|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This week my thoughts on house rules, and a few of my favorites.
What house rules do you have in your games?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like that having armor pretty much indefinitely protects the players from the environment. What ever happened to man vs nature? I don't really have a house rule for this yet, I just ignore it.
Also, "If you want to upgrade an existing weapon to be more
effective, you can do so by selecting a weapon of the same
type and category with a higher item level. You then pay the
price of the new weapon, minus 10% of the price of the original
weapon."
If my players are directly upgrading an item they have of the same type but different level with their own skills, they don't need to break it down for UPBs, they subtract its base cost from the higher level item. They already have all the good pieces to it and if they wanna tote around something that is 4 levels too low until they get something better that's on them...
I do a 12 point buy for PC's but a one additional limit. At the end of creation no attribute can be 17 or higher. PC's are allowed to use the standard 10 point buy if they wish to go 17+ higher on a stat.
Are there any 17 point attribute requirement feats at less than level 5?
If not, you might as well stop them at 16.
I do a 12 point buy for PC's but a one additional limit. At the end of creation no attribute can be 17 or higher. PC's are allowed to use the standard 10 point buy if they wish to go 17+ higher on a stat.Are there any 17 point attribute requirement feats at less than level 5?
If not, you might as well stop them at 16.
I think his rule does stop them at 16, if I'm interpreting it correctly.
|
"Undead don't have Immune to Mind Affecting" has been one of my house rules for years. I basically eliminate Immune to Mind Affecting entirely. Mindless creatures are the only things which should have such a categorical immunity, and they don't need it because Mindless grants that benefit anyway.
I feel like its a lingering legacy rule from the early D&D days, where the intent was simply to keep spells like Charm Person from being brokenly effective against everything ( as opposed to just most things, ahem ).
Might extend this to constructs as well.
|
|
If you're being grappled by a non-adjacent creature (with a tentacle or somesuch), part of that creature extends into your square, and can be attacked.
Creatures grappling each other ignore (total) concealment miss chance against each other.
Pathfinder 1 had a rule that becoming grappled pulled you adjacent to the grappler. Pathfinder 2 doesn't have this rule, but says that the GM will usually allow you to attack the tentacle. Starfinder is awkwardly in between.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t track ammunition.
This isn’t as hard and fast as the above, but in general, if a character has a weapon with enough batteries/clips on hand to function in a 10 round combat and reasonable access to technology to recharge those batteries (or access to tech that can make more bullets), I’d just as soon not get bogged down in keeping track of every bullet spent. This is slippery ground though, as there are feats, items, and abilities that are built around ammunition expenditure, not to mention weapons with extremely small capacity as a trade off for power. So far I have done my best to deal with those situations as they come up, but I’m also open with my players about the rule. If it ever becomes an issue, or if we are playing an adventure where resource management is granular and important to the story, I would change the rule.
A trick I found in a Shadowrun computer game is that the game didn't track how much ammo you owned, but did track how many were remaining in your gun. So after some shots, you had to take an action to reload, but you didn't have to turn over every trashbin to look for more ammo.
An interesting gameplay effect of this was that before opening a door to a new room, I'd make sure all guns were freshly topped up. Gave a real "get ready" feel that was quite enjoyable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have forcefields active constantly and only drain charges once hit and begin regenerating the temp HP. Otherwise it never gets used in my experience.Consider this house rule officially stolen :-)
While I don't dislike this, this effectively invalidates a fair bit of usefulness of the computer interface, and consequently the new voice-command modules. At our table, the people that use force fields have went through the cost of hooking then up to one of these to free up the action cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t track ammunition.
This isn’t as hard and fast as the above, but in general, if a character has a weapon with enough batteries/clips on hand to function in a 10 round combat and reasonable access to technology to recharge those batteries (or access to tech that can make more bullets), I’d just as soon not get bogged down in keeping track of every bullet spent. This is slippery ground though, as there are feats, items, and abilities that are built around ammunition expenditure, not to mention weapons with extremely small capacity as a trade off for power. So far I have done my best to deal with those situations as they come up, but I’m also open with my players about the rule. If it ever becomes an issue, or if we are playing an adventure where resource management is granular and important to the story, I would change the rule.
