Significant Enemy - Ummm...What?!


General Discussion


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm new to Starfinder, mr group has been trying it out, and so far, we've been enjoying it. However, there's one rule that we discovered while playing. And that's having class features not function when you're not fighting a "significant enemy" or "an enemy that has a CR of APL-4, but for the most part, it's GM discretion."

If I understand this correctly, the GM can decide that your class features don't work for this fight. I'm playing a Solarian, and my Stellar Mode is the main feature of my class. This being our first time experiencing this kind of a fight, I wasn't allowed to enter any of my modes, which made my core abilities not function, and my mote less useful in the fight. I became pointless in the fight, as did another PC who also had a build hampered by this rule.

In one swift moment, the game became a joke and not fun. I shot, I missed. I moved, I shot, I missed. I got hit. I took damage. I nearly dropped. Granted, we won the fight, but ONLY because of the characters who were NOT hampered by this rule. It made me, as a player, feel useless.

I've been playing RPGs for a long time, and I've never seen a written rule where the GM can decide if you get to use your class features today or not. By its very nature, this rule is there to allow any GM who doesn't like it when players have an effective build to just shut off their powers whenever they want. If it were simply APL-4, okay, there's a hard and fast rule for it--though it's still dumb because I don't believe in robbing a PC of their class features without a reasonable cause (AKA something is affecting them, which usually has a saving throw connected to it). But because it also includes "GM discretion," any GM can declare it an insignificant enemy at the start of any fight and turn off certain PC class features.

Our GM wasn't being a jerk; we discovered the rule and used it for that fight. But even the GM thought it was weird. I will talk to him and request we ignore that rule, as it's not fun for the people who are hampered. I'm sure he'll consider it.

Does anyone have positive things to say about this rule, or do a lot of people house rule it out? Because from where I'm sitting, it can be abused by a bad GM and/or make PCs feel irrelevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
By its very nature, this rule is there to allow any GM who doesn't like it when players have an effective build to just shut off their powers whenever they want.

It is not.

The GM Discretion part is to encourage the GM leave those abilities on even if the enemy is really weak.

A GM reading that and deciding to arbitrarily take away PC’s abilities to make the fights super hard is just being a jerk.

Significant Enemies wrote:
The GM can and should declare that an ineffectual foe is not enough of a threat to count as an enemy for effects that grant you a benefit when you do something to an enemy or have an enemy do something to you. For example, the commander ability of the mercenary theme requires you to defeat three distinct groups of significant enemies in a day to recover 1 Resolve Point; a mercenary shouldn’t gain this benefit if all they did was step on three different bugs that had no chance of hurting them. In general, a creature with a CR less than or equal to your character level – 4 is not a significant enemy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Quote:
By its very nature, this rule is there to allow any GM who doesn't like it when players have an effective build to just shut off their powers whenever they want.

It is not.

The GM Discretion part is to encourage the GM leave those abilities on even if the enemy is really weak.

A GM reading that and deciding to arbitrarily take away PC’s abilities to make the fights super hard is just being a jerk.

Significant Enemies wrote:
The GM can and should declare that an ineffectual foe is not enough of a threat to count as an enemy for effects that grant you a benefit when you do something to an enemy or have an enemy do something to you. For example, the commander ability of the mercenary theme requires you to defeat three distinct groups of significant enemies in a day to recover 1 Resolve Point; a mercenary shouldn’t gain this benefit if all they did was step on three different bugs that had no chance of hurting them. In general, a creature with a CR less than or equal to your character level – 4 is not a significant enemy.

Though it goes both ways with the way it's worded, and a GM can use that to ignore it if they want, I still see it as permission to remove players' core abilities. "At GM's discretion" can (and likely will) be abused by a terrible GM. They can point to that rule and say they can turn off your powers because the fight isn't worth you using them.

For example, the fight we were in was not APL-4. If we had been at full power, it would have been a quick fight but not a stomp-fest. But because several players were disabled, it lasted longer, becoming harder than a fight like that needed to be.

Besides, as a player and as a GM, I would feel uncomfortable turning off a player's abilities (without a save, no less) just because I'm throwing an easy fight their way. Sometimes it's good to let the players feel powerful.

I've had an experience with a bad GM turning off my abilities for no reason. In PF1, I was playing a Paladin in a campaign, and she didn't like that I was killing all the evil things so fast, so instead of tweaking fights to make them more challenging or throwing a few neutral creaturs my way, she found a BS reason to turn off my powers for two levels. I rolled with it for the sake of peace at the table.

