I'm GMing for a group who previously has played Pathfinder 1 and 2. I introduced them to both games and they love them.
We started playing Starfinder and even if they miss things like the three action economy of 2E, so far they like the game.
Then... we started doing ship combat. We're playing the Dead Suns campaign and for the first encounter I just told them about the ship roles and heavily roleplayed that encounter.
I used the second encounter (when you get the sunrise maiden) for the tutorial time, and we did the actual ship combat. I sent them a ship cheat sheet so all the math was automatically handled and they could check the available actions easily.
It was a disaster.
I was kind of expecting that, because they're not very experienced in tactical games and even after playing pathfinder for some time they still struggle during fights. I just play the enemies a bit more dumb/easy so they can still win and they have great fun.
But during this combat I felt like everyone was angry. The guy who likes tactical games was angry of the "poor" decisions of the other party members, the guy who doesn't really like scifi but is ok as long as it reminds him of Fantasy Action was bored of rolling dice turn after turn, unable to imagine anything, and the lack of real team work or cooperation that can be usually avoided in the standard combat was hitting real hard in ship combat. Having long rants and discussions about what to do, only to fail in the gunner phase.
I feel like the ship combat can really work if people really, really, really love scifi movies/shows and can imagine the clasic Star Trek combat in their heads while rolling dice, and if the party is really good at teamwork/coop.
So right now I'm unsure about what to do, I'm probably going to run one or two more combats, and see that once they learn the system and can play faster, it alleviates enough the current issues.
But I feel like that what they really want is for each one of them to have an independent ship that they can control, just like their characters during a standard fight.
I was wondering if others have been in a similar situation and I'm open to any ideas or suggestions to make the ship combat more fun for this group.
Thanks!
Either A) skip ship combat entirely. B) Rework ship combat encounters so they all need to be doing something and hope it's engaging, or C) rebuild all encounters so each PC can be in their own ship/or two to a ship.
Honestly, with how your group sounds like it's doing, I'd recommend A).
About half my group didn't care for starship fights and I tended to fast track them by book four, enemies making mistakes, not regenerating their shields, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also hidden option D) replace the starship combat minigame.
The starship combat is definitely one of the weak points of the game. Fortunately the rules for starship combat don't overlap very much with the D&D derived rules of player building/combat/role-playing.
There are other spaceship combat games available that could be dropped in in its place. You could probably even craft up a Fate derivative that would do the job.
You're not alone.
The pilot is really the only one doing anything interesting.
The gunners are the only ones having any effect.
This goes double for starship combat. After level 6 it gets slightly better because you have options to spend resolve points on, but before that there is one clear thing you should be doing and the other options just don't work.
I've seen some scenarios/encounters break starship combat down in a bunch of skill checks that effect how well the next fight goes, ie, you try to dart in and blow up the enemy tower. If you don't, you fight twice as many bad guys as you would if you'd blown them up while they were sleeping.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so I decided to simplify, merge, and change things to adapt the combat to our needs and tastes.
The biggest changes are:
-Theater of the mind for pilots. Each pilot rolls for their action, then the slower one decides how to position using another ship/object as reference, then the next one, etc.
Example:
Enemy ship rolls 17
Party ship rolls 20
"The enemy ship moves behind you, using an attacking maneuver!"
"I execute an evasive action and get in their port side, facing them forward"
DONE, no more counting tiles in the grid, doing math with turns, discussing for hours, etc...
-Now every role has something cool to do, a free action plus their normal action (so they can do multiple things if they want, to prevent being bored of only rolling a once per turn).
-Instead of having gunners, now ships have a tactical officer (Think Worf). The tactical officer have a more ample range of options for shooting, plus readying weapons (more things to do and not just roll once).
-Science officer is now Sensor Operations (Science officer + Comms).
-Engineer: shield regeneration requires more work now, so ships can't just regenerate shields all day.
-Captain: The new actions require teamwork and roleplaying. So the captain will feel more like an actual captain.
If someone wants to take a look I've put all the changes into a google sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZTaAp_UfgsAsga5aY1aQ44fdJcD_vhSQn4m 8YydMv1U/edit#gid=1952816740
The original author of the sheet I used is here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starfinder_rpg/comments/dy64on/starship_combat_cal culatorcheat_sheet/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Option E: wait for the starship book to come out in july and hope for alternative rules for combat, or just better actions for all roles.