A trick I found in a Shadowrun computer game is that the game didn't track how much ammo you owned, but did track how many were remaining in your gun. So after some shots, you had to take an action to reload, but you didn't have to turn over every trashbin to look for more ammo.
An interesting gameplay effect of this was that before opening a door to a new room, I'd make sure all guns were freshly topped up. Gave a real "get ready" feel that was quite enjoyable.
I'll second this. Short of special ammo types, trick the guns clip, but don't get bogged down with the ammo in your bag. Reloading is definitely a thing and depending on the build, can be the limiting factor to the power level of a given build.
|
While I don't dislike this, this effectively invalidates a fair bit of usefulness of the computer interface, and consequently the new voice-command modules. At our table, the people that use force fields have went through the cost of hooking then up to one of these to free up the action cost.
For me in the 7 AP's I have run force fields are just not used. I had one guy in Aeon Throne slot it as he had the free space and never turned it on.
So to me it is a house rule worth trying out as the idea of Force Field in a SCI FI game make sense that fact no one uses them from what I can tell, says something about how useful people find them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here are some of the house rules I have at my table:
Weapon specialization is equal to you character level for all weapons.
Grenades now benefit from weapon specialization.
Grenades prices are for a box of 6.
No experience points. Level up is done when appropriate and in character downtime. No leveling halfway through a complex or the like.
Equipment upgrades. Hand waved and abstractly played. Trade/ Sell your found loot and get the level appropriate gear you want up to WBL amount. No hobo adventurers in my game with hodgepodge scrounged gear (unless the player wants to).
Critical hits go right to wounds. Critical hits should be critical, not merely annoying.
Real critical hit effects, in conjunction with the critical hit deck.
Lose limbs, have internal bleeding, insta-death is possible. Additionally a critically wounded PC / NPC must make a fort save (DC depending on severity) or be stunned until save made (roll per round). No more have a limb blown off and acting immediately. In my experience wounded people stare in horror at their bloody stump or try stuffing the insides back in all while screaming/crying. A good example is "Saving Private Ryan" by in large the reactions of the wounded is accurate.
Critical fumbles, in conjunction with the critical fumble deck are critical. Ruined weapons, bad wounds, broken equipment, critical hits to your allies all possible. The bigger the whiff, the more dire the consequences.
NPCs in the world have appropriate backgrounds and trappings for their station in life and are not limited to leveled equipment lists. If it is appropriate for them to have an item based on background.
The authorities of a galaxy, sector, system, planet, metropolis, city, village, hamlet, colony, outpost do give a $hit about what happens in their environs and will act appropriately to defend themselves or enforce their laws. No PCs running amuck without consequences. My players know this and are perfectly fine with it. They also know, that no matter what level / how bad a$$ they are, there is always someone bigger and badder out there.
Lastly, I never let the rules get in the way of the story. I and my players are subject to countless rules and regulations in our every day lives. We game to get away from this. The story reigns supreme.
There are probably more that I use, but this is what I have for now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't dislike this, this effectively invalidates a fair bit of usefulness of the computer interface, and consequently the new voice-command modules. At our table, the people that use force fields have went through the cost of hooking then up to one of these to free up the action cost.For me in the 7 AP's I have run force fields are just not used. I had one guy in Aeon Throne slot it as he had the free space and never turned it on.
So to me it is a house rule worth trying out as the idea of Force Field in a SCI FI game make sense that fact no one uses them from what I can tell, says something about how useful people find them.
That's very fair. Again, I don't dislike the rule. I'd even be willing to run it like that myself. But I'm not currently the GM for our game lol. For 2 upgrade slots, it certainly seems fair for it to be always on, or at least turn itself on after the first hit. Which that might be how I run it, you can turn it on as a reaction. So then there's still some advantage to CIc and whatnot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's very fair. Again, I don't dislike the rule. I'd even be willing to run it like that myself. But I'm not currently the GM for our game lol. For 2 upgrade slots, it certainly seems fair for it to be always on, or at least turn itself on after the first hit. Which that might be how I run it, you can turn it on as a reaction. So then there's still some advantage to CIc and whatnot.
