Anybody playing Starfinder?

[Rynjin]

I played Starfinder way back in its initial release (might have been the playtest, actually, I can't remember) and thought it was kinda neat, but never touched it again. It's had some content trickled out over the years that's looking interesting, so it's on the shortlist of games I was considering for running a spacefaring campaign in the near future (my group has been floating the idea of an Outer Worlds game), but I'm not sure if they ever fixed some of the jankier bits of the game (like space combat) or not.

So I figured I'd hit you guys up and see if anyone has any positive impressions of it and can fill me in on what I've missed since release, in broad strokes. Bonus points if you've played a bunch of other sci-fi systems. Currently my short list consists of Savage Worlds (with Savage RIFTS content and I'm sure there's a space travel sourcebook out there for it somewhere), Star Wars Saga Edition, or Mutants and Masterminds (good flexible system, lets people make up their own super-tech if they like) so I'm open to ideas.

[CharonsHelper]

I've only played a single session - but I did read it.

Frankly - it's a solid d20 game, but I don't think that they adjusted the melee/ranged dichotomy enough for a sci-fi game. They removed a couple of d20's ranged disadvantages such as the feat taxes for shooting into melee, but it's way to easy to close to melee against guns. It just doesn't feel right to me, though that is of course just opinion.

For modern or sci-fi games, I think that if melee is viable at all, it should be a high risk/reward tactic, and not always viable depending upon the terrain etc. An easy way to do it with d20 bones would just be to slow down movement speed drastically and allow foes with firearms to get off a shot as a reaction when you charge them.

So - basically it's Pathfinder in space. It's solid for what it is, but it doesn't really feel like sci-fi to me.

That - and I wasn't a fan of how your starship auto-upgrades. Just breaks verisimilitude for me.

[Rynjin]

IIRC didn't what they do to balance out ranged weapons was to make it a lot easier to add stuff like level to damage with ranged weapons?

[Lemmy]

I honestly forgot this was a thing until I saw this thread... It's so rare to even hear a mention of Starfinder that I'm always semi-surprised when someone says they play it or even just have played it for more than a couple months after release.

[Telok]

Other than Starfinder nobody in my area (except myself) seems willing to run anything beyond swords and sorcery type games, so I have to take what I can get.

That said, if there were bits you didn't like at release those will still be there. All that has been added are races and equipment, although "soon" they're supposed to put out some new classes.

Personally my go-to systems for sci-fi are Classic Traveller, d6 Space, Paranoia, and recently Dungeons the Dragoning 40k 7e.

[CharonsHelper]

IIRC didn't what they do to balance out ranged weapons was to make it a lot easier to add stuff like level to damage with ranged weapons?

I wasn't weighing in on the balance of melee/ranged in Starfinder. I just don't like how easy it is to close to melee without being shot.

Frankly - unless there's a very good setting excuse (ex: Jedi) I don't think that going solely melee in a sci-fi setting should really be a viable character choice.

[Psyren]

I like it because, like D&D/Pathfinder, you can run a lot of genres of games that share elements of that aesthetic in it. Sprawling space opera, intrigue-heavy cyberpunk, planetary exploration, you could even finagle a mech combat game out of the power armor and starship rules. And like most science-fantasy it does a much better job of keeping the casters and martials on fairly even footing than regular fantasy manages to while staying believable.

I wasn't weighing in on the balance of melee/ranged in Starfinder. I just don't like how easy it is to close to melee without being shot.

Not to reopen one of our many, many "are HP meat?" argue-fests, but "getting shot" is an abstraction in a game like Starfinder. Just because your trained soldier space hero wearing a refractor suit was able to close to melee without losing any HP or Stamina, doesn't mean that someone with no defenses, training, or even decent ability scores would have fared as well. (Put another way, maybe you were shot, but it was a graze or glanced off some ablative field a couple of inches out from your physical armor.)

That said, if there were bits you didn't like at release those will still be there. All that has been added are races and equipment, although "soon" they're supposed to put out some new classes.

