Fascinating discussion... and a huge headache. It doesn't seem that there's much disagreement at this point on what RAW actually IS. Just grumping about what it should be.
I'm just gonna houserule that full attacks don't burn your swift and sidestep the whole mess.
...not really. As far as I can tell, PCs don't ever get perfect maneuverability in the first place, only the hover drone.
Otherwise force soles mk II and haste make the discussion mostly irrelevant when the PCs get convenient access to those.
It's not a hover drone it's a hopping drone?
|
Imagine a situation where you wanted to send a hover drone through a narrow vent. It's not super-cramped - it's small enough that a small creature would have to squeeze and a medium creature probably just wouldn't fit, but it's not so small that the hover drone would really be restricted in its movement.
It's also not a very long vent (say 10 feet, so a squeezing small creature would plausibly pass through in a single round), but it has two 90 degree turns in it. How long does it take for the hover drone to actually make that trip? The answer is a minimum of three rounds, because it would have to enter the vent, get to the 90 degree turn, stop, wait a round, on the next round travel to the next 90 degree turn, stop, wait a round, and then finally it could leave. If you haven't been playing drone movement like that, then you are on my side, because you recognize that the rules as written simply don't work and don't make sense.
Pathfinder had the rule about 90° turns. In Starfinder, it's in increments of 45°.
So for a 10 ft vent with two 90° turns, it takes 30 ft of movement to travass (a single move action for Scout).
|
|
I should also mention that people often didn't read the Fly rules in Pathfinder, either. That didn't stop me as a GM from asking the 10 Dex Paladin in Full Plate to make checks after drinking their potion of CL 5 Fly.
I received the same range of looks at every table that included either 1) yep, those are the rules, 2) oh, I didn't know about that, or 3) are you out of your freaking mind?
Which category would you have fallen in then, and which category do you fall under now?
I should also mention that people often didn't read the Fly rules in Pathfinder, either. That didn't stop me as a GM from asking the 10 Dex Paladin in Full Plate to make checks after drinking their potion of CL 5 Fly.
I received the same range of looks at every table that included either 1) yep, those are the rules, 2) oh, I didn't know about that, or 3) are you out of your freaking mind?
Which category would you have fallen in then, and which category do you fall under now?
Really didn't help that the rules contradicted the heck out of each other. Requires as much concentration as walking, but if you stop concentrating you drop like a rock.
And I thought my dex was bad...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was curious to see how true the claim is that flying doesn't offer such a big advantage in Starfinder as it does in Pathfinder. First I went through Alien Archive just counting monsters that have a ranged attack or flight capability, vs. the ones that can't hurt you if you're flying and they're stuck on the ground. Overwhelmingly, monsters have options against airborne opponents.
But then the question is: are these plausible ranged options? So I went counting whether (A) the monster's strongest attack is ranged or it can fly, or (B) it either can't attack airborne opponents, or its attack against them is notably worse than in ground melee.
Just going up through the monsters A-I, the balance is that against 14 out of 34 monsters, flying gives you a benefit. So while flight doesn't win fights against most monsters, it does give a benefit in about 40% of the fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we glossed past that stuff because we had Pathfinder experience and didn't catch the difference there.That was my groups problem.
We got so used to PF rules from years of playing, that taking a swift action to hover didn't raise any alarms in our heads. So you can't swift action while flying, most of the classes don't have swift action abilities. Doesn't come up too much, just watch for certain other abilities.
Until you learn that full actions require the use of your swift.
That was really the big change that we needed to learn and pay attention to.
This is an exact example of what I'm talking about - the reason your group didn't catch on probably had a lot more to do with the fact that it just didn't feel "wrong" or "overpowered" or "unreasonable" to play it the way you were playing. Because (and this is really really important for everyone to understand) we generally will go from our real life experiences to what we imagine in the game world, and then expect the rules to support that. Where we will stop and really examine the rules is when the game rules seem to spit out an unreasonable outcome, or when they fail to conform to our expectations of what should reasonably be possible.
In other words, when you incorrectly let any flying player make a 90 degree turn in one single round, or let the mechanic's repair-bot flavored hover drone actually do an engineering check while hovering, or when you didn't require the Barathu envoy to stop floating so it could concentrate on talking (IE use Get 'em and Demoralize actions in the same round, or something), you weren't playing WRONG, because those are all entirely reasonable things to do. It makes no sense that a Barathu should be unable to literally float and talk.