You just made me think of another option. Force field can just take one slot BUT operate as per the book.
Weapon specialization is equal to you character level for all weapons.
Grenades now benefit from weapon specialization.
Grenades prices are for a box of 6.
No experience points. Level up is done when appropriate and in character downtime. No leveling halfway through a complex or the like.
So after some shots, you had to take an action to reload, but you didn't have to turn over every trashbin to look for more ammo.
Hmmmmm seriously considering using these.
I thought of another one.
I allow operatives to use trick attack (getting the trick attack damage and benefits) within the range of their sniper rifle. The only skill that can be used on this type of trick attack is stealth. The operative cannot not be spotted and needs to beat the CR +20 with a stealth check then bang, we get a real damaging sniper rifle shot.
In subsequent rounds the sniper must be unspotted to continue to trick attack in this way.
Now sniping is damaging as it should be.
My players have been on the giving end of this and the receiving end.
They like it and voted to keep it in play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon specialization is equal to you character level for all weapons.
Grenades now benefit from weapon specialization.
Grenades prices are for a box of 6.
No experience points. Level up is done when appropriate and in character downtime. No leveling halfway through a complex or the like.
So after some shots, you had to take an action to reload, but you didn't have to turn over every trashbin to look for more ammo.Hmmmmm seriously considering using these.
We don't do full spec on grenades, but we bump all grenades damage by 1 per dice. It's not a huge difference.
As for pricing, as players we tend to avoid buying grenades and just using what the GM hands us, typically off corpses lol. But with the lower prices they're not quite as bad. Plus with a cluster launcher, you can reproduce some of the higher level grenades by clustering the cheaper ones.
We're definitely hesitant to give full spec to small arms too given how strong an operative can already be. And that sort of invalidates the double tap feat.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can compensate for the full weapon spec to small arms and operative weapons by adjusting the trick attack bonus damage. Its surprisingly simple. From 3rd level onwards, the trick attack bonus damage die is a d6 instead of a d8. Since the bonus damage goes up by 1 die every two levels and the difference between a d8 and d6 is 1 damage on average, this change exactly compensates for what the operative is gaining through the weapon spec change.
You can compensate for the full weapon spec to small arms and operative weapons by adjusting the trick attack bonus damage. Its surprisingly simple. From 3rd level onwards, the trick attack bonus damage die is a d6 instead of a d8. Since the bonus damage goes up by 1 die every two levels and the difference between a d8 and d6 is 1 damage on average, this change exactly compensates for what the operative is gaining through the weapon spec change.
This is a very interesting approach and I might try it out next time I'm GM! Thanks!
|
|
You can compensate for the full weapon spec to small arms and operative weapons by adjusting the trick attack bonus damage. Its surprisingly simple. From 3rd level onwards, the trick attack bonus damage die is a d6 instead of a d8. Since the bonus damage goes up by 1 die every two levels and the difference between a d8 and d6 is 1 damage on average, this change exactly compensates for what the operative is gaining through the weapon spec change.
This is definitely an interesting idea
We're definitely hesitant to give full spec to small arms too given how strong an operative can already be. And that sort of invalidates the double tap feat.
Ah that brings up another house rule.
Double tap: Small Arms Only, Within First Range Increment Only.
-2 To hit and on a successful hit roll damage twice.
All Other Double Tap Rules Apply.
This makes a double tap truly what it is.
A short range, quick double pull that when executed properly hits the target with 2 projectiles with a better overall accuracy than firing two separate shots (ie -4 for full attack).
|
|
So some more radical ideas that I've been toying with.
* Don't roll initiative every round in starship combat. Only roll initiative once and each ship takes a full turn before the next one goes. (Needs testing.) Ranges of weapons and speed of ships can probably be reduced, and you won't run off the map as much.
* Change the default skill DC scaling. Currently it's 15 + level * 1.5, which means operatives keep up fine, other classes keep up fine within the range of their specialty that they get a scaling bonus on. But for other skills and especially skill-poor classes like a soldier, after the initial class skill bonus, it's just a slow decline.