Sorry!
the correct link to my custom starship combat system
The idea with pilots is that the one that wins (gets bigger pilot roll) can select which side points to the target, and at what distance.
It's theater of mind instead of grid/wargame, so it works a lot better and faster for my party, and in general in this current situation (online playing only).
There are some fundamental problems with Starship Combat that I don't think any supplemental book can address unless it provides an entirely new ruleset. As BNW points out, some roles just aren't doing anything interesting. Beyond that, the combats are almost impossible to balance, with low level ships being almost invulnerable to each other in some situations, and high level ships ranging from speed bumps to OHKO-machines depending on how well they're built.
There are some fundamental problems with Starship Combat that I don't think any supplemental book can address unless it provides an entirely new ruleset. As BNW points out, some roles just aren't doing anything interesting. Beyond that, the combats are almost impossible to balance, with low level ships being almost invulnerable to each other in some situations, and high level ships ranging from speed bumps to OHKO-machines depending on how well they're built.
...There sort of is, but it doesn't match the rest of the system.
The absolute most fun starship combats I've ever run have been in one-shots with pre-built ship vs. pre-built ship.
Which still doesn't work with a leveling system, but there might be something to it. Unlocking new actions when you level instead of the math changing? A series of starship feats that you get in addition to regular feats? Being able to select from several pre-built ships when you go into dock like how I understand SFS works?
My group handles Starfinder combat as either RP intermixed with some skill challenges, or just flat skips them.
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I like starship combat. I've played it in person with my game store group and online PBP with total strangers and the thing that I've found makes the most difference in whether or not the encounter will be fun is simply; does everyone know the rules and can they work together as a team.
Most people just try to learn starship combat by playing it. Which is fine, you get better and better at it the more you play. However, if you actually take the time to prepare for it by reading the rulebook that makes a huge difference in the enjoyability of it.
When you actually know what it possible to do every turn in all the different roles. It becomes much more exciting. The rules are dense, which makes it hard at first, but once you get your head wrapped around them the fun begins.
You also have to have a group of people that can work as a team because everyone has a role during each turn and they all have to fill their role so that you can maximize your actions. There can be only one pilot at a time, but I can't tell you how many times I've seen the difference between success and failure be something as simple as the captain encouraging a gunner so that his shot hits instead of misses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I like starship combat. I've played it in person with my game store group and online PBP with total strangers and the thing that I've found makes the most difference in whether or not the encounter will be fun is simply; does everyone know the rules and can they work together as a team.
I don't think that really helps much. It might be a requirement but I don't think its sufficient.
No one but the pilot is doing anything particularly tactical or interesting. There are ostensibly a lot of things you can do for any role, but only 1 or maybe 2 of them wind up being worth anything. For example the engineer can divert power to shields or divert power to weapons, but diverting power to weapons is so mathematically insignificant it leaves you with one option. The captain is an aid another for the gunners. Gunner have a lot of impact, but all they do is shoot.
I am with Scottybotti here. My group loves starship combat. I find the combats relatively easy to run and relatively easy to balance.
The easiest way to balance encounters is to somewhat ignore the tier of the opposing ship and look at the values of the crew of that ship and how much damage it can put out compared to the PCs ship.
If your PCs have an average computers, engineering, piloting, diplomacy and gunnery of +15 then you need to make sure the enemy values are similar. Same with offensive out put. They need to be somewhat similar.
There are a lot of items you can put on a ship that will not increase its combat effectiveness. I do have a number of 3rd party supplements that have additional ship components that I use.
You can easily build a tier 10 ship that has little combat punch or build one is has a ton of combat punch. Same tier but uneven fight.
As for the combat themselves. I tweaked the action phases.
The first phase is the orders phase. This is when the captain issues orders and decides who is going to help or hinder. The captain is allowed to issue orders to any & all crewman in any & all phases until that crewman has taken their turn.
The second phase is the engineering phase. No change there.
The third phase is the helm phase. No change there.
The forth phase is the science / communications phase (this is were the captain can taunt the opposing ship)
The fifth phase is the gunnery phase. One of the things that I have added is additional effects when the ship takes a critical hit. They range from a fire breaking out in a section of the ship, to gravity orienteering to one are of the ship, to the helm not responding to etc...
So even if you have nothing to do you certainly will if your ship takes a one of these effects. While the engineer and science officer are desperately trying to regenerate and balance shields, someone better be putting out that fire in the PCU room!