Here's a simple test of this hypothesis about how people would form expectations about the game world. Take any number of random people. Show them a picture of the Iconic hover drone. Then just ask "Would this be...
Excuse me, sir, this is a rules forum drive thru.
Yeah, the rules are that you can't perform full actions while flying until you have haste or force soles mk II.
Whether that's a good rule or not would be general discussion.
Fascinating discussion... and a huge headache. It doesn't seem that there's much disagreement at this point on what RAW actually IS. Just grumping about what it should be.
I'm just gonna houserule that full attacks don't burn your swift and sidestep the whole mess.
I think it would be wiser to rule that with a successful fly check you can hover as a free action.
This has less broad affects on the game, and fixes the part that you have trouble with.
It's probably less wise to remove swift actions use from full attacks, as that will more broadly impact the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is an exact example of what I'm talking about - the reason your group didn't catch on probably had a lot more to do with the fact that it just didn't feel "wrong" or "overpowered" or "unreasonable" to play it the way you were playing. Because (and this is really really important for everyone to understand) we generally will go from our real life experiences to what we imagine in the game world, and then expect the rules to support that. Where we will stop and really examine the rules is when the game rules seem to spit out an unreasonable outcome, or when they fail to conform to our expectations of what should reasonably be possible.
Maybe we glossed past that stuff because we had Pathfinder experience and didn't catch the difference there.That was my groups problem.
We got so used to PF rules from years of playing, that taking a swift action to hover didn't raise any alarms in our heads. So you can't swift action while flying, most of the classes don't have swift action abilities. Doesn't come up too much, just watch for certain other abilities.
Until you learn that full actions require the use of your swift.
That was really the big change that we needed to learn and pay attention to.
I strongly disagree. The problem was on as a players porting over assumptions from two completely different set of game mechanics because they we're developed by the same company. We didn't do our due diligence.
Is it a serious problem to let people essentially hover for free? Probably not.
It is a serious problem to not let people full attack easily while flying? No, it's definitely not. It just requires different strategies.
Honestly, my solution to the problems exposed in this thread would be:
1) Barathu get a special racial ability to hover as a free action, possibly with a penalty. Maybe off-tagret.
2) Anything with perfect maneuverability can hover as a free action.
2a) If you implement 2 and change the Barathu's maneuverability to perfect it fixes problem 1.
Fascinating discussion... and a huge headache. It doesn't seem that there's much disagreement at this point on what RAW actually IS. Just grumping about what it should be.
I'm just gonna houserule that full attacks don't burn your swift and sidestep the whole mess.
I think it would be wiser to rule that with a successful fly check you can hover as a free action.
This has less broad affects on the game, and fixes the part that you have trouble with.
It's probably less wise to remove swift actions use from full attacks, as they will more broadly impact the game.
If we're going to step away from rules and into house-rules, this is a good idea.
There are a lot of non-flying cases where swift actions conflict with full attacks or other full round actions, and broadly removing this conflict may have unintended consequences.
Claxon's suggestion keeps the fix limited to just fixing the flying/full action problem without all those other consequences.
I also think a big problem here is that people have some major misconceptions about how flight and flying works in the real world. For example, it's not "harder" in a mental sense to fly than it is to walk. Indeed, it's actually quite the opposite - it's much trickier to balance while walking on two legs than it is to stabilize as a flier.
How easy is it to hover in place while throwing as many punches as possible at someone. I value your personal experience on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could you please cite the rule you're referring to that would indicate that you can't make more than one 45 degree turn? I do not see any such rule in the Acrobatics skill, or the Flying rules on page 259.
I only see the following, which does not indicate any limit on number of turns, only a movement cost:
"If you want to change direction while flying, it costs you an additional 5 feet of movement to turn 45 degrees. If you want to ascend, it costs you an additional 5 feet of movement for each square that you move upward. For example, suppose you have a fly speed of 60 feet. As a single move action, you can fly forward 20 feet, turn 45 degrees to the left, and fly one square diagonally (all of which costs 30 feet of your movement). You can then ascend 15 feet, which costs another 30 feet of movement. At this point, you have used your full 60 feet of flying movement, so your move action is over. "
Regarding PCs having access to perfect maneuverability flight, please note that Polymorph 6 can grant it.