I would change it by plain dropping the scaling bonuses from the system, and changing the DC curve to something just a hair above +1/level. Classes with a traditional focus on a skill just get a free skill point in it every level, so for example mechanics get a free point in Engineering every level.
This frees up every class to choose to be good at a skill the player likes, easily. After all, mandatory classes is soooo '90s.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're definitely hesitant to give full spec to small arms too given how strong an operative can already be. And that sort of invalidates the double tap feat.Ah that brings up another house rule.
Double tap: Small Arms Only, Within First Range Increment Only.
-2 To hit and on a successful hit roll damage twice.
All Other Double Tap Rules Apply.
This makes a double tap truly what it is.
A short range, quick double pull that when executed properly hits the target with 2 projectiles with a better overall accuracy than firing two separate shots (ie -4 for full attack).
Now... Do you mean just full blown double damage, like roll weapon dice twice AND add weapon spec twice? Or is this just weapon dice twice?
I mean honestly, either way, it's a bit absurd. You're essentially getting a full attack out of a standard action. But only with a -2 penalty. That's outright better than all the other options that allow a standard action double attack, and bound better than any form of full attacking, even with the best penalty reductions.
The abstraction the system applies of a +1 to hit, since there are twice as many rounds coming at an enemy, and the bonus damage, are already considered a great feat, even required. You've essentially house ruled this feat into deadly aim on steroids, such that you basically roll at a -2 for critical damage.
All that said, if it works at your table, more power to you! But that just seems completely insane
Now... Do you mean just full blown double damage, like roll weapon dice twice AND add weapon spec twice? Or is this just weapon dice twice?I mean honestly, either way, it's a bit absurd. You're essentially getting a full attack out of a standard action. But only with a -2 penalty. That's outright better than all the other options that allow a standard action double attack, and bound better than any form of full attacking, even with the best penalty reductions.
The abstraction the system applies of a +1 to hit, since there are twice as many rounds coming at an enemy, and the bonus damage, are already considered a great feat, even required. You've essentially house ruled this feat into deadly aim on steroids, such that you basically roll at a -2 for critical damage.
All that said, if it works at your table, more power to you! But that just seems completely insane
Sorry I was not clear HK double tap = (damage dice rolled twice) + weapon specialization.
It is not as overpowered as you think.
There are plenty of draw backs to it. It has to be used within a first range increment. With small arms that is usually 30 to 60 feet, which means the PCs classes in my groups that have taken it (2 envoys and 2 mystics) are dangerously close to being engaged in melee.
You have to burn a feat for it.
In the 5 groups I am running, no soldier, technomancer or operative has taken it as it is not all that beneficial to them as they have something better they can use (ie operative trick attack or technomancer spells).
Also in my game if the PCs can do it so can the bad guys. So it is balanced.
Sorry I was not clear HK double tap = (damage dice rolled twice) + weapon specialization.It is not as overpowered as you think.
There are plenty of draw backs to it. It has to be used within a first range increment. With small arms that is usually 30 to 60 feet, which means the PCs classes in my groups that have taken it (2 envoys and 2 mystics) are dangerously close to being engaged in melee.
You have to burn a feat for it.
In the 5 groups I am running, no soldier, technomancer or operative has taken it as it is not all that beneficial to them as they have something better they can use (ie operative trick attack or technomancer spells).
Also in my game if the PCs can do it so can the bad guys. So it is balanced.
Ahh I see. It still seems a bit strong compared to deadly aim, but I can see how the rules regarding range and small arms limit it somewhat.
And it certainly won't see play by most of the longarm+ classes. But it certainly can free up feats from the small arm classes that normally take longarm+ from feats.
Two I am considering for my players.
Due to the crap sell price of stuff and the expense of Grenades.
First, they can optain a basic weapon or armour x levels below them. Currently I would say 3 levels. (Did it because I thought since we have a base of operations, it makes sense they would have some spare stuff from past loot/gear.)