Anyways starship combat works for us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the combat themselves. I tweaked the action phases.
This is like saying you love chicken but then only eat turkey.
But even matched enemy ships do tend to make combat a bit more tense, though mechanically almost nothing changes. Everybody is still recuperating shields or buffing the gunner(s).
Isn't that like saying you made a soldier and your regular combats are just making your full attack then leaving to watch TV?
Not quite, in tactical combat the enemy might move around and you have to adapt.
While in Starship combat, if the gunner is controlling turret guns and there are no obstacles in the map, he might as well roll 10-20 gunnery rolls and go make a sandwich.
---
In the starship book I'm hopping we'll see roles combining efforts to damage/nerf the enemy ship, like the engineer + science officer hacking the shields, scrambling tracking weapons so they have a lower speed or even turning them against the sender, controlling tiny drone ships (instead of the wannabe drone missiles we have now); an arcane/magical core that juices up magic officers to throw ship sized magical effects in combat, while burning up through their spell slots like there's no tomorrow, and such - more options to use against other ships instead of just buffing your own.
Right now, starship combat is too locked into the star trek/star wars model, they really need to open up.
Still, its better than the guy doing the shields. I did that the game before. Boring and tedious.
One of my mischief of ysoki makes the roll on a 1 and the other can take 10, So "You have shield regen, I'm getting coffee...."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like not everyone is taking advantage of things like the chief mates actions or minor crew actions. Which is what I mean by not everyone knowing what is possible with all the different actions.
I've played so many starship combats, but just in the last one I played I learned at level 8 everyone gets a free resolve point that they can use during the combat. Also, that if you don't have a science officer take an action during the round anyone can use a minor crew action to rescan the enemy ship if it had been scanned by the science officer at least once in a previous round.
The maintenance panel access action is quite a useful one and I've seen the magic officer action precognition make the difference between winning and losing initiative. Which is extremely important.
I'd like to turn the discussion in another direction. If you are not enjoying starship combat is it because you find it too easy or too difficult? How many of you feel tactically that you go into every space combat with an idea of how you are going to attack the enemy starship and what your reaction will be in response to things like losing the initiative?
@BigNorseWolf - The engineer can boost power to the engines which is very useful. As for the captain his demand and encourage bonuses can benefit the pilot also which can be very important. He can also taunt the enemy ship which can make a big difference also. Gunners only shoot, but it is how they shoot that makes a difference. Are they using a broadside, fire at will, or are your using more than one gunner.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like not everyone is taking advantage of things like the chief mates actions or minor crew actions. Which is what I mean by not everyone knowing what is possible with all the different actions.
It is really. really. Annoying and dismissive when peoples concerns are reduced to the people that disagree with me don't know anything.
Also, that if you don't have a science officer take an action during the round anyone can use a minor crew action to rescan the enemy ship if it had been scanned by the science officer at least once in a previous round.
This is only really useful if the DM wasn't letting you see the enemy shields after a scan anyway.
The maintenance panel access action is quite a useful one
At lower levels it lets you have engines and shields. At higher levels it lets you overpower everything... but diverting power to the weapons is mechanically useless.
I'd like to turn the discussion in another direction. If you are not enjoying starship combat is it because you find it too easy or too difficult?
Too boring. Despite allegedly having a myriad of choices the functional options come down to being just one thing round after round after round.
A skill check is just a flat d20 roll. You don't have any class abilities or build that contribute to the fight at all. Unless you're the pilot there's no tactical positioning and risk/reward to getting in close like there is with melee.
I don't think it helped getting started that the rules are scattered all over the place unnecessarily, and the errata'd dcs are in one place and the un errata'd ones are listed somewhere else. You (for no reason) have to figure out 5% of your PCU, and the pilot actions and pilot stunts are in different places.
As for the captain his demand and encourage bonuses can benefit the pilot also which can be very important.
It's not that the bonus isn't important.
Its that providing a bonus for someone else to do round after round isn't particularly interesting.
(and pilot initiative isn't technically a crew action, so I dont think the captain can help with it. The only thing the pilot might need help with is a flyby)
He can also taunt the enemy ship which can make a big difference also.
The opposing captain automakes his aid another even with a -2
The opposing crew fixes shields automatically even with a -2gunners -2 helps
Pilot -2 helps if they're doing a flyby.
Gunners only shoot, but it is how they shoot that makes a difference. Are they using a broadside, fire at will, or are your using more than one gunner.