Indeed, and I believe you can still download the playtest versions for free if you'd like to check them out.

[AdAstra]

I wasn't weighing in on the balance of melee/ranged in Starfinder. I just don't like how easy it is to close to melee without being shot.

Frankly - unless there's a very good setting excuse (ex: Jedi) I don't think that going solely melee in a sci-fi setting should really be a viable character choice.

Starfinder always seemed to me more science fantasy. Like 40k where melee is viable mostly because it’s cool.

However, there are often some viable reasons for melee to be useful, usually due to range-compression:
-The common battlefields don’t allow for many long sightlines. This could be boarding actions on ships, or clearing dense cities room by room. After all, if you’ve got large open spaces, why couldn’t you bypass them with dropships, or blast whoever’s defending them to pieces with orbital bombardment?
-Armor is strong enough to be near-impervious to small arms fire except at close range (and melee weapons don’t have this problem or suffer less). Pretty self-explanatory, if your gun can only scratch their paint before they get within stabbing range, stabbing’s gonna be pretty effective, so long as the protection is mainly effective against ranged weapons. Perhaps people have defense fields that require 5 meter’s distance to be fully effective, or have a dampening effect proportional to projectile velocity. Both of these would disproportionally affect projectile weapons over melee weapons.
-Cloaking and/or sensor jamming is commonplace. Again, pretty self-explanatory. If you can’t see the target you’re not going to be hitting it much without explosives or hilarious volume of fire, thus allowing people to get within stabbing range before most engagements even start.

[BWR]

Setting-wise Starfinder struck me as a poor man's Dragonstar, in much the same way that Golarion struck me a poor man's Mystara. A bit unfair, perhaps, but since I already have the latter why would I want the former. I wasn't impressed by the system since what I wanted was a SF expansion for PF1 (D&D in spaaaace), not another specially made variant of d20 which would require a lot of work to convert, and many of the choices they made just annoyed me.

There were a few decent points in both setting and mechanics, but on the whole I'll just update Dragonstar to PF1 rather than run SF.

[Malphegor]

My group's been playing it, we were mainly a 3.5e group before.

First thing I've noticed is that it's much simpler than it's d20 progenitor of 3.5, which I assume is the case with Pathfinder too. Lot less stuff to worry about in combat. It feels kinda more basic?

Stamina is a fun mechanic to differentiate lethal hp and nonlethal hp you can handle- kirk can be shot a few times without needing bones to patch him up.



I feel some things are a bit obtuse for newbie DMs- the hacking skill requires DMs put some thought into what's hackeable and what computer level computers are.

Also, much as it is very simple to design a ship in this system, with just the core rulebook right now at my group it kinda feels... I dunno, a little lacking. It feels like ships weren't meant to be the focus of starfinder but it's space scifi so they're kind of a necessity. The game still feels like fantasy dungeon crawling even when it's trying it's darnest to be Star Trek.


That said, the setting is gorgeous, and the books I've seen are very clear, though it seems that they're getting thinner in content as we go.

[CharonsHelper]

Just because your trained soldier space hero wearing a refractor suit was able to close to melee without losing any HP or Stamina, doesn't mean that someone with no defenses, training, or even decent ability scores would have fared as well. (Put another way, maybe you were shot, but it was a graze or glanced off some ablative field a couple of inches out from your physical armor.)

That's exactly my issue though - that's simply not the case. It is easy for any sort of mook to close to melee without even being shot at. There's no real drawback to crossing an open room, as you can simply charge the standard 60ft, and unless someone burned their turn on a readied action they get into melee 100% unscathed.

I don't mind melee being viable at all - it's that you DON'T need any extra defenses or skills to make it viable. The basic d20 mechanics being used mean that a foe would need to be 70ft or more away before there's any real drawback to using melee at all, unless there's other major terrain issues, such as being on a balcony etc.

[Lemmy]

Well... It's been quite a long time since I played it (maybe 2 or 3 games in the first two months after it came out).