Second, (in the consideration stage.) they can grab some cheap consumables at level -4 or more. Once per player. Basically player A could go for some grenades and they can get maybe a d4. Player B, being the meat shield might want some simple healing Serums and recieve a D4.
Regards to the Ammo, I don't charge for refills (Since technically given a couple days our Mechanic can charge all the batteries for free.) and since my players looted a good number of Batteries early on, they have a few spare hanging around.
One house rule I actively use, due to us using Roll20 and a small bit of Laziness on my part. Backpacks don't add to your Strength score for encumbrance, rather then just straight to encumbrance value. Since its just a +1 or +2, basically Ammo and Rations, I didn't see it as a problem.
Sorry I was not clear HK double tap = (damage dice rolled twice) + weapon specialization.It is not as overpowered as you think.
There are plenty of draw backs to it. It has to be used within a first range increment. With small arms that is usually 30 to 60 feet, which means the PCs classes in my groups that have taken it (2 envoys and 2 mystics) are dangerously close to being engaged in melee.
You have to burn a feat for it.
In the 5 groups I am running, no soldier, technomancer or operative has taken it as it is not all that beneficial to them as they have something better they can use (ie operative trick attack or technomancer spells).
Also in my game if the PCs can do it so can the bad guys. So it is balanced.
Ahh I see. It still seems a bit strong compared to deadly aim, but I can see how the rules regarding range and small arms limit it somewhat.
And it certainly won't see play by most of the longarm+ classes. But it certainly can free up feats from the small arm classes that normally take longarm+ from feats.
This actually was scrapped in the last couple of weeks as the -2 to hit was too big a negative for the 3/4 BAB characters that had it.
So since weapon specialization at my table gives full level bonus no matter what the weapon, HK double tap now looks like this:
+1 to hit with damage bonus of level x1.5 (rounded down). Uses 2 ammunition.
So a 10th level character would get 1dx +15 damage with their small arms instead of 1dx +10.
Not game breaking by any stretch.
Really strongly considering implementing a universal weapon specialization house rule, so people don't have to jump through the Proficiency -> Versatile Specialization hoops.
Should I go for it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you mean:
as a universal rule for all characters of level 3 or higher, then yes, I'd say you should go for it.
I'm currently working on testing a house rule that makes specialization not a class feature, just something you automatically get (at all levels) in all weapons you're proficient in. NPCs already get bonus damage that way, so its just a slight power increase for PCs at levels 1 and 2. I've also implemented the "All weapons get full level as specialization, Operatives have reduced trick attack damage" as I mentioned in my earlier post above. I think the change reduces jumping through needless hoops and generally makes things simpler for players to track.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you mean:
as a universal rule for all characters of level 3 or higher, then yes, I'd say you should go for it.
I'm currently working on testing a house rule that makes specialization not a class feature, just something you automatically get (at all levels) in all weapons you're proficient in. NPCs already get bonus damage that way, so its just a slight power increase for PCs at levels 1 and 2. I've also implemented the "All weapons get full level as specialization, Operatives have reduced trick attack damage" as I mentioned in my earlier post above. I think the change reduces jumping through needless hoops and generally makes things simpler for players to track.
I'm considering the same - it also reduces the feel-bad just a little bit of getting 1-damage hits at level 1.
We haven't actually played it in game yet, was a down time discussion, spending cash.
Grenades are for a 'slot' on your gear belt. During mission, each grenade you buy can be used once but when you get back to base/ship you can replenish your grenade 'slot' ready for next mission.
Found grenades on bad guys are still one use.
Our Soldier player seems to like the idea and straight up bought a pair of summon grenades, generating little spider bots (Summon monster level 2)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can use tumble as part of move your speed.
We have... oh so many. I've actually been compiling a google doc on the homebrew that we have. One that comes to mind immediately that I think the group will appreciate is that we use PF 1e rules for calculating both CMB and CMD, and halved the bonuses from the relevant feats. Now those feats are now longer essential to be able to pull off a maneuver, but the bonus is still very nice if you make extensive use of them.
|
I always try to keep the number of houserules as low as possible. In my current campaign we have three:
1. Operative's Edge only counts for two skills of the players choice
2. All level scaling skill boni (e.g. operatices edge or Bypass) scale the same way (based on Operative's Edge scaling)
3. You can perform "Treat Deadly Wound" once after each combat (as long as the char got HP damage during this fight)
|
|
We currently not run into any space combat, but I think I will change some things there.