I also think a big problem here is that people have some major misconceptions about how flight and flying works in the real world. For example, it's not "harder" in a mental sense to fly than it is to walk. Indeed, it's actually quite the opposite - it's much trickier to balance while walking on two legs than it is to stabilize as a flier.How easy is it to hover in place while throwing as many punches as possible at someone. I value your personal experience on this.Depends - for a human, with human physiology and evolved for walking? Pretty hard, which is why Force Soles should basically not work at all, let alone not let you easily full attack from the air. For something that is designed/evolved for flight, pretty easy, especially if they are something like an auto-stabilizing quad rotor system, or are neutrally buoyant.
Again, if FEELS like walking is easy to most of us because we are used to it. Ask someone who builds bipedal robots how easy it actually is to make a robot that can walk down the stairs, though. Then ask someone who builds quad drones how easy it is to make a drone that can quickly right itself automatically, and can slide sideways without changing facing, etc.
Thanks, this was sufficiently clueless and ignorant of the relevant issues to tell me what I need to know. I appreciate it.
Xeno, not that I don't disagree with his line of reasoning, but you probably ought to dial back the grrr a bit.
An airplane cannot pivot in one space while flying (maybe planes can while taking off or landing but not while flying at speed). Doing so would probably rip them apart (depending on their speed).
For an airplane to turn, or a bird, some forward progress is required while it turns. A rule like only turning 45 degrees for every X squares forward would be sensible. The faster it goes, the larger X is.
Helicopters can rotate much more easily but again, that's only really possible while hovering, not while moving forward at speed. Same rule, 45 degrees for every X squares.
Really, anything with on set of wings (fixed, flapping, rotating) must not be able to turn in place unless it's also capable of hovering. So, perhaps, allowing greater rotation when successfully hovering would be sensible.
Drones with multiple sets of tiltable wings (rotors) have much greater maneuverability and no longer depend on "front" or "forward" while moving at speed. For drones, X could be so small that it's possibly 0.
None of which is in the rules.
But if I had to resolve ambiguity of a rule, I would try to make that rule conform to common sense or real physics. The 45 degree rule doesn't permit nor restrict making multiple turns in a single square. But both common sense and physics tell me what I need to know: only if hovering, not if moving forward.
Applying that to Starfinder, which has rules for hovering, which themselves also connect to rules for flight maneuverability, I can extrapolate some possible common-sense rules to cover this.
Unfortunately, those are all house-rules because Starfinder rules don't do an adequate job of covering all this. Given how many pages this game and all other RPGs devote to moving and positioning and terrain and obstacles and what can and cannot be done during such moves, this seems to be a fairly important topic - not one to be "Oh, well, they covered some of it and each GM should decide on how to play it."
It would be nice if we got better rules for flying. Rules simulate sensible physics for turning and hovering. Rules that allow creatures and machines with innate flying ability to actually fight and use skills sensibly.
For now, we have what's there.
Could you please cite the rule you're referring to that would indicate that you can't make more than one 45 degree turn? I do not see any such rule in the Acrobatics skill, or the Flying rules on page 259.
I only see the following, which does not indicate any limit on number of turns, only a movement cost:
"If you want to change direction while flying, it costs you an additional 5 feet of movement to turn 45 degrees. If you want to ascend, it costs you an additional 5 feet of movement for each square that you move upward. For example, suppose you have a fly speed of 60 feet. As a single move action, you can fly forward 20 feet, turn 45 degrees to the left, and fly one square diagonally (all of which costs 30 feet of your movement). You can then ascend 15 feet, which costs another 30 feet of movement. At this point, you have used your full 60 feet of flying movement, so your move action is over. "
I see no reason why you couldn't change direction multiple times a flight move. There is no language stating you are limited to one turn a move action, nor any about 45 degrees per 5' of movement. I'm not even sure that rules block prevents you from pulling a 180. It would cost 20' of movement to flip over backwards and go back the way you came. Something to keep in mind when employing spring attack and shot on the run during flight.
If you want to change direction while flying, it costs you an
additional 5 feet of movement to turn 45 degrees.