That's what this feels like to me, a mechanic to allow GMs to poorly design fights for players and have an excuse to make it harder rather than work at making it challenging.

In my opinion, this is a terrible mechanic in an RPG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As my group's GM, I generally stick to the level -4 bit, which is something I keep note of when designing encounters. If I decided to use some really low CR plebs just to be fodder/filler, then generally they wouldn't count unless there is a mass ton of them (GM discretion). A band of 6 PCs at level 10 generally shouldn't really consider a bunch of CR 5s as a threat (CR -4), but 15 or so of them might be by sheer numbers, which a GM could say they would be considered a threat (GM discretion).
If your GM is saying no simply to make the fight harder or to stop something they don't like, then that is a GM problem.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
KingGramJohnson wrote:
Though it goes both ways with the way it's worded, and a GM can use that to ignore it if they want, I still see it as permission to remove players' core abilities. "At GM's discretion" can (and likely will) be abused by a terrible GM. They can point to that rule and say they can turn off your powers because the fight isn't worth you using them.

A terrible GM will make any system bad. The solution is not to play with them.

Second Seekers (Jadnura)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
KingGramJohnson wrote:
I shot, I missed. I moved, I shot, I missed. I got hit. I took damage. I nearly dropped. Granted, we won the fight, but ONLY because of the characters who were NOT hampered by this rule. It made me, as a player, feel useless.

Yeah, echoing what's already been said, that was a really bad call by the GM. Like, by definition, if you're having a hard time hitting the baddies (albeit without your class's biggest abilities turned on) and nearly dropping to 0 HP and your group only barely squeaked out a win - that's not an insignificant challenge.

If this was just a single "haha we're all new to the rules!" one-off, then sure, don't make that mistake again and call it growing pains. If this keeps happening, though, it's time to look for a new GM.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Coming at it a different way the intent of the rule is to prevent PCs from bringing a bag of space rats around and then 'fighting' the space rats to be able to use certain class features without a meaningful threat. The envoy's ability to recover stamina would be a prime example of this. The 4 level difference is more of a guide to when the power dynamic starts to get to that point. If there was a reason such a lopsided fight broke out running initiative is fine, but if you think the initiative is necessary and you can't just handle the scene as a narrative then all class features should work. It sounds more like you and your GM hadn't encountered this type of rule before.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Rule 0 gives the GM power to ruin any game, simply by the nature of being the GM. If the GM wants to ruin your fun there is nothing you can do about it within the context of the game (though you can and probably should not play).

The 'significant enemy rule' exists explicitly to keep you from triggering 'on kill' or 'on hit' abilities too cheaply. It's the 'bag of rats' scenario and clauses against it frankly exist in a lot of games.

... To highlight your point, the specific example in the OP isn't even what the significant enemy rule describes. Like, the rule clearly states that you shouldn't let players do things like trigger effects for defeating completely trivial foes. The example given is a character stepping on a bug to trigger a "when you kill an enemy" effect. It never says anything about disabling your class outright.

So like, you're complaining that the rule ruined your game but the GM wasn't even following the rule to begin with. You say your GM wasn't being a jerk, but he literally made up a fake rule specifically to screw you over, and you had a miserable session because of it.

That's not something you can blame the game for.

Paizo Employee Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Came in here to check for someone mentioning the "bag of space rats". Someone did that. All is well in Desna's Path.

Second Seekers (Jadnura)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This rule brought to you by grandma. Because she cares. In her own way...

Shadow Lodge

Kishmo wrote:
KingGramJohnson wrote:
I shot, I missed. I moved, I shot, I missed. I got hit. I took damage. I nearly dropped. Granted, we won the fight, but ONLY because of the characters who were NOT hampered by this rule. It made me, as a player, feel useless.

Yeah, echoing what's already been said, that was a really bad call by the GM. Like, by definition, if you're having a hard time hitting the baddies (albeit without your class's biggest abilities turned on) and nearly dropping to 0 HP and your group only barely squeaked out a win - that's not an insignificant challenge.

If this was just a single "haha we're all new to the rules!" one-off, then sure, don't make that mistake again and call it growing pains. If this keeps happening, though, it's time to look for a new GM.

Given the complete lack of actual details, having trouble hitting could just be a string of bad rolls, and 'nearly dropped' is possibly the result of being heavily wounded before the fight began.

Or, the GM might have misjudged the 'significance' of the threat.