But they shoot the same way every round. One way to shoot is mechanically the best for them.
And all of this is assuming an SFS ship with the guns pointing all over the place. If the players design a ship? Forget about it. Its a death sphere with a turret and even the pilots positioning doesn't matter at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with BNW for the most part, but I'd like to add:
Seems like not everyone is taking advantage of things like the chief mates actions or minor crew actions. Which is what I mean by not everyone knowing what is possible with all the different actions.
These actions are options, but they're almost always worse than either putting another person on a gun (especially pre-6th-level). Chief mate and minor crew actions have a very minor influence over a combat, on par with using harrying fire in conventional combat. Not useless, but low impact and unexciting.
If you are not enjoying starship combat is it because you find it too easy or too difficult?
I'm agreed with BNW. Its typically boring before being easy or hard. Round-to-round there is little to adapt to or change. Its the equivalent of a ground combat where both sides are ranged Soldiers and there's no cover to take. You can move, but positioning is rarely relevant due to the ubiquity of turret-focused ships. There's never any reason not to make the maximum number of the highest quality attacks you're entitled to.
This becomes far less of a problem when the goal of starship combat is to do something other than destroy enemy ships. But combats like those haven't come up often in prewritten scenarios.
How many of you feel tactically that you go into every space combat with an idea of how you are going to attack the enemy starship and what your reaction will be in response to things like losing the initiative?
I've played a gunner before many times. I go into every combat knowing exactly what my character is going to do mechanically. When the gunnery phase is up, I will fire the gun pointed at the enemy. Or if I'm 6th level or higher, I will broadside the enemy every round.
At least in ground combat, a ranged combatant has to think about their own cover, threatened areas and whether opponents will close the distance with them, enemy cover, who a priority target is in a group of foes, where they need to position to avoid enemy AoEs, etc. All these considerations are gone in the typical Starship Combat that shows up in APs.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the Starship combat system (enough that I wrote an article about getting more out of it for Wayfinder 19) and I think that three things help in whether a group dislikes it or whether they have a good time:
1: Do they get to flex in and out of different roles so they are doing different things throughout the combat? With COM, you can float between a number of roles, opening up different options for what you want to do during a combat.
Normally, I have Charli be a gunner, but with three ACE PILOTS in my last Starfinder Special, I did other things. I flexed between Captain and First Mate and found that I could influence the battle in different ways -- sometimes taunting the enemy, sometimes ripping out a maintenance panel to override safeties and make things easier for our engineer / science officer. If others wind up flexing through different roles, it becomes a more fluid and interesting set up!
2: Does everyone know what they are doing, and have access to good Starship cheat sheets and such? Having the fight flow quickly, so that no one has time to get bored or disengage is essential.
3: Are you having fun as a GM? Is everyone RPing what they are doing, and bringing narrative and sarcastic commentary from the enemy over the comm units?
I think all three of these make a huge difference to how Starship combat flows.
@BigNorseWolf - I stand by my statement that not knowing all the possible actions that are available really hampers your enjoyment of it. In my experience players that got frustrated playing starship combat got that way because they felt they could only do the same thing over and over based on not knowing what other options they have available and misunderstanding of the rules.
Rescan has been helpful in games I've played in because the GM did not give us round by round updates on the enemies shield levels after the initial scan. Which is the way it's supposed to be done if you are going by rules as written.
I think a lot of players don't take advantage of switching between different roles during the combat and realizing there can be more than one person in certain roles also. The captain isn't locked in to being the captain.
Rules in different places does make it more difficult.
Captain's taunt can make a big difference; I think you explained that in your response. In the games I've played the Captain was able to use his actions to boost the pilot's initiative roll.
Yes, the gunners shoot every turn and decide how they want to shoot. I personally don't have any issue with that.
The disadvantage of a death sphere is that all turret weapons take critical damage when a weapon critical hit is rolled no matter the quadrant. To me that is the trade off.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The disadvantage of a death sphere is that all turret weapons take critical damage when a weapon critical hit is rolled no matter the quadrant. To me that is the trade off.
As a balancing factor this has a near zero impact.
@Cellion - I agree that before 6th level having several gunners is optimal, but after 6th level having one gunner who broadsides and everyone else filling other roles is better. The chief mate and minor crew actions are very useful when the situation calls for them. Sometimes the situation doesn't call for them, but in that last game I played a quick rescan was a difference maker.