Is the rule for turning while flying. As I read that, you can pivot in place, you don't need to move 5' per 45 turn or any additional rules.
Though, the listed example does appear to be wrong. They wouldn't be able to fly straight up because they would have to spend 10' of movement to turn 90 degrees up. They could move 5' up at an angle of 45 degrees, in the diagonal direction they were already going.
|
|
Incorrect, and exactly makes my point about how the rules are unworkable. The rules say you have to choose a primary direction for the round, and you can at most turn 45 degrees between squares. Unfortunately, this means that you would have to make that 45 degree (IE diagonal move) around a hard corner, which you cannot do. Thus, you have to go to the end of the first straight stretch, and you are stuck there. You can't even use a second move to change direction, because again, the limitation is a primary direction for the entire round. There is absolutely no way you can get through the vent in less than three turns.Imagine a situation where you wanted to send a hover drone through a narrow vent. It's not super-cramped - it's small enough that a small creature would have to squeeze and a medium creature probably just wouldn't fit, but it's not so small that the hover drone would really be restricted in its movement.
It's also not a very long vent (say 10 feet, so a squeezing small creature would plausibly pass through in a single round), but it has two 90 degree turns in it. How long does it take for the hover drone to actually make that trip? The answer is a minimum of three rounds, because it would have to enter the vent, get to the 90 degree turn, stop, wait a round, on the next round travel to the next 90 degree turn, stop, wait a round, and then finally it could leave. If you haven't been playing drone movement like that, then you are on my side, because you recognize that the rules as written simply don't work and don't make sense.Pathfinder had the rule about 90° turns. In Starfinder, it's in increments of 45°.
So for a 10 ft vent with two 90° turns, it takes 30 ft of movement to travass (a single move action for Scout).
Reading is an interpretive activity.
While we can certainly read the same text and come to two entirely different conclusions, which one sounds more reasonable to you?
I'm glad you asked! The interpretation that sounds reasonable to me is the one that follows the logic of the real world as well as the internal logic of the fictional setting as well - IE the one in which things that are observably true in the real world (IE it's not actually that hard to fly, certainly not compared to something as difficult to do as walking) and we can see in the intent of the game world (IE that Barathu aren't completely unable to make engineering checks or computer checks while in their native environment, since they would just fall through the atmosphere and die).
I have no idea whatsoever how you think it's easier to fly than walk in the real world.
About the only real world creature that manages to fly and do just about anything else, is the hummingbird. Insects land to collect pollen, eat, bite or sting. Birds other than the hummingbird do basically nothing mid air. When they do something mid-air, like mating, they do so while falling.
Besides when a barathu makes a computers or engineering check on their homeworld, they most likely don't do so floating by themselves. They probably land on a larger combined barathu and either plug in, or access the biotech from there.
But see, I've been told repeatedly that that is unreasonable - that's not how we do things, right? We should expect players to abandon those expectations and instead DO WHAT THE RULES SAY - Indeed, it seems to be the express stance by many that the concern that there is a massive disconnect between what someone who only knows the real world and/or the art/fiction of the game might reasonably expect and what the rules actually enforce is completely nonsense, as is the concern that said disconnect might cause a bad play experience.
At SFS tables I do expect players to follow the rules even when they're a bit silly. This rule is not a bit silly, it's just simple simulated tactical movement applied to flight speeds. It's not an accurate representation of how flight works in the same way land speeds, 5' squares, and spacing are not an accurate way that movement on the ground works in the real world, or how turn taking in combat is not how real life fights work. It's sort of close, but simplified for ease of play.
The 'disconnect' between art and the game table experience seems to come from bad assumptions. We see characters casting in mid air - this works just fine as long as it isn't a full action spell. We see characters shooting in mid air - this works too, as long as it's not a full attack.
Art also shows a barathu of some sort 'landed' on a trailing tentacle. The assumption that barathu can't land also appears to be a bad one.
True, though flying a drone is still much harder than walking is for a human. Possibly still true in the far future with constructs than can near perfectly imitate the movement of organic creatures (androids, SROs).
I even see the argument for allowing hover for perfect maneuverability creatures (drones) as a free action. I think it makes them a slightly too attractive option at lower levels, but I don't think it will break the game wide open.
I don't see the argument for allowing free, easy, no consequences movement for creatures with only average maneuverability (contemplatives, early stage barathu, jet pack/forcepack/flight spell using creatures).