Honestly, we can't really tell what actually happened here...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My GM is pretty good. We're new to the game, so we're all learning it as we go, and yes, the fight we were in wasn't APL-4, so it was the wrong situation. I see that now. I spoke to my GM, and we will discuss it as a group at our next session, but I can guarantee that this will be house-ruled out at our table. I just don't think it's necessary, and I find the wording on the rule odd.

I get what everyone is saying, and I can see everyone's point of view, which makes sense to a degree. It exists to avoid the "bag of rats" situation. In my opinion, this lies in the GM's ability to run the table as opposed to a mechanic in the game that at APL-4 powers don't work or, at the GM's discretion, any fight they deem insignificant.

However, I do not think it's a good mechanic. Most of you see it as a way to avoid abuse, whereas I see it as a form of abuse against players. It can go both ways if handled wrong.

I'm not here to argue but to understand the rule and why it's there, and I think I got that. So I thank you all! I like how helpful and responsive the Pathfinder/Starfinder community is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
We're new to the game, so we're all learning it as we go, and yes, the fight we were in wasn't APL-4, so it was the wrong situation.
Quote:
but I can guarantee that this will be house-ruled out at our table.
Quote:
Most of you see it as a way to avoid abuse, whereas I see it as a form of abuse against players. It can go both ways if handled wrong.

There’s nothing to house rule. Your GM ran it wrong aka your GM did the very thing you’re worried about via house rulings.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Quoting this for emphasis

Squiggit wrote:

So like, you're complaining that the rule ruined your game but the GM wasn't even following the rule to begin with. You say your GM wasn't being a jerk, but he literally made up a fake rule specifically to screw you over, and you had a miserable session because of it.

That's not something you can blame the game for.

I'll be more charitable and say your GM didn't do it to deliberately screw you, but did because they didn't understand what the rule way saying. But your GM wasn't actually following the rules, and his accidental house rule ruined the game.

So let's review the actual rule:

Quote:

Significant Enemies

The GM can and should declare that an ineffectual foe is not enough of a threat to count as an enemy for effects that grant you a benefit when you do something to an enemy or have an enemy do something to you. For example, the commander ability of the mercenary theme requires you to defeat three distinct groups of significant enemies in a day to recover 1 Resolve Point; a mercenary shouldn’t gain this benefit if all they did was step on three different bugs that had no chance of hurting them. In general, a creature with a CR less than or equal to your character level – 4 is not a significant enemy.

The key here is that abilities that do something as a reaction to you doing something (like killing an enemy to gain resolve).

So, your GM misapplied the rule. This rule doesn't say your normal class features don't function, such as your mote turning into your armor or melee weapon or whatever.

I can't think of any specific Solarion abilities that would be turned off or not function due to the significant enemy rules, But I could forget something.

The main thing I can think of is abilities that allow you to regain resolve don't function against non-significant enemies.

But yeah, your GM ran things incorrectly. There's no need to house rule, because you've done them incorrectly in the first place.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Quote:
We're new to the game, so we're all learning it as we go, and yes, the fight we were in wasn't APL-4, so it was the wrong situation.
Quote:
but I can guarantee that this will be house-ruled out at our table.
Quote:
Most of you see it as a way to avoid abuse, whereas I see it as a form of abuse against players. It can go both ways if handled wrong.
There’s nothing to house rule. Your GM ran it wrong aka your GM did the very thing you’re worried about via house rulings.

I do admit that he did it wrong. You're telling me the same thing again. I'm grateful to the community for pointing out where I misunderstood the rule.

However, this does not change the fact that there is a mechanic in Starfinder that allows a GM to turn off the core abilities of some class in an insignificant fight, as per RAW. This is something I think is asinine.

I do not believe this rule is conducive to a good RPG table. And thus, we will be house-ruled out for our group. If you like it, that's cool; you may use it. The bag of space rats is not an issue for me and my group; thus, this rule is unnecessary at our table.

Claxon wrote:
I can't think of any specific Solarion abilities that would be turned off or not function due to the significant enemy rules, But I could forget something.

A Solarian's Stellar Mode.

Stellar Mode (Su) wrote:
When you’re not in combat, you can’t enter a stellar mode. This ability manifests only in high-stakes situations, when your training takes over and connects your mind to the universe. There needs to be some risk to you for your stellar mode to activate, so you must be facing a significant enemy (see page 242). If there’s any doubt about whether you’re in combat or able to access your stellar mode, the GM decides. This also means that your stellar mode might end before what was previously a dangerous battle is over, once all that remains are dregs that don’t pose a real threat to you.