IIRC, the game didn't have any super major flaw, but it did have enough small and medium flaws to snowball into enough of an issue that I didn't have any desire or will to play it again.

...But like I mentioned before, it Starfinder might be thr most forgettable RPG I've ever played, so I might no be remembering it correctly.

The only thing that bothers me about it has nothing to do with SF itself, but with Paizo...

Who made SF as stealth paid playtest for PF2e... And ended up tainting both games with their (now typical) "everything should be mediocre" design philosophy.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

*waves hand* Ooh! Ooh! I'm playing it, and I love it, especially with the new Character Operations Manual book that just came out. I'd go so far as to say it's my current favorite TTRPG!

[Psyren]

*waves hand* Ooh! Ooh! I'm playing it, and I love it, especially with the new Character Operations Manual book that just came out!

It's out?

*checks*

Oh sweet, it's out, PDF next week - thanks for the heads up!

That's exactly my issue though - that's simply not the case. It is easy for any sort of mook to close to melee without even being shot at. There's no real drawback to crossing an open room, as you can simply charge the standard 60ft, and unless someone burned their turn on a readied action they get into melee 100% unscathed.

So you want some form of opportunity or reaction attack vs. someone charging right? I guess I'm a little confused why that needs to apply here when it didn't apply to bows or guns in 3.5/PF. Certainly it's a technique I wouldn't mind they add via a feat of some kind.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

It's out?

*checks*

Oh sweet, it's out, PDF next week - thanks for the heads up!

I'm subscribed, so I guess mine came early. LOVE some of the new stuff in there, especially since there's stuff that can make your character behave more like one of the old-world classes like Paladin, Barbarian or Monk!

[Anonymouswizard]

Frankly - it's a solid d20 game, but I don't think that they adjusted the melee/ranged dichotomy enough for a sci-fi game. They removed a couple of d20's ranged disadvantages such as the feat taxes for shooting into melee, but it's way to easy to close to melee against guns. It just doesn't feel right to me, though that is of course just opinion.

For modern or sci-fi games, I think that if melee is viable at all, it should be a high risk/reward tactic, and not always viable depending upon the terrain etc. An easy way to do it with d20 bones would just be to slow down movement speed drastically and allow foes with firearms to get off a shot as a reaction when you charge them.

So - basically it's Pathfinder in space. It's solid for what it is, but it doesn't really feel like sci-fi to me.

This, it's solid d20 science fantasy. That's not exactly bad, but in many ways there's not a lot about it that excites me.

To me a big problem is that the d20 structure, especially the way hp/Stamina scales in Starfinder, doesn't gel well with how I see science fiction style battles working (which is closer to rocket tag), and the way equipment scaling works turns me off. Plus if I want science fantasy with a heavy focus on melee I have 40k, and if I want most of what else Starfinder offers I probably have a system that does it closer to how I like it.

Starfinder isn't bad, there's just not a lot about it that I find exciting or worth playing over something else. Particularly GURPS Space, because the way spaceships are built with the latest system is simple and intuitive compared to Starfinder (pick size, slot in twenty systems as front/middle/rear as with two being 'core' systems, use weapon/hp stats for your size).

Personally my go-to systems for sci-fi are Classic Traveller, d6 Space, Paranoia, and recently Dungeons the Dragoning 40k 7e.

My current go-to systems for it are Mongoose Traveller 1e, GURPS Space, Cyberpunk 2020, and WH40kRP. But the first three fall into my like for 'harder' space opera and science fiction, and the latter is 40k.

[Telok]

My current go-to systems for it are Mongoose Traveller 1e, GURPS Space, Cyberpunk 2020, and WH40kRP. But the first three fall into my like for 'harder' space opera and science fiction, and the latter is 40k.

Sounds good. Although I wouldn't classify SF as anything with the word 'science' in it. It's fantasy with science words stuck on it. A sonic stun gun really should not work in vacuum and the magically replenishing nuclear missiles are...

