likewise, attacks against starships on ground treat the starship as an object, like how hover carrier is an object, for example. If it were meant to participate in both forms of combat, they would use two sets of statistics, such as the endbringer devil.
Mind you that we're all aware that concrete walls have way too much health. Even full damage with a heavy nuclear missile launcher doesn't destroy it.
You're fine to disagree with how they handle it, because I'm not trying to change your mind on anything.
I'm well aware of how powerful 20th level characters are. I never implied they were simply a skilled grunt. I still don't believe it makes sense in fiction given the scales involved, when the fact that they are the same CR/Tier/Level is taken into account. If the soldier was a substantial number of levels above the tier of the vehicle, I would agree it could make sense.
If you think the size category system having next to no impact on the actual power of the entity involved is fine, cool, I can see why you're satisfied with the existing system. I would prefer if it did have a substantial impact, and the fact that it doesn't is why I'm not going to make powered armour bigger than large.
Starships and terrestrial creatures/vehicles are not supposed to interact. They're not allowed to deal x10 damage to anything but structures since they are not allowed to target anything else besides that. They have to use damage as if it were a hazard. Likewise, attacks against starships on ground treat the starship as an object, like how hover carrier is an object, for example. If it were meant to participate in both forms of combat, they would use two sets of statistics, such as the endbringer devil.
They are perfectly allowed to deal 10x damage to anything the GM wants.
There is no rule that says to use CR appropriate hazard damage to emulate starship attacks on players, it simply says the GM needs to do work to avoid this situation because the rules interact poorly. Imitate starship fire as a hazard because specific targeting is impossible, and it does 10x damage to buildings. The GM is free to say starship weapons fire is instant death to PCs, 10x starship damage, or a CR appropriate hazard damage.
The wall hit points and hardness being ridiculous is a different story.
Starships and terrestrial creatures/vehicles are not supposed to interact. They're not allowed to deal x10 damage to anything but structures since they are not allowed to target anything else besides that. They have to use damage as if it were a hazard. Likewise, attacks against starships on ground treat the starship as an object, like how hover carrier is an object, for example. If it were meant to participate in both forms of combat, they would use two sets of statistics, such as the endbringer devil.
They are perfectly allowed to deal 10x damage to anything the GM wants.
There is no rule that says to use CR appropriate hazard damage to emulate starship attacks on players, it simply says the GM needs to do work to avoid this situation because the rules interact poorly. Imitate starship fire as a hazard because specific targeting is impossible, and it does 10x damage to buildings. The GM is free to say starship weapons fire is instant death to PCs, 10x starship damage, or a CR appropriate hazard damage.
The wall hit points and hardness being ridiculous is a different story.
It doesn't say CR appropriate, it says to just use them.
The GM can do anything they feel like, but if they are following RAW, they can't target people with starship weapons and can instead use hazards. Using hazards instead of doing nothing. You can't deal x10 damage if you can't target it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM can do anything they feel like, but if they are following RAW, they can't target people with starship weapons and can instead use hazards. Using hazards instead of doing nothing. You can't deal x10 damage if you can't target it.
So, yes, technically RAW is 'as deadly hazards'.
Rocks fall, everyone dies.
The sentence prior is 10x damage to buildings, so if you aren't going to take the planescape's lady of pain approach, 10x damage is the next best thing.
The GM can do anything they feel like, but if they are following RAW, they can't target people with starship weapons and can instead use hazards. Using hazards instead of doing nothing. You can't deal x10 damage if you can't target it.So, yes, technically RAW is 'as deadly hazards'.
Rocks fall, everyone dies.
The sentence prior is 10x damage to buildings, so if you aren't going to take the planescape's lady of pain approach, 10x damage is the next best thing.
I don't remember anything about "deadly hazards" meaning instant death, and I'll wager that it doesn't exist. The do have a chart in the vehicle section that is labeled "hazard attacks" which I'm pretty sure that's what they are referring to, since it's the only thing that references hazards.
That really doesn't imply anything.
When it comes down to it, starship vs PC or NPC is entirely GM discretion.
The GM is encouraged not to let it happen in the first place.
That really doesn't imply anything.
When it comes down to it, starship vs PC or NPC is entirely GM discretion.
The GM is encouraged not to let it happen in the first place.
What, telling you that there's a damage chart for hazards doesn't imply anything? It's in plain English. If you are playing by RAW, you can't use x10 damage against people. The GM can ignore any rule they want. It's not exclusive to handling starship attacks on ground targets.
The hazard chart is for vehicle rules, not player rules. It's in an entirely separate rules section. The starship damage x10 rule is literally one sentence over from 'treat attacks vs. players as deadly hazards'.