1. No strict crew role hierachy anymore. Anyone can act when (s)he wants. (but only once per turn of course)
2. Initiative is rolled once and stays for the combat.
3. Initiative order will be normal (highest act first)
4. Damage will be applied directly, not at the end of the turn.
5. There will be a special action which cost the action of all crew members which, if successfull, forces a new initiative roll from all ships (with a bonus for the crew who initiated the maneuver)
We currently not run into any space combat, but I think I will change some things there.
1. No strict crew role hierachy anymore. Anyone can act when (s)he wants. (but only once per turn of course)
2. Initiative is rolled once and stays for the combat.
3. Initiative order will be normal (highest act first)
4. Damage will be applied directly, not at the end of the turn.
5. There will be a special action which cost the action of all crew members which, if successfull, forces a new initiative roll from all ships (with a bonus for the crew who initiated the maneuver)
1. While some roles this makes sense for (the captain can shout orders or encouragement from anywhere on board, for instance), others it does not. You really expect that someone could just flash from the pilot's seat to engineering? A house rule to jump between the bridge crew roles to jump back and forth would not be entirely unreasonable, but other stations would be.
2. You entirely invalidate several other rules by doing so, and take away the feel of a dog fight.3. No. Just no. Same as 2, and since starship combat is frequently the PC's ship vs. one enemy ship, you would either give them the upper or lower hand for the entire fight. Further, order of movement is supposed to represent control of the fight as much as anything else, so whoever moves last can best adapt to what other ships have done.
4. Since a starship combat round is more abstracted than standard combat, having all damage resolved at the end is also to simulate the time that ordnance is in flight. Attacks that happen in the Helm phase IAW their rules should be the only ones resolved out of turn. Also see point 2.
5. Unnecessary if you actually follow the written rules. See points 2 and 3.
|
|
1. With "role hierachy" I mean the order of the crew actions (Engineering > Helm > Gunnery). So the players are free when in their ships turn they take their actions. Maybe I wasn't clear here.
2 - 5 - These are connected:
I see your point with the "reactionary tactical movement" and from a wargame design POV you are right.
My problem with these points is that they disconnect the Starship combat from the normal combat. It almost feels like you are playing a different (war)game while doing starship fights. And this is something which I don't like as it feels artifical.
So my approach is to try to bring it closer to SF normal tactical rules.
The biggest point here is the reversed initiative order.
This initiative system make sense if you do the "damage last" system and it's used in several wargames (e.g. Battle-Tech).
But if you choose is to highest first and damage will be applied directly, you are much closer to the normal SF tactical combat with out sacrificing any tactical depth (we use this system in normal combat and you have tactical depth there).
I also want to stay away from the "role initiative evey turn" simply because in my experience the players pilot almost always wins the role.
So initiative is roled once, but there is a special action/maneuver which allows a pilot to get the upper hand and force a reroll. Of course this have some "cost" to it (not sure here if it should be "all action" or a Resolve Point).
I understand that you don't like this, but I tried to explain why I think these changes could improve the starship combat system (which is the worst part of SF in my opinion) and make it more fluent and understandable for players.
1. With "role hierachy" I mean the order of the crew actions (Engineering > Helm > Gunnery). So the players are free when in their ships turn they take their actions. Maybe I wasn't clear here.
2 - 5 - These are connected:
I see your point with the "reactionary tactical movement" and from a wargame design POV you are right.
My problem with these points is that they disconnect the Starship combat from the normal combat. It almost feels like you are playing a different (war)game while doing starship fights. And this is something which I don't like as it feels artifical.
So my approach is to try to bring it closer to SF normal tactical rules.The biggest point here is the reversed initiative order.