[Anonymouswizard]

Sounds good. Although I wouldn't classify SF as anything with the word 'science' in it. It's fantasy with science words stuck on it. A sonic stun gun really should not work in vacuum and the magically replenishing nuclear missiles are...

Is this 40k? I used SF so it could be read as both Science Fiction and Science Fantasy (which 40k is). I don't play things like d6Space because once I cross the line that stands at about the PEter F. Hamilton level of hardness I either like to go classic (as in 1950s science fiction) or outright science fantasy. It's one of the reasons I prefer 40k to Star Wars.

40k isn't science fiction, but I think it's big enough in gaming to mention, especially in a thread about Starfinder (which is just as blatantly science fantasy).

[Resileaf]

I'm currently running a game myself. Players at level 5 right now. If I have any complaint, it's that most monsters are very meaty. Can take forever to kill something, especially since weapon damage remains rather low until you reach lvl 7-8.

So to make up for it, I've homebrewed minion monsters with a quarter of their normal HP but every other stat is normal. Combat is more fun, can have more enemies present without things being a complete slog. Still looking forward to when the players do real damage.
They really need to learn that they need to stock up on ammo though.

[CharonsHelper]

So you want some form of opportunity or reaction attack vs. someone charging right? I guess I'm a little confused why that needs to apply here when it didn't apply to bows or guns in 3.5/PF. Certainly it's a technique I wouldn't mind they add via a feat of some kind.

That would potentially be one fix, though it'd likely be a rather awkward patch. You could remove charging as an option, to make it difficult to cross open ground and make a melee attack the same turn. Maybe cover stops movement enough that shooting from cover will get you a round firing at close range from someone trying to melee. I'm just spit-balling, and there would probably be other options.

At it's core though, as Anonymouswizard said, I don't think that the d20 bones make for very good sci-fi. Any sort of fix would be a patch on a system meant for fantasy.

And it's not as big of an issue for bows/muskets for several reasons. First of all - those weapons are much slower, so it's not as crazy that you could cover 20 yards before they get off a shot. And even then, ranged weaponry has always been pretty secondary in D&D to melee & casting - so making it feel right wasn't as high of a system priority as making firearms feel right in a sci-fi game should be.

[Anonymouswizard]

That would potentially be one fix, though it'd likely be a rather awkward patch. You could remove charging as an option, to make it difficult to cross open ground and make a melee attack the same turn. Maybe cover stops movement enough that shooting from cover will get you a round firing at close range from someone trying to melee. I'm just spit-balling, and there would probably be other options.

At it's core though, as Anonymouswizard said, I don't think that the d20 bones make for very good sci-fi. Any sort of fix would be a patch on a system meant for fantasy.

And it's not as big of an issue for bows/muskets for several reasons. First of all - those weapons are much slower, so it's not as crazy that you could cover 20 yards before they get off a shot. And even then, ranged weaponry has always been pretty secondary in D&D to melee & casting - so making it feel right wasn't as high of a system priority as making firearms feel right in a sci-fi game should be.

Yeah, this. To get d20 to work as science fiction (let us, for the moment, pretend that science fantasy doesn't exist) you need to rework a lot of the basic assumptions. Technology really rockets up in terms of power and versatility, taking over some but not all of the functions normally associated with magic (particularly long ranged communication), and in some ways being much more reliable.

On that note, once you hit about the 1990s (I think that's when mobile phones started to become widespread) splitting the party becomes practical in every sense bar raw combat power. It can just be better for five people being in five different parts of the city following different leads and checking in with each other every hour or so. (Oh, and Google makes a lot of low level knowledge checks a case of 'do we have a computer', I had one group which made Internet Search a skill).

But anyway, we've inadvertently solved one of the problems with d20, caster/martial imbalance, but we've done it by making a lot of low level and even some mid level utility magic obsolete. Sure we have to worry about Power Cells, but they tend to be cheaper than Spell Slots.

On that note, there was a fairly decent 'd20' Science Fiction system, and it's second edition game out fairly recently. It's called Alternity, and it changed a LOT of basic assumptions about D&D, include IIRC how the basic magic system works (at least it did in 2e). It works, but it works because it's had a lot of changes.