Playing purely by RAW, starship attacks cannot directly target a PC and are treated instead as 'deadly hazards'. It does not say see page 285. It says 'deadly hazards'. You can use 10x damage if you feel like it as a GM, or you can say no one ever takes damage from starship weapons if you want.
RAW starship vs players is completely undefined. Which means the GM in a strict RAW game can say any of the following: You take 10x starship weapon damage. You're in the path of a starship weapon, you die, no save. You take X damage, roll a reflex save to half, etc.
That isn't a GM ignoring a rule, there just aren't any rules. There is a very loose guideline about damage vs. buildings, and that is all there is.
It has nearly 500 hit points, 20 hardness, and 37/35 KAC/EAC. I'm not really seeing how this is too low to represent an armored cruiser. You don't have to jack its statistics through the roof to represent that, just because it happens to be over 800' long.So perhaps something like this probably should have had higher hardness (for reinforced armor) probably had an on board shield system, and higher hit points.
To me, this is more a failing of designing this piece of equipment than a problem with how the system generally works. This carrier listed here sounds a lot more like the mile long road train (that will be just as fragile as a regular semi) than an actually armored personnel carrier.
If it's supposed to be an armored personnel carrier, it just doesn't make sense to me, if it can relatively easily be destroyed by someone using something other than explosives or heavy weapons.
There are multiple ways you could handle it.
Higher hardness, adding defenses specific against weapons that aren't starship, heavy weapons, or explosives.
A level 1 melee soldier could pretty quickly and easily destroy a level 1 vehicle.
The hazard chart is for vehicle rules, not player rules. It's in an entirely separate rules section. The starship damage x10 rule is literally one sentence over from 'treat attacks vs. players as deadly hazards'.
Playing purely by RAW, starship attacks cannot directly target a PC and are treated instead as 'deadly hazards'. It does not say see page 285. It says 'deadly hazards'. You can use 10x damage if you feel like it as a GM, or you can say no one ever takes damage from starship weapons if you want.
RAW starship vs players is completely undefined. Which means the GM in a strict RAW game can say any of the following: You take 10x starship weapon damage. You're in the path of a starship weapon, you die, no save. You take X damage, roll a reflex save to half, etc.
That isn't a GM ignoring a rule, there just aren't any rules. There is a very loose guideline about damage vs. buildings, and that is all there is.
All right, I'm done with this. You're basically saying that "can't target" is written for no reason. You have this strange idea that "can't target" means you can target anyway and do whatever you want. It mentions hazards for no reason, too, according to you.
Play the game however you like.
It has nearly 500 hit points, 20 hardness, and 37/35 KAC/EAC. I'm not really seeing how this is too low to represent an armored cruiser. You don't have to jack its statistics through the roof to represent that, just because it happens to be over 800' long.So perhaps something like this probably should have had higher hardness (for reinforced armor) probably had an on board shield system, and higher hit points.
To me, this is more a failing of designing this piece of equipment than a problem with how the system generally works. This carrier listed here sounds a lot more like the mile long road train (that will be just as fragile as a regular semi) than an actually armored personnel carrier.
If it's supposed to be an armored personnel carrier, it just doesn't make sense to me, if it can relatively easily be destroyed by someone using something other than explosives or heavy weapons.
There are multiple ways you could handle it.
Higher hardness, adding defenses specific against weapons that aren't starship, heavy weapons, or explosives.
A level 1 melee soldier could pretty quickly and easily destroy a level 1 vehicle.
It's as easily destroyed as a CR20 creature is. A level 1 soldier is the same level as a goblin junkcycle. The ultimatum hovercarrier is the same level as a living apocalypse, a creature made from the usage of doomsday weapons and the like.
Examples of how it's easily destroyed would be cool. I just don't agree that it needs bloated stats because it's a giant vehicle. I feel like it already does its job just fine.
The hazard chart is for vehicle rules, not player rules. It's in an entirely separate rules section. The starship damage x10 rule is literally one sentence over from 'treat attacks vs. players as deadly hazards'.
Playing purely by RAW, starship attacks cannot directly target a PC and are treated instead as 'deadly hazards'. It does not say see page 285. It says 'deadly hazards'. You can use 10x damage if you feel like it as a GM, or you can say no one ever takes damage from starship weapons if you want.
RAW starship vs players is completely undefined. Which means the GM in a strict RAW game can say any of the following: You take 10x starship weapon damage. You're in the path of a starship weapon, you die, no save. You take X damage, roll a reflex save to half, etc.