I think you have to adapt and change ever round during starship combat. If you are going to maximize your actions everyone has to be on the same page on what you are doing. You are right you want to fire as many weapons as possible and maximize your chances of them hitting. How you get to that point changes every round though.
When you say turret focused ships do you mean every weapon on the ship is in the turret?
To me tactics are not just what you individually are going to do, but how the team is going to work together to execute your strategy for flying the ship. Yes, the best strategy to follow for the gunner is to fire as many weapons as possible at the enemy ship every round, but how you can maximize your chances of hitting with them is fun.
Say you lose the initiative. I like to go for a flyby. In my last game I performed a flyby and then put my ship on the enemies tail. He then proceeded to perform a back off stunt and then ended up on my tail! It felt like we were in a cinematic dogfight at that point and I wished I had been paying better attention the last time I watched Top Gun.
@BigNorseWolf - I stand by my statement that not knowing all the possible actions that are available really hampers your enjoyment of it. In my experience players that got frustrated playing starship combat got that way because they felt they could only do the same thing over and over based on not knowing what other options they have available and misunderstanding of the rules.
Which is to say you're accusing the people in this thread of not knowing all of the available actions. Something you have NO cause to claim.
It's not that people aren't aware that there's a huge honking list of actions. It's that so many of those actions just don't help you much. It seems like half the options for starship combat are to have you doing a lot without accomplishing anything.
Overpowering the weapons is a prime example of that. It sounds good but the actual effect is "push button to cross the sidewalk". you're hitting a button that doesn't do anything.
the first mate actions DCs are.. really really high and have a cost for failure. (My maxed strength operative couldn't take 10 to make the good chief mate actions even with a maxed strength and effectively skill focus in athletics)
If the goal for 2e was more depth on less complexity, starship combat seems to be more complexity for less depth.
Rescan has been helpful in games I've played in because the GM did not give us round by round updates on the enemies shield levels after the initial scan. Which is the way it's supposed to be done if you are going by rules as written.
RAW is incredibly unclear about that. That raw answer lead to a lot of silliness (including you can't ever find out the ships shield total again, ever...)
Rescan is also a minor action, and i don't think you can reasonably miss the roll.
edit: ouch, that stops you from locking on... yeah, find out where the shields are by blowing a hole in them.
I think a lot of players don't take advantage of switching between different roles during the combat and realizing there can be more than one person in certain roles also. The captain isn't locked in to being the captain.
While it makes sense to switch a lot with some characters/groups, it can interrupt the flow of combat a bit for the players.
The disadvantage of a death sphere is that all turret weapons take critical damage when a weapon critical hit is rolled no matter the quadrant. To me that is the trade off.
you won't be taking critical damage in a death sphere because you can turn the damaged shields away from the other ship without any problem. Its like a champions system "weakness" that isn't one...you only suffer when your hammer is damaged but you have another power that keeps your hammer safe.
@BigNorseWolf - I think some actions are more useful than others, but there are some that aren't often used that are very useful situationally.
Don't agree on chief mate actions. Maintenance panel access is 10+1-1/2 times your ships tier. Just played a starship combat with a tier 10 starship. My level 9 operative has a +21 bonus to acrobatics. Targeting aid is not easy, but it is high risk and high reward.
The existence of the quick rescan action speaks to the intention of the rules for scanning being that you have to scan successfully again to get an update on what the other ship's status is.
Not sure what you are saying regarding locking on versus quick rescan. We had hit the enemy ship on 3 different shield quadrants and in the intervening rounds they had possibly used the science officer and engineering actions to build them back up. We hadn't taken a science officer action that round and since we had just successfully done a flyby we wanted to know which quadrant to pick that was the most vulnerable.
I haven't experienced a disruption in the flow of combat among players when roles are switched.
If you lose initiative you can't always hide your damaged shields effectively. If you win initiative I'm going to go for a flyby on you if I'm in range. I also interpret the rules as saying that any time a weapon system takes a critical hit it applies to the weapons in the turret no matter what arc they are firing in.
Don't agree on chief mate actions. Maintenance panel access is 10+1-1/2 times your ships tier. Just played a starship combat with a tier 10 starship. My level 9 operative has a +21 bonus to acrobatics. Targeting aid is not easy, but it is high risk and high reward.
This assumes your engineer isn't going to spend the resolve point to divert power to three systems (engines science and shields) . Otherwise you've just diverted power to the weapons which is pretty much irrelevant
If you succeed, you are an aid another on someone elses attempt to aid another.