Not having Stellar Mode outside of combat is fine; that makes sense. But, unless I misunderstand this, even if you're in a significant fight, once it looks like you're going to win and it's not dangerous anymore, a Solarian's main ability shuts off.

I have a problem with this. This means my powers can stop working while the fight is still going. My group and I do not like this rule.

As I said before, I appreciate you all explaining how the "Significany Enemy" rule functions. Now that I understand it, I know why my group doesn't need it. I don't think this rule adds to the fun but detracts from it. I have no problem with people playing with it, but for us, we will kindly ignore it.

All that being said, we have been enjoying Starfinder as a whole. We've had a good time playing so far. We played Traveller before this and weren't a fan (except for character creation, which was a blast!). Starfinder is allowing us to scratch the sci-fi itch! :-D

Thank you for the help!

Second Seekers (Jadnura)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Really feels like you're imagining situations where a cruel and vindictive GM could abuse rules to shut off player abilities. I know you've said the main "significant vs insignificant" piece is resolved for your group, and you're leaving the thread, so - happy Starfinding!

But, just in case it comes up, this piece:

KingGramJohnson wrote:
Not having Stellar Mode outside of combat is fine; that makes sense. But, unless I misunderstand this, even if you're in a significant fight, once it looks like you're going to win and it's not dangerous anymore, a Solarian's main ability shuts off.

is wrong. The GM doesn't get to flip a switch at some arbitrary point when they think the fight is mostly over and say "your cool powers turn off." The way Starfinder encounter design works, the CR of an encounter doesn't change when foes lose HP, or cast a spell, or use a grenade, or whatever. A CR 15 boss with full resources is CR 15; a CR 15 boss with 1 HP and all of their abilities and items and spells tapped out is still CR 15. Your solarian mote doesn't say "eh I think we've won, I'mma check out, you got this riiiight?" when you bloody an enemy.

...it's starting to feel like someone in your group has a weird hang-up about shutting down class abilities. I can assure you, all of the "powers stop working when not facing Significant Challenges" rules are there to shut down meta-thinking player shenanigans. I really strongly think that the intent of those rules is to prevent player rules-abuse, and that's it. Any use of those rules beyond shutting down player rules-abuse goes against the intent of those rules.

For example: your solarian has found the baddies, guarding the entrance to their secret lair. The solarian decides that, since they've got the drop on the baddies, they're going to pull out their sack-of-space-rats and have 3 rounds of combat against the rats first: great, rats easily killed, and after that, the solarian is Attuned 3 and then charges over to the baddies and does an immediate Supernova.

That is the kind of cheese that "significant challenge rules" are there to prevent. It should never be used to shut off a class ability mid-fight. I could, I guess, see it coming up if you were doing some kind of fight wherein, say, you had one really tough foe (with a CR at or above your party's APL) as well as a bunch of 'minions' whose collective CR is below APL-4: in that case, if you focus fire'd and drop the main baddie, and then all that was left were the minions, maybe your GM could make an argument that there's no significant enemies left. Even then, though, honestly - what kind of GM would make that call? Let the Solarian do their supernova on a bunch of stormtroopers, why not. Slavish devotion to when exactly you are/aren't in a Significant Challenge(TM) really feels like a losing proposition for everyone, players and GM alike.

I'm gonna hope that you're just imagining situations where a really combative GM could use these rules to screw the player, and trying to shut down those arguments before they come up. I really hope that you never have/will have to argue with a GM about your stellar mote shutting off because the GM thinks "meh you've basically already won." Let us hope we're all just tilting at windmills here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingGramJohnson wrote:

However, this does not change the fact that there is a mechanic in Starfinder that allows a GM to turn off the core abilities of some class in an insignificant fight, as per RAW. This is something I think is asinine.

I do not believe this rule is conducive to a good RPG table. And thus, we will be house-ruled out for our group. If you like it, that's cool; you may use it. The bag of space rats is not an issue for me and my group; thus, this rule is unnecessary at our table.

So, it does look like I glossed over the rules says stellar mode doesn't activate, which does mean your denied some powers.

However, I would urge caution is calling the general stupid or asinine. The general rule makes sense and is good.

The rules applying it to stellar modes was probably a bad decision. And it would be reasonable to house rule it, so that it was generally usable. And in fact, there are some revelations that are only useful and make sense to use outside of combat. They're not impossible to use in combat, but you also shouldn't (IMO) be restricted to using them in combat only.

But again, I think you're having an emotional reaction with being frustrated because of a bad experience caused by improper application of the rule. You should have been able to use your stellar mote to turn into your weapon and armor, and while you may not have had the damage bonus or access to your revelations you probably would have had a different experience with the combat.