That isn't a GM ignoring a rule, there just aren't any rules. There is a very loose guideline about damage vs. buildings, and that is all there is.
All right, I'm done with this. You're basically saying that "can't target" is written for no reason. You have this strange idea that "can't target" means you can target anyway and do whatever you want. It mentions hazards for no reason, too, according to you.
Play the game however you like.
No, I'm saying that the rules do not support starship vs. character interactions. There is a blurb with a tiny bit of advice if it happens anyway. It is up to the GM to decide what occurs when it inevitably happens once the player do something with a starship vs characters, or try to shoot a starship with their characters.
'Can't target' is written as a warning to GMs, so they know they are now outside the rules as written. So they know what happens next is up to them, the rules do not help, go with what works for what is happening in story right now, it might be different next campaign for a similar situation.
'Deadly hazard' is not defined for a reason. Starship vs character (or vehicle) should not happen, but GMs are given a vague guideline to use as they wish.
GM Fiat is the rule of the day for starship vs. character (or vehicle). No other rules truly support this situation. That is by design.
You want to walk out into an orbital bombardment as a PC? GM fiat decides if you live or die. Oh, you're in a hovertank? Same story.
You, as a PC, want to bombard an asteroid to kill someone you know is there? GM fiat decides if it works.
You have a tier 3 ship and you want to shoot tactical nukes at the ultimatum hover carrier floating over the city you are in? Again, GM fiat if it works or not. obviously a GM wants to avoid this situation, but PCs are unpredictable.
It's as easily destroyed as a CR20 creature is. A level 1 soldier is the same level as a goblin junkcycle. The ultimatum hovercarrier is the same level as a living apocalypse, a creature made from the usage of doomsday weapons and the like.
Examples of how it's easily destroyed would be cool. I just don't agree that it needs bloated stats because it's a giant vehicle. I feel like it already does its job just fine.
I agree here. Partially because high level PCs are straight up comic book superheroes, partially because starfinder follows the pattern of rules first, reality second.
That said, buying near level vehicles is typically going to be a bad use of your character's wealth. Except if you know you are going to use the vehicle.
It has nearly 500 hit points, 20 hardness, and 37/35 KAC/EAC. I'm not really seeing how this is too low to represent an armored cruiser. You don't have to jack its statistics through the roof to represent that, just because it happens to be over 800' long.So perhaps something like this probably should have had higher hardness (for reinforced armor) probably had an on board shield system, and higher hit points.
To me, this is more a failing of designing this piece of equipment than a problem with how the system generally works. This carrier listed here sounds a lot more like the mile long road train (that will be just as fragile as a regular semi) than an actually armored personnel carrier.
If it's supposed to be an armored personnel carrier, it just doesn't make sense to me, if it can relatively easily be destroyed by someone using something other than explosives or heavy weapons.
There are multiple ways you could handle it.
Higher hardness, adding defenses specific against weapons that aren't starship, heavy weapons, or explosives.
A level 1 melee soldier could pretty quickly and easily destroy a level 1 vehicle.
It's as easily destroyed as a CR20 creature is. A level 1 soldier is the same level as a goblin junkcycle. The ultimatum hovercarrier is the same level as a living apocalypse, a creature made from the usage of doomsday weapons and the like.
Examples of how it's easily destroyed would be cool. I just don't agree that it needs bloated stats because it's a giant vehicle. I feel like it already does its job just fine.
I guess my thought is that an equal level vehicle should be able to survive a sustained assault against an equal level PCs for a least of period of time.
Or at least that the armored personnel carrier should be able to do so.
The other vehicles that aren't meant to military grade vehicles are one thing, they're not designed to be attacked really. The other vehicles are.
I don't have time right now to build a level 20 character to see how fast it can destroy the level 20 vehicle, but it will be pretty fast I expect.
Hopefully I can put together those number for you later.
I wasn't even looking at it as a combat thing, I was just looking at it as a "This carrier is here unoccupied doing nothing, and this solider wants to destroy it, how long does it take him?"
To me, it is a bit unrealistic if the "heavy armored personnel carrier" can be destroyed by a single equal level soldier in 24 seconds.
Considering the soldier is carrying around a weapon at least as destructive as a tank's main gun it's less strange than you might think.
They aren't shooting it with a rifle or hitting it with a ball-peen hammer to destroy it. They're shooting anti tank weapons, or cutting it up with light sabers.
Still weird with the ultimatum hover carrier, but that's an outlier that should probably instead use building rules and a flip mat, not vehicle rules.
So a level 20 soldier as a basis for comparison.