[Psyren]

That would potentially be one fix, though it'd likely be a rather awkward patch. You could remove charging as an option, to make it difficult to cross open ground and make a melee attack the same turn. Maybe cover stops movement enough that shooting from cover will get you a round firing at close range from someone trying to melee. I'm just spit-balling, and there would probably be other options.

You already can't charge someone in cover, so problem solved.

And it's not as big of an issue for bows/muskets for several reasons. First of all - those weapons are much slower, so it's not as crazy that you could cover 20 yards before they get off a shot. And even then, ranged weaponry has always been pretty secondary in D&D to melee & casting - so making it feel right wasn't as high of a system priority as making firearms feel right in a sci-fi game should be.

Both D&D/PF have modern and even technological firearms too, it's not just "bows and muskets."

[CharonsHelper]

You already can't charge someone in cover, so problem solved.

I must of missed that rule. (can't find it with a cursory search either - not that that means it doesn't exist) However, even if that you can still make a full movement and attack - which is still pretty a pretty long range movement on most battlefields.

Both D&D/PF have modern and even technological firearms too, it's not just "bows and muskets."

But they rarely see play - so the system obviously shouldn't be based around them. In Starfinder they're a core aspect of the game.

Various TTRPG systems do different things well. Pathfinder not doing modern firearms well is fine even if they technically exist as they're extremely rare (and I don't think they exist in default Golarion). Starfinder SHOULD do them well - and it still doesn't - which is a problem.

[Telok]

Starfinder SHOULD do them well - and it still doesn't - which is a problem.

I think it may be more that they succeeded with their math goals, which don't match your expectations. The math on attacks, damage, defenses, and skills has formulas behind it that people worked out. It comes down to things like assuming a 60% base hit rate, maxxed attack stats, gear by the WBL chart, always starting at full health, etc. etc., all equals about eight attacks for a pc to take down a CR npc or twelve attacks foe the npc to take down a pc.

They succeeded on their math goals, if you follow their play style and assumptions. But if you do something like think that grenades ought to be dangerous, or that shooting someone with a machine gun on full auto at close range should do more damage than two small caliber pistol shots, or that creatures can't use wings to fly in vacuum, or that nuclear weapons are dangerous... well SF just won't align with your expectations.

[Aotrs Commander]

We're playing it at the moment - the newest player to our group is so keen, he want out and bought it to run for us (he's still a relaively new DM, and we're a big group). Gives me a break from DMing! (Heck, couldn't of done all the rules-smithing I did of late without it...)

It's fine, mechanically.

As Psyren may remember, I am not particularly impressed with some of the design decision they made, (but then I'm the sort of person who nit-picks rules design and spends literally hundreds of hours writing more or less his own edition house-rules). I prefer it to 4E, though. 4E was mechanically a a fine system that did the job it was designed to very well, it was just the job it was deigned to do and what I want out of a system are not the twain. SF is at least in the right direction. (And I'll happily play 4E, just not run it; I'll play almost anything as a break from DMing...)

Bit underwhelmed by the class choices when compared to PF at the moment, that expansion can't come soon enough. (Since with seven of us in the party, we've already used all but one of the starting character classes...)

Think it could have used a bit more proofing though.

The stealth and awareness levels are the most HORRIBLY broken part, though, compounding where PF didn't do a great job adapting invisibilty from 3.5 where spot/listen were seperate and then leaving out the bit in PF about non-visual location and thus making it functionally IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to spot an ambush ever, without a hard counter. I can sort of understand what they were trying to do, but it's mechanically ridiculous.