Don't get rid of the general rule, but I will admit it being attached to stellar mode doesn't make sense.

Honestly, I've played a Solarion before and forgot that line was even in there. Ultimately the rule is about stopping exploitative play. And I agree that you shouldn't be able to build up attunement outside of combat (which is why it says you can't use it outside of combat (or more specifically combat with significant enemies) but their explanation of why you can't use it at all is kind of BS. That I will agree with. But rather than cutting out the whole rule, do precise excision of the bad bits.


Kishmo wrote:

For example: your solarian has found the baddies, guarding the entrance to their secret lair. The solarian decides that, since they've got the drop on the baddies, they're going to pull out their sack-of-space-rats and have 3 rounds of combat against the rats first: great, rats easily killed, and after that, the solarian is Attuned 3 and then charges over to the baddies and does an immediate Supernova.

That is the kind of cheese that "significant challenge rules" are there to prevent. It should never be used to shut off a class ability mid-fight. I could, I guess, see it coming up if you were doing some kind of fight wherein, say, you had one really tough foe (with a CR at or above your party's APL) as well as a bunch of 'minions' whose collective CR is below APL-4: in that case, if you focus fire'd and drop the main baddie, and then all that was left were the minions, maybe your GM could make an argument that there's no significant enemies left. Even then, though, honestly - what kind of GM would make that call? Let the Solarian do their supernova on a bunch of stormtroopers, why not. Slavish devotion to when exactly you are/aren't in a Significant Challenge(TM) really feels like a losing proposition for everyone, players and GM alike.

This is absolutely the intention of the rule, but it's not written as well and cohesively into the system as we wish. Because while you and I understand the intention, it's not immediate obvious and Stellar Modes does say you can't use it against non-significant enemies. But the intention is to prevent you from building up attunement prior to a fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Might be beating a dead horse, but I feel like a bad GM has never let rules get in the way of their bad rulings. Whether its "You cannot sneak attack an enemy once they know you're there" or making rolling a 1 cause you to drop your weapon, bad gms rarely look through the rules for gotcha lines of text. Instead, they just make up rules that make what they want to happen, happen, RAW or RAI be damned.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Crouza wrote:
Might be beating a dead horse, but I feel like a bad GM has never let rules get in the way of their bad rulings.

a good GM doesn't let rules get in the way of their bad rulings, as long as the bad rulings enhanced the game.

it cuts both ways.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:
Crouza wrote:
Might be beating a dead horse, but I feel like a bad GM has never let rules get in the way of their bad rulings.

a good GM doesn't let rules get in the way of their bad rulings, as long as the bad rulings enhanced the game.

it cuts both ways.

Sorry, but I can't leave this one alone. This is a false analogy. If a ruling enhances the game (for everyone, not just for the GM) then it's not a bad ruling.

A good GM doesn't let the rules get in the way of their adjudication (enforcing/carrying out the rules). That includes getting rid of rules that don't work (for what the whole group wants).


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not 100 percent sure this is how it works but I also think that the whole apl -4 thing is for the whole encounter, not the single enemy you fight. There's a chart of the cr equivalencies in the core rulebook that says multiple of enemies raises the cr of the encounter. So even if you're fighting two apl -5 enemies, the cr is really 5 levels lower, +2, bringing it up to apl -3 so you're good. Don't think I did a great job of explaining that but thought it might be worth mentioning.


That's correct, it's the CR for the whole encounter, not just for an individual enemy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
KingGramJohnson wrote:

However, this does not change the fact that there is a mechanic in Starfinder that allows a GM to turn off the core abilities of some class in an insignificant fight, as per RAW. This is something I think is asinine.

I do not believe this rule is conducive to a good RPG table. And thus, we will be house-ruled out for our group. If you like it, that's cool; you may use it. The bag of space rats is not an issue for me and my group; thus, this rule is unnecessary at our table.

So, it does look like I glossed over the rules says stellar mode doesn't activate, which does mean your denied some powers.

However, I would urge caution is calling the general stupid or asinine. The general rule makes sense and is good.

The rules applying it to stellar modes was probably a bad decision. And it would be reasonable to house rule it, so that it was generally usable. And in fact, there are some revelations that are only useful and make sense to use outside of combat. They're not impossible to use in combat, but you also shouldn't (IMO) be restricted to using them in combat only.