Prydux
Male dragonkin gladiator soldier 20 Alien Archive 41
N Large dragon
Init +15; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; Perception +23
--------------------
Defense SP 240 HP 146 RP 18
--------------------
EAC 41; KAC 43
Fort +17; Ref +13; Will +14; +2 vs. effects that cause paralysis, +2 against spells and spell-like abilities
Defensive Abilities armored advantage; DR 20/—; Immunities sleep; Resist cold 15, electricity 15, fire 15
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 65 ft., fly 25 ft. (Ex, average)
Melee wyrmlord dragonglaive +30 (13d8+32 E & S; powered, reach) or
returning called dimensional slice starknife +30 (8d12+32 P; analog, thrown [80 ft.])
Ranged smoke grenade +29 (explode [20 ft., smoke cloud 1 minute, DC 15])
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft. (20 ft. with wyrmlord dragonglaive)
Offensive Abilities primary fighting style (blitz), breath weapon (30-ft. cone, 1d6+30 F, Reflex DC 25 half), charge attack, secondary fighting style (hit-and-run), melee striker, nimble fusillade, opening volley, soldier's onslaught
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 26 (+8); Dex 24 (+7); Con 20 (+5); Int 18 (+4); Wis 14 (+2); Cha 10 (+0)
Skills Acrobatics +29, Athletics +30, Bluff +1, Computers +28 (20 ranks), Culture +28, Diplomacy +1, Disguise +1, Engineering +30 (20 ranks), Intimidate +2, Medicine +28, Perception +23, Piloting +8 (0 ranks), Sense Motive +3, Stealth +26, Survival +3; (reduce the DC of Culture checks by 5 when recalling information about entertainment combat, fighting styles, and gladiatorial traditions)
Feats Blind-fight, Close Combat, Coordinated Shot, Deflect Projectiles, Dive For Cover, Enhanced Resistance, Improved Initiative, Improved Stand Still, Kip Up, Mobility, Nimble Moves, Opening Volley, Penetrating Attack, Reflect Projectiles, Skill Focus (engineering), Skill Synergy (computers, culture), Spellbane, Stand Still, Step Up, Step Up And Strike, Weapon Focus (advanced melee weapons)
Languages Abyssal, Akitonian, Aklo, Ancient Daimalkan, Azlanti, Brethedan, Castrovelian, Celestial, Common, Draconic, Drow, Dwarven, Eoxian, Ignan, Infernal, Kasatha, Reptoid, Sarcesian, Shirren, Shobhad, Starsong, Terran, Triaxian, Vercite, Vesk, Wrikreechee, Ysoki
Other Abilities against the odds, anchoring arcana, crowd favorite, deflecting smash, draconic immunities, duck and weave, famous fighter, keep fighting (5d6+20 stamina), kill shot, part of the outfit, partner bond, perfect opportunity, unstoppable strike
Combat Gear smoke grenades (10); Other Gear vesk monolith III (upgrade: backup generator, haste circuit, mk 3 electrostatic field, mk 3 thermal capacitor, orange force field [40 HP], targeting computer), returning called dimensional slice starknife, smoke grenades (10), wyrmlord dragonglaive, engineering tool kit, mk 5 ring of resistance, personal comm unit, resilient jacket, credstick (531,283 credits); Augmentations complete speed suspension, dual cybernetic arm, mk 1 ability crystal (constitution), mk 2 ability crystal (dexterity), mk 3 ability crystal (strength), mk 3 prescient lenses
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Partner Bond (Ex) A dragonkin can form a permanent bond with one willing non-dragonkin creature. Once this bond is made, a dragonkin cannot form another partner bond unless its current partner dies. A dragonkin and its partner can communicate with each other as if they both had telepathy with a range of 100 feet. In combat, when a dragonkin is within 30 feet of its partner, both creatures roll initiative checks separately and treat the higher result as the result for both of them.Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at https://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Inc.®, and are used under license.
My soldier has a +24 to attack on a full attack for 3 attacks in a round, giving a 45% chance for each attack to hit.
Each attack will deal an average of 90 damage, which after hardness is 70.
So 3*0.45*70 = 94.5 average damage per round.
The ultimatum carrier has 465 hp. The soldier will destroy it on his own in ~5 rounds. My character also isn't optimized for damage, it doesn't even have a level 20 weapon. It has a lot (in my opinion) on the defensive side.
And for comparison, my level 20 armor that I'm wearing has 45 hardness and 105 hp.
That's means only 45 damage per attack, so requires 3 successful attacks to destroy. The ultimatum carrier requires 7 successful attacks.
That just seems absurd.