I also don't understand the argument that the movement and turning rules are too complicated to work at a table.
And the drone can hover without human intervention in starfinder.
Flying vs. melee combatants and forcing them to use their weaker attack can be between +2 - +4 AC. Partial cover up to cover. Gaining cover and the equivalent of a few points of DR sounds pretty good to me. Especially as a spellcaster or an envoy or an operative who doesn't need a full action (trick attack includes movement, so operatives are safe).
Issues with some creatures that can fly effortlessly plummeting to the ground if they try to remote-hack a system? maybe.
Fundamental design problems? That's a step too far. The system allows you to fly from point A to point B and perform some simple actions along the way. It works just fine. Maybe taking full actions in the air isn't unbalanced, but it doesn't have fundamental problems in the way it works at the table.
|
|
I actually agree with you - the fly rules, asthey are writtenI express to interpret them, are dumb, and unreasonable.
Fixed that for you.
I disagree that they are "dumb and unreasonable" because I don't read them the same way you do.
So I ask, again, which of our two interpretations is more reasonable? Yours, where hover drones don't function, or mine, where they do?
If you're interested in playing Starfinder, you might want to take a look at your own method of reading and analyzing written text.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players (who have no TTRPG experience) expecting to be able to fly and make attacks will find Starfinder suitable. They can do that exactly.
Players (who might be influence by Pathfinder) might expect to be able to fly and full attack....and they will be sorely disappointed in Starfinder.
I think the second expectation isn't necessarily reasonable. It's based on experience with other RPGS and doesn't need to be true in Starfinder (IMO) for suitable science fantasy to be achieved.
Players (who have no TTRPG experience) expecting to be able to fly and make attacks will find Starfinder suitable. They can do that exactly.Players expecting to fly and attack as normal will not, however.
When dealing with player-centered elements of the design, you 100% do not get to decide how those elements are defined - you're gonna have to pay attention. Aggressively applying definitions to match what you already think/want is one of the fastest ways to land on horrible designs.
But also, you don't get to design a game and simply assume players haven't played other games - much less your games. If their knowledge of those games creates a problem, it is absolutely a problem designers need to deal with.
What do you mean, as normal?
Normal for what?
You mean normal like flying is as easy as walking (or standing) so you can just do a standing fly maneuver and do all the same things you could otherwise do while standing?
Nah. I don't agree. A player should ask, what kind of actions does it take for me to fly, and who does that impact what I can do.
You can fly (move action) and make an attack standard action without a problem. You just can't make multiple attacks.
Personally I think your idea of "normal" is "I came from Pathfinder and I expect flying to work exactly the same and be super awesome like it always was".
And yes, the onus is the players. Just because it's made by the same developer doesn't mean you should assume things are the same. I did previously, because it's human nature, but there's not much a company can do about that unless they want to make a guide book that says "Hey pay attention veterans of our other game where we purposefully made this different".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And they should not expect to do anything they want midair because they could in pathfinder with a free action fly check.
Flying takes effort in starfinder. Players should understand that as soon as they read the acrobatics skill entry.
Expecting to do full actions without effort midair in starfinder is like expecting to craft golems in 5e. It's not how the system works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game design would be so much easier if these things could just be about what players should expect.
Players should expect to read the rules and understand them, and if something isn't clear to ask their GM who is the ultimate arbiter of the rules (for their game).
If you read the relevant rules section their is nothing ambiguous or difficult to understand about flying denying full attacks.
[Full attacks are full actions which require standard, move, and swift actions. Flying requires you to move or hover (to stay aloft) which requires the expenditure of a move action or a swift action. There is currently no ability to hover as a free action.]
Your argument (from my perspective) basically amounts to "the players want to be able to do this thing" and the rules pretty clearly say no. And you don't care for that.
A full attack is something you probably want to prevent but should a barathu really not be able to tighten a bolt without falling?
A full attack is something you probably want to prevent but should a barathu really not be able to tighten a bolt without falling?
if there is a handhold I don't think there's a problem. If there isn't it should be reasonable to spend multiple turns tightening a bolt slowly.
Besides, early stage barathu fly on organic
gas bladder jet packs, they don't just float about without effort like their larger cousins.