But again, I think you're having an emotional reaction with being frustrated because of a bad experience caused by improper application of the rule. You should have been able to use your stellar mote to turn into your weapon and armor, and while you may not have had the damage bonus or access to your revelations you probably would have had a different experience with the combat.

Don't get rid of the general rule, but I will admit it being attached to stellar mode doesn't make sense.

Honestly, I've played a Solarion before and forgot that line was even in there. Ultimately the rule is about stopping exploitative play. And I agree that you shouldn't be able to build up attunement outside of combat (which is why it says you can't use it outside of combat (or more specifically combat with significant enemies) but their explanation of why you can't use it at all is kind of BS. That I will agree...

Claxon wrote:
This is absolutely the intention of the rule, but it's not written as well and cohesively into the system as we wish. Because while you and I understand the intention, it's not immediate obvious and Stellar Modes does say you can't use it against non-significant enemies. But the intention is to prevent you from building up attunement prior to a fight.

Fair enough about the general.

After looking things over, I think what I most have an issue with is the way the rule is worded, especially with Solarian. I get what they're trying to do, but it could have been worded better.

As a follow-up, we played tonight, and my whole group agreed that we don't have a "bag of rats" issue, and thus APL-4 abuse will not be a problem for us. So we have house-ruled it out. No harm, no foul.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kishmo wrote:

But, just in case it comes up, this piece:

KingGramJohnson wrote:
Not having Stellar Mode outside of combat is fine; that makes sense. But, unless I misunderstand this, even if you're in a significant fight, once it looks like you're going to win and it's not dangerous anymore, a Solarian's main ability shuts off.
is wrong. The GM doesn't get to flip a switch at some arbitrary point when they think the fight is mostly over and say "your cool powers turn off.

Um, it literally says exactly that. It might not be what they mean by it, but that's exactly what it says.

Stellar Mode (Su) wrote:


When you’re not in combat, you can’t enter a stellar mode. This ability manifests only in high-stakes situations, when your training takes over and connects your mind to the universe. There needs to be some risk to you for your stellar mode to activate, so you must be facing a significant enemy (see page 242). If there’s any doubt about whether you’re in combat or able to access your stellar mode, the GM decides. This also means that your stellar mode might end before what was previously a dangerous battle is over, once all that remains are dregs that don’t pose a real threat to you.

(Emphasis mine.)

It literally says that Stellar Mode will end if the fight becomes too easy mid-battle. This is why I think it's worded poorly because that seems pretty clear to me what they mean: if you are in a "significant" battle, and you end most of the threat before the battle is over, Stellar Mode ends before the battle does. This is, in my opinion, a poorly designed or written rule.

Kishmo wrote:
Even then, though, honestly - what kind of GM would make that call? Let the Solarian do their supernova on a bunch of stormtroopers, why not. Slavish devotion to when exactly you are/aren't in a Significant Challenge(TM) really feels like a losing proposition for everyone, players and GM alike.

This is the point I'm trying to make. It's more fun to let players use their class abilities in a fight, but--at least with Solarian--it clearly states that Stellar Mode will just turn off if the fight becomes less dangerous, mid-battle, regardless of the starting CR.

This is why we're house ruling it out. It is not fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's there to house rule out? Just run it correctly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
What's there to house rule out? Just run it correctly.

You keep saying this.

See my above post. When run correctly, according to RAW, a Solarian's core class features are supposed to shut down once the threat of the battle diminishes mid-battle. Once a fight reaches a level where it's a cakewalk, my character's ability to use Stellar Revelations that require photon or graviton attunement (like Supernova) stops because Stellar Mode shuts down automatically.

My issue is no longer with the bag of rats (APL-4) issue; I've accepted and moved on. My gripe is that Soloarian has written into the class that Stellar Mode shuts down if a fight reaches a certain threshold.

My group and I don't like this. It's not enjoyable to play that way. This is what we are house-ruling out. It's not a matter of running it incorrectly because, per RAW, it happens even if the fight starts with significant enemies and becomes less dangerous as enemies drop.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
What's there to house rule out? Just run it correctly.

He has a point that technically the GM is within their right to turn off Stellar modes near the end of a combat, when in theory the fights CR has dropped below APL-4. Of course, it shouldn't be as simple as just saying "well this fight only has one enemy left that has a level -4 CR so the fight is no longer significant", it should also include thoughts about how many resources (spells, items, hp) the party has expended in the fight because the party is also no longer at their full CR because they're damaged. But there aren't really rules for accounting for this kind of thing.