This initiative system make sense if you do the "damage last" system and it's used in several wargames (e.g. Battle-Tech).But if you choose is to highest first and damage will be applied directly, you are much closer to the normal SF tactical combat with out sacrificing any tactical depth (we use this system in normal combat and you have tactical depth there).
I also want to stay away from the "role initiative evey turn" simply because in my experience the players pilot almost always wins the role.
So initiative is roled once, but there is a special action/maneuver which allows a pilot to get the upper hand and force a reroll. Of course this have some "cost" to it (not sure here if it should be "all action" or a Resolve Point).I understand that you don't like this, but I tried to explain why I think these changes could improve the starship combat system (which is the worst part of SF in my opinion) and make it more fluent and understandable for players.
I would like to point out also that you have said that you have yet to use the starship combat rules. I am pretty certain that if you were to actually use the rules as written, you will find many of your concerns are not significant, and I always support trying rules as written BEFORE making adjustments, so you have a better feel what might need adjustment, and by how much.
On the particular note for rolling initiative, I should like to point out that the vagaries of the d20 mean that it is far from certain that the PCs pilot will always win the roll. Also, in every published adventure I've ever seen, the piloting modifier for enemy ships is set to be a reasonable challenge for the PCs, so I have no idea how you expect the PCs to always win, unless you are taking something out of context, or adjusting the stats.
|
|
I already run multiple starship combats (I run two homebrew campaigns and the AotS AP) and even if I added things like "terrain" (asteroids, nebulas) or multiple "goon-ships" to the combat, the combats were mostly boring and confusing for my players.
That's the reason I'm thinking about these changes.
The Starfinder RAW version of the spell doesn't make much sense in a high tech environment, IMHO. The only real changes made from the past are to allow targeting of a vehicle. Please note that vehicle sizes (and generally item sizes) are one functionally the same as a creature size one step from what it is listed as, so a Medium vehicle is about the size of a Large creature, thus a subcompact/sports car. Also note that the spell originally envisioned a party traveling on foot, yet in spite of the fact that most modern vehicles can go quite a bit faster than 200 MPH, the speed enabled by the spell is the same. So, here's my proposed homebrew changes;
Shadow Walk
Classes Mystic 6, Technomancer 6, Witchwarper 6
School illusion (shadow)
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range touch
Targets up to one Medium creature/level or one medium vehicle/4 levels
Duration 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)
Description
To use shadow walk, you must be in an area of dim light. You and any creature or vehicle you touch are then transported along a coiling path of shadowstuff to the edge of the Material Plane where it borders the Plane of Shadow. The effect is largely illusory, but the path is quasi-real.
All targets affected must be in direct contact with one another. A Large target counts as two Medium targets, a Huge target counts as four Medium targets, and so forth. Creatures you transport this way can opt to follow you, wander off through the plane, or stumble back into the Material Plane (50% chance for either of the latter results if the creatures are lost or abandoned by you). If vehicles are the method of travel, only vehicles may be affected, and anyone that leaves the vehicle they are in are immediately disconnected from the group. Creatures unwilling to accompany you into the Plane of Shadow can attempt a Will saving throw to negate the effect.
In the region of shadow, you move at a rate 40 times faster than that you would normally be capable of achieving. Because of the blurring of reality between the Plane of Shadow and the Material Plane, you can’t make out details of the terrain or areas you pass over during transit nor can you predict perfectly where your travel will end. It’s impossible to judge distances accurately, making the spell virtually useless for scouting or spying. Furthermore, when the spell effect ends, you are shunted 1d10 × 100 feet in a random horizontal direction from your desired endpoint if you are traveling on foot, or 2d20 × 100 feet if using a vehicle. If this would place you within a solid object, you (and any creatures with you) are shunted to the nearest empty space available, but the strain of this activity renders each creature fatigued (no saving throw).
