Predictability of Starfinder Combat

[Cellion]

Recently I've been playing approximately equal amounts of Pathfinder 1E, Pathfinder 2E and Starfinder. That means I've had ample opportunity to compare the three systems in how they function and feel to play. My experience has been through playing APs and Society in all three systems. And what has stood out to me is how startlingly "predictable" the Starfinder combats were.

If I had to characterize the feel of the three systems, it'd be:

Pathfinder 1E Swingy and dramatic, but weighted heavily in favor of the PCs (spell effects regularly have a chance of outright removing characters from combat, damage is so high that fights are over quickly, crits often result in outright dead characters. Combat math favors the PCs overwhelmingly, meaning that dramatic swings rarely happen in the foes' favor)

Pathfinder 2E Swingy and dramatic, but very forgiving (spell effects occasionally have a chance of outright removing characters from combat, damage is high and crits are frequent but combats are somewhat slower than PF1, characters often KO'd but rarely die due to forgiving mechanics once on the ground. Combat math favors the PCs much less, but death+dying rules favor them massively)

Starfinder Steady and consistent, weighted somewhat in PC favor, very forgiving (spell effects that can remove characters from combat are rare, damage is low in comparison to HP pools and crits are rare, characters are rarely KO'd and rarely die due to forgiving mechanics once on the ground. Combat math favors the PCs less than 1E, but more than 2E. Death and Dying rules favor the PCs massively.)

Basically, Starfinder is the least spicy of the three systems.

In my experience, combat rarely surprises you or introduces complications that require you to change your tactics or run triage. In boss encounters, knowledge that your RP will save you if you get KO'd causes PCs to stay and attack even when their HP is going down faster than the foe's. In other encounters, PCs typically plant their feet and engage in their preferred combat tactic at range, or maximize full attacks in melee, confident that they can take hits while dishing out damage faster than foes can. There's very little reaction or response to what the foes are doing.

My thought process in bringing this up is threefold:

Do you see this in your own games?
Does this have an effect on your enjoyment of APs or SFS?
If you're a GM that has noticed this, how have you been spicing up your encounters?

[BigNorseWolf]

Usually when folks hit hit points they start to pull back if that's at all fiesible (ie, they're not the only melee in the group)

I've had someone that was apparently unaware that you could die from enough HP damage get ganked by a non crit near max damage hit from a boss. Running around with 5 HP next to a heavy hitter is a bad idea.

I think there's a big difference between 4 and 6 player groups. Four player groups can have someone drop. 6 player groups tend to have too much damage and meat shielding. A larger group is more efficient: you don't double up on the skill guy the face and the healer. You do double up on the beatsticks.

[Garretmander]

I noticed this when I ran dead suns. Running AtAT and SoS, I've kept my PCs one level lower than recommended. Which means high CR encounters become quite dangerous and swing, not necessarily in the PCs favor.

Even then, because of stamina, they tend to power through fight after fight. Now, we use the houserule that you die at negative CON, so I will say if they're into hit points I see my players pulling back and trying alternate tactics rather than planting their feet.

[Metaphysician]

I generally don't consider "the players are certain they will win" to necessarily be a bad thing, but that's because I lean to having the challenges be about "Do the PCs survive" but rather "Do the PCs achieve their goal". Consider doing some encounters or adventures with an objective and an implicit or explicit clock: a rescue, a hostage situation, a snatch and grab, a mystic ritual or mad science experiment. Just make sure its clear that there is a clock so the players don't get caught by surprise. Perhaps do a relatively low stakes "timed encounter" first, where failure is only a minor setback ( the evil lieutenant you want to interrogate escapes, so you have to track him down again, say ).

Other thing that comes to mind: if the players are basically picking their spots and setting up for optimized play, without any variation, that suggests either the enemies or the battlefield are too static. Change that up. Have them face opponents with good tactical sense and some extra maneuverability and options, who will respond to the PCs holding strong positions by changing the game: repositioning for cover, a fighting retreat, a charge to force the PC squishies into melee, smoke grenades everywhere, something like that. Or have the battle take place on a more dynamic battlefield, with more complications: lots of cover, hazard zones, elements that move and change, rough terrain. Even if the players still win, hopefully it encourages them to be more creative and dramatic.

[Cellion]

@BNW: I've seen players do some incredibly reckless things at very low HP too. There's a bit of a devil-may-care attitude due to all the safety nets. That said, I've never actually seen someone die from massive damage, despite running and playing a LOT of games. PCs just don't end up in positions where it happens very often.

I think the relative predictability of incoming damage and the somewhat slower pace of combat plays to the strengths of 6-man groups. The risk to individual party members remains low but the party's ability to bring down individual foes gets much better. Oddly, I think larger parties have more fun than smaller ones though (based on PFS). When both sized parties have an easy win ahead, the 6-man party that blazes through combat in two or three rounds seems to be having a better time.