I'm still not understanding the fuss with a 20th level character destroying the hovercarrier, even after explaining how they are, more or less, on par with creatures like the Kyokor, Living Apocalypse, and the Endbringer Devil. You're so caught up in "a soldier with a gun" instead of seeing them as a CR20 threat. No one would question Thor from MCU, or any particularly powerful being from MCU for that matter, destroying a giant vessel, but people just can't seem to look past a character sheet and "little soldier with gun."
Even in Pathfinder, creatures that have a CR in the upper teens are commonly described as godlike, but no one ever seems to care, especially when big metal vehicles are in the picture. People seem to be stuck in some GoT or LoTR mentality where a 20th level character is Aragorn or something, instead of being something much stronger. I don't know, if you want the carrier to be stronger, seemingly, use a lower level party =\
I'd be fine with it if it wasn't supposed to be an armored personnel carrier.
It just seems way to easy to destroy for something that in theory shouldn't be only twice as hard to destroy as someone's personnel armor.
Don't get me wrong, I think that a 20th level character should be able to destroy a hover carrier, just not this quickly.
Honestly I think if we increased the hardness of the carrier to 45 (same as the armor my character has) that it would be a step in the right direction. A CR20 monster/fight is supposed to be moderately challenging for characters of equal level. And my experience has been that it's been true (at least through level 7) but this fight doesn't seem like it would be challenging in the least against a 4 man party.
That's way too much hardness for a 20th level item, if it's meant to be fought. You can do you, though.
A CR20 isn't a challenge for a 20th level party, it's considered average. A level 20 is equal to a CR20, which means that's equivalent to a Kyokor vs four Kyokors, or four hovercarriers vs a single hovercarrier.
why is a vehicle a CR 20 encounter? It's a level 20 item. This is like saying let's have a fight between a 20th level Soldier and a paragon maul. So no, it shouldn't be up to the challenge of a actual CR 20 monster, it's only detailing that it is an appropriate item for a level 20 character to have. I mean, imagine the bragging rights of bringing that thing to a fight!
But if we just have to have it be a CR 20 encounter for some reason, it may take the soldier more than 4-5 rounds since they also have to deal with its 60+ crew and 1000 passengers who probably aren't too keen on him shooting up their ride.
why is a vehicle a CR 20 encounter? It's a level 20 item. This is like saying let's have a fight between a 20th level Soldier and a paragon maul. So no, it shouldn't be up to the challenge of a actual CR 20 monster, it's only detailing that it is an appropriate item for a level 20 character to have. I mean, imagine the bragging rights of bringing that thing to a fight!
But if we just have to have it be a CR 20 encounter for some reason, it may take the soldier more than 4-5 rounds since they also have to deal with its 60+ crew and 1000 passengers who probably aren't too keen on him shooting up their ride.
Why is it basically CR20? Look at it's statistics and compare it to a CR20.
That's way too much hardness for a 20th level item, if it's meant to be fought. You can do you, though.
I can definitely say it's not too much hardness for a 20th level item to have, since that how much the armor my character own possesses.
That's way too much hardness for a 20th level item, if it's meant to be fought. You can do you, though.I can definitely say it's not too much hardness for a 20th level item to have, since that how much the armor my character own possesses.
Yeah, but you're not fighting the armor or something else with 45 hardess. It's for the sake of balance, 45 hardness is too much to give something that you're fighting. I just don't get the issue, it's already max level with CR20 statistics. I'd understand if a 12th level party can annihilate it in a round, but we're talking about a party at their pinnacle; the strongest they'll ever be. Most people playing never even reach close to 20th, anyway. It's seriously not a big deal.
Why is it basically CR20? Look at it's statistics and compare it to a CR20.why is a vehicle a CR 20 encounter? It's a level 20 item. This is like saying let's have a fight between a 20th level Soldier and a paragon maul. So no, it shouldn't be up to the challenge of a actual CR 20 monster, it's only detailing that it is an appropriate item for a level 20 character to have. I mean, imagine the bragging rights of bringing that thing to a fight!
But if we just have to have it be a CR 20 encounter for some reason, it may take the soldier more than 4-5 rounds since they also have to deal with its 60+ crew and 1000 passengers who probably aren't too keen on him shooting up their ride.
yeah, it'd get killed by anything with an avg. damage over it's 20 hardness, as it's not a CR20, it's a level 20 item. It lacks to hit bonuses, Initiative, saves, skills, etc...making an equivalent argument based on its level fails at go. I mean, are people running adventures where the PCs fight a parking lot full of enercycles? Is this a Street Fighter bonus round campaign?
I'm just saying that comparing it's stats to an actual CR20 monster doesn't make a lot of sense, since they occupy two completely different roles in-game.