The best way to play (IMO) is to completely ignore this rule in relation to the Solarion's stellar modes. If for no other reason, a Solarion not being able to use their cool powers outside of combat is really lame. Sure, don't let them build up attunement, make them start combat as though they were unattuned and couldn't/hadn't been using stellar modes. But there are many revelations that are useful outside of combat, that you should be able to use, and that have enhanced effects when attuned and denying players access to that is pretty lame.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Claxon wrote:


He has a point that technically the GM is within their right to turn off Stellar modes near the end of a combat

The GM is within their right to do whatever they want. That doesn't mean exceeding the purview of the rules is a good thing or even something to really put on the book itself.

I agree with your second point about that not being able to use powers out of combat is lame, but that doesn't change Rysky's point either that this specific example is as much an issue of a GM going off the rails as anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:


He has a point that technically the GM is within their right to turn off Stellar modes near the end of a combat, when in theory the fights CR has dropped below APL-4.

If the unconscious baddies don't count then neither do the unconscious party members in this case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the fight is "no longer significant enough" to count for the Solarian's powers, it should also be no longer significant enough *to keep running*. GMs are *also* not supposed to run fights that aren't meaningful challenges.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems very weird to recalculate the CR of a fight every time a combatant drops. That leads to all sorts of absurd outcomes, of which the Solarian's powers shutting down is not even the dumbest. Furthermore, as BNW pointed out, if you're going to recalculate CR every time an enemy drops, then you also should be recalculating APL every time a PC drops.

As long as the PCs are still rolling dice and spending resources and not taking 10-minute rests, then a CR 5 encounter remains a CR 5 encounter until the last space goblin drops.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Gentry wrote:

It seems very weird to recalculate the CR of a fight every time a combatant drops. That leads to all sorts of absurd outcomes, of which the Solarian's powers shutting down is not even the dumbest. Furthermore, as BNW pointed out, if you're going to recalculate CR every time an enemy drops, then you also should be recalculating APL every time a PC drops.

As long as the PCs are still rolling dice and spending resources and not taking 10-minute rests, then a CR 5 encounter remains a CR 5 encounter until the last space goblin drops.

I agree. But if you have a GM dead set on reading it another way there's nothing to really lean on that says that they're out right wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Michael Gentry wrote:

It seems very weird to recalculate the CR of a fight every time a combatant drops. That leads to all sorts of absurd outcomes, of which the Solarian's powers shutting down is not even the dumbest. Furthermore, as BNW pointed out, if you're going to recalculate CR every time an enemy drops, then you also should be recalculating APL every time a PC drops.

As long as the PCs are still rolling dice and spending resources and not taking 10-minute rests, then a CR 5 encounter remains a CR 5 encounter until the last space goblin drops.

I agree. But if you have a GM dead set on reading it another way there's nothing to really lean on that says that they're out right wrong.

There absolutely is something to lean on, its just not in the rules book. Its "Look, GM, you are making an idiotic ruling that is harming the fun of the game. Either stop a moment and reconsider whether this is a good idea, or I am leaving." Because despite pretensions otherwise, the GM is not God. Their authority extends only as far as the players allow it to extend.

As I've said many a time: a rules solution cannot fix a player problem. And the GM is absolutely a fellow player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Metaphysician wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Michael Gentry wrote:

It seems very weird to recalculate the CR of a fight every time a combatant drops. That leads to all sorts of absurd outcomes, of which the Solarian's powers shutting down is not even the dumbest. Furthermore, as BNW pointed out, if you're going to recalculate CR every time an enemy drops, then you also should be recalculating APL every time a PC drops.

As long as the PCs are still rolling dice and spending resources and not taking 10-minute rests, then a CR 5 encounter remains a CR 5 encounter until the last space goblin drops.

I agree. But if you have a GM dead set on reading it another way there's nothing to really lean on that says that they're out right wrong.

There absolutely is something to lean on, its just not in the rules book. Its "Look, GM, you are making an idiotic ruling that is harming the fun of the game. Either stop a moment and reconsider whether this is a good idea, or I am leaving." Because despite pretensions otherwise, the GM is not God. Their authority extends only as far as the players allow it to extend.

As I've said many a time: a rules solution cannot fix a player problem. And the GM is absolutely a fellow player.

I agree with you, but it still doesn't prove one person right or wrong.

A GM who is interpreting otherwise is likely to see such a statement as a player attempting to coerce the GM to have their way, rather than what the GM views as "correct".

Ultimately this will boil down to how much are players willing to accept "bad" rulings regardless of whether or not the rules support it.

Just because the rules are written a certain way doesn't mean a group should follow them if they find it makes them have a worse time.