I really don't feel useful when I have less effect on the situation than the targeting computer. I'm aiding another the targeting computer. (If your computers guy is any good, you'd be better off prioritizing the system to give the gunner +1 to hit when he's using a computer)
For that matter,
Why not put your operative in the gunners chair and prevent the need to broadside? With that dex you're probably a better gunner than your gunner. Or at least not 2 points behind him.
The existence of the quick rescan action speaks to the intention of the rules for scanning being that you have to scan successfully again to get an update on what the other ship's status is.
It does. But the more you use the option to rebalance the shields and hide them, the more you negate the pilots relevancy and start playing deathsphere.
Not sure what you are saying regarding locking on versus quick rescan.
Quick Rescan is a minor crew action. Good news! Its a free action. bad news...
You can take a minor crew action regardless of your current role, but only if no other action was performed this round for the role associated with that minor crew action
Which means that quick rescan, as a science officer action, can't be done in a round when you do another science officer action (like lock on)
If you lose initiative you can't always hide your damaged shields effectively.
With a death sphere you just move away from the guy to come after you they'll need to go through you.
If you win initiative I'm going to go for a flyby on you if I'm in range.
I do like that that ends starship combat quicker...
I also interpret the rules as saying that any time a weapon system takes a critical hit it applies to the weapons in the turret no matter what arc they are firing in.
The turret is always a legitimate target in any arc , but (if i'm reading you right) there's no rule that the turret is always the weapon taking a critical. But again, thats if you get a crit, and you get weapons. Against a PC built deathsphere.. nothing lives that long.
Yes, an engineer might not want to use a resolve point to do that since he may only want to divert to the engines and shields and the maintenance panel action can allow him to do that. That exact scenario happened in the last starship combat I played.
I used the example of my operative to show that the chief mate actions are not that hard to execute. My PC's has been on crews where there are several good pilots and gunners so the chief mate's role could be filled
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the targeting computer.
Firing a broadside every round is the best thing you can do to shoot down the enemy starship.
Can you explain what you mean by this:
"It does. But the more you use the option to rebalance the shields and hide them, the more you negate the pilots relevancy and start playing deathsphere."
I don't see what that has to do with the quick rescan action.
Quick Rescan is a minor crew action. Good news! Its a free action. bad news...
You can take a minor crew action regardless of your current role, but only if no other action was performed this round for the role associated with that minor crew action
Which means that quick rescan, as a science officer action, can't be done in a round when you do another science officer action (like lock on
Like I said before I used quick rescan because we didn't take a science officer action that round. The point is quick rescan is useful when the situation calls for it. In this instance it was what we needed more than any science officer action.
"Not sure what you are saying regarding locking on versus quick rescan. We had hit the enemy ship on 3 different shield quadrants and in the intervening rounds they had possibly used the science officer and engineering actions to build them back up. We hadn't taken a science officer action that round and since we had just successfully done a flyby we wanted to know which quadrant to pick that was the most vulnerable."
If there is anything that would need to be looked at to balance out starship combat it would be putting all your weapons in the turret. Other than that potential exploit I find starship combat enjoyable.
I used the example of my operative to show that the chief mate actions are not that hard to execute.
I said the GOOD chief mate actions are hard to execute.
I do not consider aiding another to someone elses aid another to be a good action, or participating in combat, or fun.
And thats what you're doing. You're adding 2 to the science offers attempt to add 2 to the gunner.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the targeting computer.
What does the computer do? Adds to the gunners hit (i mean, technically it could be anyone, but why add to the roll to maybe add to the roll to aid the gunner when you can definitely aid the gunner?) What do you do when you're the captain or science officer? Aid the gunner (possibly not as much as the computer is)
Firing a broadside every round is the best thing you can do to shoot down the enemy starship.
No, its not. Having X number of gunners firing with no penalty is the best thing you can do to shoot down the enemy starship. If you have an operative sitting there he should have the same or higher gunnery as your gunner, both of you firing can fire without the -2 or resolve point cost of a broadside. Or fire one of the weapons without a -2 penalty (which should mathematically work out to be better than the increase you get from aiding another on aid another)
I don't see what that has to do with the quick rescan action.
You only need to quick rescan if your opponents are using rebalance.
Using rebalance vastly decreases the pilots effect on combat by making hitting the same shield again less relevant.