Shadow walk can also be used to travel to other planes that border on the Plane of Shadow (except for the Drift), but this usage requires you to travel across the Plane of Shadow to arrive at a border with another plane of reality, which takes 1d4 hours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New race concept; Veskarium scientists attempt a hybridization and uplift of Stridermanders with Skittermanders. Their goal was to get beings with the predatory nature of the Stridermander, but possessing sapience, and, hopefully, the helpful nature of Skittermanders would result in loyal, cheerful assassins. Of course, things don’t go as planned…
The first generation of Stepmanders almost got the project canceled. While nearly half of the test subjects were close to the expected parameters, being sharp and focused, bearing a natural predator's mien, but still remarkably comfortable forming friendships and close bonds, the remaining half were all over the manic spectrum, from violent, to frequent fits of catatonia. The of the manic group, the largest set behaved almost exactly like a typical Skittermander, to include a preference for bipedal locomotion. The project was mostly saved by the first field tests performed by the subjects, for the innate abilities of this race meant that they were superlative stalkers, and under the watchful eye of a trainer/handler, even the 'Scattermanders' helpful tendencies kept them on task. Some tweaks were made, and the project moved forward, improving its 'success rate' by significant amounts each subsequent batch. Soon enough, the eldest formed mated pairs, and things looked as if the Veskarium was going to have a considerable pool of deadly agents and commandos.
However, one of the 'Scattermanders' of the first generation became remarkably broody after first losing her mate on a mission, and then seeing her 'parents' severely reprimanded for attempting to improve the lot of the Stepmanders, including granting them the same rights as other Veskarium citizens. After pondering for an extended period, she decided that the people they should truly be helping was themsleves. The Stepmander community quickly agreed, 'abducted' the scientists and trainers that were their family, hijacked some ships, and left.
A few small packets decided to go see what they could see across the galaxy, but the largest contingent headed for the Pact Worlds, where they obtained sanctuary and aid by 10% of their number serving in the Stewards, where they have already distinguished themselves.
+2 Dex, 6 HP. A player may choose to take +2 to one additional ability of their choice, however, if this is done, the DM gets to adjust one ability by -2 after all party members have chosen their class.
Medium Humanoids with the Stepmander subtype.
Pace 40 (15)
Half-hands. One of the most curious results of the hybridization that, while unexpected, turned out to be as good as any of the intended traits. Stepmanders are capable of using their third set of limbs as either arms and hands, or legs and feet. Given their overall frame, they are most comfortable using quadrupedal locomotion, can manage bipedal travel if needed, and the extra pair of hands this grants frequently makes this a practical choice. If moving on 4 limbs, they have a pace of 40, and 4 arms/hands. If moving on just their true-legs, they have a pace of 15, can't run, and have the use of 6 arms and hands. Augmentations that require all (appendages) only function if the half-hand limbs have the augmentation installed, and they are being used as the requisite set of limbs.
Adaptive Fur. While the amygdala of Stridermanders manages the coloration of their fur, the uplift process shifted the areas of the brain that controlled that function. With Stepmanders, a deliberate effort of will is necessary to change the color of their fur. If a Stepmander is making no effort of will to control their coloration, their fur shifts to show their emotional and energy state. This manifests automatically if they are under an emotion inducing mind-affecting effect, and as a -2 penalty to social based skills (though the GM may apply this as bonus if they feel it would be more appropriate, such as a furious Stepmander making an Intimidate check. With a successful Bluff check, a Stepmander can display the colors for a different attitude than they actually feel, negating this penalty. Further, with training, a Stepmander can use this ability for camouflage. For succeeding at a DC 17 Disguise check, they get a +1 bonus to Stealth checks, with an additional +1 for every 2 points this DC is beaten. This bonus, and the bonus for being invisible, can't exceed +10.
Grasping hands. If their hands are free, or if they are only using weapons with the Grappling property, Stepmanders get a +2 to Grapple checks.
They also gain a +1 to climb checks for each true-hand that is free for that purpose. Their half-hands must always be devoted to climbing.
Low Light Vision. (How stridermanders don't have darkvision is beyond me.)
New Feats:
Bipedal Ambulator. When you are walking on 2 legs, your base land speed is 30, and running is now allowed.
Deft Climber. When all your hands are devoted to climbing, you gain a climb speed of 20, and have a racial +8 climb modifier.