@Garretmander: In my own games I've tried to slightly increase the CR of encounters (I want to make sure I'm not holding spellcasters away from their sweet toys :>) and while it definitely makes the encounters harder, I can't say it makes them more swingy. The frequency of "surprises" due to randomness or unusual mechanics remains the same. Your second rule about dying at negative CON sounds interesting though. I also like the idea that it frees up some RP to be used on gear and abilities that are fueled by it.

@Metaphysician: Encounters whose goals are "go something other than just downing the foes" are unfortunately pretty rare in a typical AP. While it's not out of the question to add them in, it does tend to mean that soon you're not doing the AP any more.

One thing that I've been thinking about is exactly your second point: the foes that show up in APs tend to be pretty limited in what they can do, and the areas you fight them tend to be pretty basic. Due to the ubiquity of AoOs, repositioning is somewhat disincentivized unless the foes have a way to "cheat" (ie. they're operatives or have special abilities).

Making custom battlemaps for APs is quite a bit of work, but might be the right choice to spice things up.

I kinda wish we had more tactically interesting monsters, and they got used more often in APs/scenarios. There's a fun scenario with bodysnatcher slimes that really introduces some fun mid-fight complications. But the vast majority of foes you fight are more like gatecrashers - they've got a melee option and a ranged option and passive defenses but nothing to make them threatening beyond damage output. And since "big damage" isn't very spicy in Starfinder, they tend to make for kinda dull encounters.

[BigNorseWolf]

Cellion wrote:

@BNW: I've seen players do some incredibly reckless things at very low HP too. There's a bit of a devil-may-care attitude due to all the safety nets. That said, I've never actually seen someone die from massive damage, despite running and playing a LOT of games. PCs just don't end up in positions where it happens very often.

It was king of funny. The guy kept spending resolve to get up. Both the DM AND the boss character noted that his possum style kung fu needed improvement. He probably wanted to hold still, drool out of his mouth a little, oh yeah, and STOP shooting the boss now. The sneak attack dice didn't have anything below a 5 and he wound up holding the characters spleen.

[HammerJack]

I can agree that massive damage isn't the most common thing. I've only seen it twice.

[Metaphysician]

You all are doing a very good job of discouraging me from ever running the Starfinder APs. :p

[Porridge]

Metaphysician wrote:

You all are doing a very good job of discouraging me from ever running the Starfinder APs. :p

I hope not! A lot of the Starfinder APs (especially the recent ones) are awesome!

[Cellion]

Yeah, the combats may be weak, but the characters, locations and plots are all stellar. I'd say they started on a so-so AP with Dead Suns, but everything I've played or run after that has been really solid.

[Garretmander]

I will say that my players prefer more dangerous fights, so the level below recommended is really just a tweak to scratch that itch, not a problem I have with the system.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Some of the things I have done to spice up (i.e. more dangerous for the players) combat encounters are:

Weapon Specialization is equal to your level regardless of the weapon type.

Grenades now benefit from Weapon Specialization.

Operatives may trick attack with a sniper rifle provided they are over the normal range increment for a snipe rifle (around 80 feet). They target must be unaware of them and the operative can only use stealth for this house rule trick attack.

I use the critical hit deck and a body hit location chart to add flavor to critical hits.

Critical Hits are subtracted directly from hit points.

For every 30 points of damage a PC/creature takes, the PC/creature takes a critical hit.

All critical hits are far more detailed than the card indicate. These are adjudicated on the fly based on the weapon type and the amount of damage done.

For Example; Extreme Bludgeoning: Back Breaker in addition to to the triple damage it does it is also going to break a bone/bones depending on the location hit. This will also result in a Fort Save (any where from 15 to 30 depending on what is broken/maimed) or the player is stunned (i.e. looking at / holding the maimed part of their body in horror and shock)

I used this same critical system in Pathfinder for years. My player's love it.

It adds real drama when the melee combatant goes down with a skull fracture in the middle of a combat and needs to be rescued by the other party members to prevent the melee combatant from being the target of a coup de grace as they are (most likely) lying there unconscious.

[Metaphysician]

Cellion wrote:

Yeah, the combats may be weak, but the characters, locations and plots are all stellar. I'd say they started on a so-so AP with Dead Suns, but everything I've played or run after that has been really solid.

This may all be true, but if I am effectively forced to pretty much ditch the combat encounters and stats and roll my own, that's a good chunk of work to use a "pre-made" adventure. . . and the least fun part of the work. I'd definitely much rather have an adventure where the crunch is all solidly usable, where even if you change the context of the fights the enemy stats are all flexible and well balanced, but the overall story progression is looser and requires tons of customization and elaboration.