Like I said before I used quick rescan because we didn't take a science officer action that round..
That you used that thing that one time it was the best move according to you does not mean that the thing is a good idea...
And this is a lot of the problem with what you're saying. That you saw a weird situation where you thought it was the best move doesn't mean that it was the best move or that people don't know how to play for thinking the same boring thing is the best move.
Or even more subjectively that those situations come up often enough in the dull tedium of restore shields Demand the gunner target the powercore/ target for +2 to the gunners/ Broadside or clowncar the gunner chairs to really be fun.
I said the GOOD chief mate actions are hard to execute.
I think the maintenance panel action is a good action. I also said:
Targeting aid is not easy, but it is high risk and high reward.
This is an example of a chief mate's action that is a hard check, but is high reward.
Still not sure what you mean by the targeting computer. Are you referring to the bonuses the ship's computer can give to any skill check made by the crew which you can decide to use every round? Those are best used to boost the pilot's and gunner's checks.
Firing a broadside every round is the best thing you can do to shoot down the enemy starship.
No, its not. Having X number of gunners firing with no penalty is the best thing you can do to shoot down the enemy starship. If you have an operative sitting there he should have the same or higher gunnery as your gunner, both of you firing can fire without the -2 or resolve point cost of a broadside. Or fire one of the weapons without a -2 penalty (which should mathematically work out to be better than the increase you get from aiding another on aid another)
Completely disagree with you on this one. Your turret weapons are included in your broadside so you can fire 4 or 5 or more weapons in one attack. For example, all your front arc weapons and all your turret weapons. The broadside penalty is only -2 compared to a -4 for a fire at will action if you want to use two gunners to fire four weapons. The broadside penalty is also much easier to negate when you take a computer bonus plus bonuses from other crew members filling other roles and your best gunner is taking the shots. It's also a better option than having 4 or 5 crew members all firing one weapon each.
That you used that thing that one time it was the best move according to you does not mean that the thing is a good idea...
And this is a lot of the problem with what you're saying. That you saw a weird situation where you thought it was the best move doesn't mean that it was the best move or that people don't know how to play for thinking the same boring thing is the best move.
I never said that. I said this:
@BigNorseWolf - I think some actions are more useful than others, but there are some that aren't often used that are very useful situationally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still not sure what you mean by the targeting computer. Are you referring to the bonuses the ship's computer can give to any skill check made by the crew which you can decide to use every round? Those are best used to boost the pilot's and gunner's checks.
Yes.
Is it really that much to ask that as a player, I have more effect on the combat than the ships computer? Because from what you're describing.. you don't.
Completely disagree with you on this one.
You're arguing with math at this point. Attacks without a -2 are better than attacks with a -2.
Your turret weapons are included in your broadside so you can fire 4 or 5 or more weapons in one attack.
I don't think 5 weapons is particularly likely. If you're building something weird, I'm not surprised you get odd results.
Is it really that much to ask that as a player, I have more effect on the combat than the ships computer? Because from what you're describing.. you don't.
Personally that doesn't bother me because the bonuses stack. Take the ship's computer bonus and add on your own to increase the chances of success.
You're arguing with math at this point. Attacks without a -2 are better than attacks with a -2.
If you have four weapons in your front arc and turret and your best gunner broadsides you can easily fire more or the same amount of weapons with a higher bonus or lesser penalty to hit than two gunners.
I don't think 5 weapons is particularly likely. If you're building something weird, I'm not surprised you get odd results.
Five weapons can be done. Four weapons is really easy to do that's why I like to pick the Drake when I'm playing Starfinder Society. It has four in its front arc and turret starting at tier 8. Shot down the dragon in To Conquer the Dragon and took out a jinsul destroyer in Fate of the Scoured God with the Drake and it was its ability to broadside with four weapons that had the biggest impact on the dogfight. Played the Dead Suns adventure path and shot down everything we ran into because we built up our ship to have a huge broadside capability.
Personally that doesn't bother me because the bonuses stack. Take the ship's computer bonus and add on your own to increase the chances of success.
If my entire contribution to the fight is a small, flat, mechanically static bonus that could have been given by a slightly better computer then I am going to have a problem with it.
Role playing games are all about choices. How does my character react to this situation. What combination of abilities did I pick to come together for my attack routine? Do I want to risk an AOO running around this guy for a flank or just gank him from here?
There are incomparable options that make the game interesting, but they are largely absent from starship combat. No one but the pilot is making any interesting choices.