Hopefully people are more reasonable, and generally they are. But I wouldn't be surprised to find there's some GM out there that does the kind of bad things we've all said in this thread shouldn't be done.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Michael Gentry wrote:

It seems very weird to recalculate the CR of a fight every time a combatant drops. That leads to all sorts of absurd outcomes, of which the Solarian's powers shutting down is not even the dumbest. Furthermore, as BNW pointed out, if you're going to recalculate CR every time an enemy drops, then you also should be recalculating APL every time a PC drops.

As long as the PCs are still rolling dice and spending resources and not taking 10-minute rests, then a CR 5 encounter remains a CR 5 encounter until the last space goblin drops.

I agree. But if you have a GM dead set on reading it another way there's nothing to really lean on that says that they're out right wrong.

There absolutely is something to lean on, its just not in the rules book. Its "Look, GM, you are making an idiotic ruling that is harming the fun of the game. Either stop a moment and reconsider whether this is a good idea, or I am leaving." Because despite pretensions otherwise, the GM is not God. Their authority extends only as far as the players allow it to extend.

As I've said many a time: a rules solution cannot fix a player problem. And the GM is absolutely a fellow player.

I agree with you, but it still doesn't prove one person right or wrong.

A GM who is interpreting otherwise is likely to see such a statement as a player attempting to coerce the GM to have their way, rather than what the GM views as "correct".

Ultimately this will boil down to how much are players willing to accept "bad" rulings regardless of whether or not the rules support it.

Just because the rules are written a certain way doesn't mean a group should follow them if they find it makes them have a worse time.

Hopefully people are more reasonable, and generally they are. But I wouldn't be surprised to find there's some GM out there that does the kind of bad things we've all said in this thread shouldn't be done.

That's exactly my concern with it. Experienced players know enough to look at that rule and ignore it, but new GMs might not, and it might ruin the game for players.


The guidance is pretty clear at CR-4. But if for some reason an encounter is under-rated or they're coming into it with reduced strength, and obviously having trouble, the GM is supposed to realize that the circumstances have made it a Significant Encounter. That's why the GM flexibility was designed in. The reason it's only for Significant Encounters is they don't want the character flaunting that power all the time when it's just not adding anything interesting to the game. If you do it all the time, it's not perceived as special.

There are other ways to limit it. For example they could have made it you can do it once or twice per day. Then you have to be judicious about using it when you don't need it because then you might not have it when you get to the boss fight, and you're going to have a hard time in the boss fight without all your powers active.

As others have said, no rule is going to make up for a bad GM. Or any other bad player for that matter.

GMs either know that, or they learn it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Calgon-3 wrote:

The guidance is pretty clear at CR-4. But if for some reason an encounter is under-rated or they're coming into it with reduced strength, and obviously having trouble, the GM is supposed to realize that the circumstances have made it a Significant Encounter. That's why the GM flexibility was designed in. The reason it's only for Significant Encounters is they don't want the character flaunting that power all the time when it's just not adding anything interesting to the game. If you do it all the time, it's not perceived as special.

There are other ways to limit it. For example they could have made it you can do it once or twice per day. Then you have to be judicious about using it when you don't need it because then you might not have it when you get to the boss fight, and you're going to have a hard time in the boss fight without all your powers active.

As others have said, no rule is going to make up for a bad GM. Or any other bad player for that matter.

GMs either know that, or they learn it.

I see what you're saying, but I'm afraid I have to disagree that the way to rebalance a fight is to take away the power and ability of the PCs. I've been on the receiving end of that before (not in Starfinder), and it's frustrating and annoying. And to do it mid-fight is even worse.

No matter how you want to look at it or spin it, the Starfinder Core Rulebook clearly states that a GM can remove the powers of certain classes if they ever feel like the fight is no longer significant mid-battle. It's not like all classes have a feature like this. It would still be wrong, but at least it would apply to all characters. It's only a few classes that have this caveat. To me, that is not good.

If they wanted the powers only to be used X times per day, they should have just written the classes like that, not say some classes can use these abilities but only so long as the GM allows you to in battle. That might encourage GMs to do this if a fight isn't going how they like--you want the battle to be a little more dangerous, but the PCs are mowing through them; take their power away!

Yes, a good GM will not do that; I agree. However, as I said, a bad GM will see this as permission, and inexperienced GMs will not know any better, which will sully the game for some players. That is why this rule (or, at the very least, how it's written) is terrible.

Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Significant Enemy - Ummm...What?! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Starfinder General Discussion