If you have four weapons in your front arc and turret and your best gunner broadsides you can easily fire more or the same amount of weapons with a higher bonus or lesser penalty to hit than two gunners.
Would you please stop responding as if I don't know how starship combat works? Cherrypicking example that.. don't even make your point then don't help you either.
If your gunner is only 1 or 0 points ahead of your other gunner option (Like an operative should be) then you fire the biggest gun without the -2 broadside penalty, and they fire all the other guns with the -2. That would help you more than a +2 to a +2.
If you only have two weapons in an arc (yes, including turrets), you are better off with 2 gunners than almost anything else.
At lower levels you can be within 3 points of the other gunner and 2 gunners is still your best option.
Why does this matter for this conversation?
Because it sets a bottom basement of "you must be this useful to be relevant". Too many of the starship options fall below it, so don't get used.
Its not that people don't know these options exist, its that people know how bad they are.
Five weapons can be done.
I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it wasn't likely, IE, its a poor datapoint to compare how much bang for your buck you get moving a second gunner pr third gunner into the gunners chair to avoid the -2 penalty on some of your shots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was looking at replacing or mashing up the starship combat rules with the x-wing miniatures rules.
Has anyone already done this or something similar with a different system?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it wasn't likely, IE, its a poor datapoint to compare how much bang for your buck you get moving a second gunner pr third gunner into the gunners chair to avoid the -2 penalty on some of your shots.Five weapons can be done.
Not to mention that twin linking weapons is a very optimal choice once you put more than one gun in an arc, which makes two gunners even more attractive than broadsides.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I've been testing my modifications to the system and so far it's been great!
My players love it, and now I'm happy with the combat.
Basically what I tried was:
·Keep changes at minimum, so we can still use the ship building rules, and adapt any new rules or changes.
·Move from the grid to theater of the mind. It was slowing down the combat, my party wasn't good at movements, and being online right now didn't help either.
·Added something to do for all roles, so even if the failed a roll they will still feel useful in each round.
You can check the new system in this cheat sheet: https://tinyurl.com/yb6wwsyz
Ship Combat Roles:
·Captain.
·Engineer.
·Tactical Officer (aka Gunner).
·Sensor Operator (aka Science Officer, I added things from Comms).
Everyone has now a FREE action that can be used as long as the ship's system related to them is not damaged (e.g. ship core, weapons, etc). That way everyone can always try a roll, and even if they fail they can still do something to feel like they're contributing in that round.
Instead of using grid, each pilot roll their dice, then the winner can decide the position and the distance related to other object (usually the other ship). If there's more than two ships, then you go in turns from the highest score to the last one.
Example: the party decides to do an attack maneuver, the enemy tries a defensive one. Party gets a 21 and the enemy gets 19. So the party ship decides: they position it with their forward targeting the enemy's aft at medium distance. Boom, movement done in 10 seconds!
Now the shields have 3 stages to try to repair them, so you can risk a higher DC and try give it everything she's got or be conservative and get lower shield repairs with an easier DC.
This also makes the shields to go out faster, which is the other issue we had (taking forever to do actual damage and finishing a combat).
Sensor officer now has Damage Report as free action, which fixes the eternal RAW discussion about if after scanning the enemy ship it makes sense to know their current damage, leading to players to make their own estimates... now the ship (GM) does it for them. And it means the player will always have something important to do at that post.
Tactical can Ready Weapon (load weapon) so she can create tactics like shooting with a weapon while readying another for the next round, and getting a bonus this way.
All the new actions, bonus and such are just derivatives from the rules that were already in the system, that way I could be sure I won't be breaking the game balance.
Bear in mind that I tailored this system for my group of players. I'm sharing it just in case it can help others that are in a similar position and want to get some ideas, or just try this system.
BTW, I haven't touched the two extra roles, since we're playing core for now (they're new players). But I made the modifications thinking into being still possible to use any extra rules or ship roles, so if you want to use them with this system, they should work just fine.
GURPS Spaceships has extremely abstract rules for space combat that could probably be adapted pretty easily. Essentially the main thing that matters is facing, relative speed/velocity, and how quickly ships come in and out of range bands for weapons. Spaceships assumes ships have three sections (fore, center and aft) and facing and mount type determines which kind of weapons can be brought to bare against a given adversary. Combat maneuvers center on changing relative facing and closing rates.
This should be in homebrew at this point...