(I.e., Anything you aren't aware of gets a +40 bonus on stealth if it stands still, like you do in an ambush; because 3.5 had that number for creatures that were invisible, so you'd locate them with the DC 20 listen check there, and PF had the same DC listed in the invisibility rules (in and odd place) - but Starfinder... Does not. Meaning any creature that hides gets a +40 bonus for being unseen as it explictly calls it out for 3/4 states of awareness - anything other than "observed" is "unseen" and gets the bonus. And guess what? You need a Perception check to locate something via direct observation.... As I pointed out when we were trying to get our heads around the rules, my first level goblin operative should not be able to effortlessly hide from a 20th level character by hiding behind a bush before he walks around the corner, but then awareness rules suggest that is an actual probability, much less a possibility. (+14 ish Stealth, +40 +10 for Take 10 brings you to +64...)

The other issue is that the hidden character doesn't get an penalties on their Perception checks, as they really should if you doing it right, but we are then talking at a level of observation and detection that is at the geekiest end of wargaming, rather than RPG writing, so that';s perhaps an understandable omission, since even I had to have that pointed out to me...)



But yeah, my inevitable niggles aside (I mean, I tend only to make more of a deal of this stuff when I'm not in a position to just go "nope, that's dumb, I'mma change it...), it's fine.

I'm looking forward to level 5 (we've just hit 3) and being able to take Climbing Master and get as ridiculous a Climb speed as my land speed is going to be - yes, I know there's an operative exploit that gives you both swim and climb, but sod that, it explictly calls out you can't use operative speed boost on it, so I'mma take the feat(s) that don't and then they will never get that Goblin on the ground again! (I'm aiming to get to about 85'/round at about level 13 or so, which is pretty much end-game.)

Actually, that rules guff aside, the thing I'm most disappointed in SF is that the APs don't run very high. I so rarely get to play a character (Skrath was the first one I properly had chance to generate for a period of time that saw me start more new parties than characters...) that I would have liked to have got to the 15-17ish level the PF APs go to. (Like nominally, we're still only 2/3 through Rise of the Runelords and 1/3 through Shackled City...!) Some high level modules would be favourite, since no-one, not even me, has time to crank out high-level modules from scratch anymore...



It is with some sense of bemusement that I am half expecting my NEXT character (as the DM is likely going to run more APs in the fullness of time) may well be an engineer that will be very ZIM-inspired, so I might well end up with having two short green characters that talk funny in a row. (Thoguh to be fair, they are likely fairly polar opposite character-wise; Skrath is actually... Trying to be good, y'know? He just doesn't always GET stuff though, at least not until it's explained to him first, but he's a razor-sharp renaissence Goblin, it only needs an explanation of "no, the maternity ward is not like those cafes where they have lunch in boxes on the counter, Skrath" and he's fine...!)

[CharonsHelper]

I think it may be more that they succeeded with their math goals, which don't match your expectations. The math on attacks, damage, defenses, and skills has formulas behind it that people worked out. It comes down to things like assuming a 60% base hit rate, maxxed attack stats, gear by the WBL chart, always starting at full health, etc. etc., all equals about eight attacks for a pc to take down a CR npc or twelve attacks foe the npc to take down a pc.

They succeeded on their math goals, if you follow their play style and assumptions. But if you do something like think that grenades ought to be dangerous, or that shooting someone with a machine gun on full auto at close range should do more damage than two small caliber pistol shots, or that creatures can't use wings to fly in vacuum, or that nuclear weapons are dangerous... well SF just won't align with your expectations.

Sort of. Though I don't think that making melee/ranged feel right for sci-fi is purely a math thing. I just don't think you should be able to close to melee without getting shot at unless you're REALLY close to start. (I've heard the 17ft rule in real life - though that's when the gun's in the holster.)

But - as I said in my first post here "It's solid for what it is, but it doesn't really feel like sci-fi to me.".

[Mechalich]

(let us, for the moment, pretend that science fantasy doesn't exist)

With regard to Starfinder though, it's not even trying to be science fiction, it's very, very clearly a science fantasy. In fact, it's basically just Pathfinder in space with a variant mechanical system and a slight re-skinning.

And that, honestly, is the core problem. The game has no hook. You could already play Pathfinder in space. There are hardly any new locations in the Starfinder core - they all appeared earlier in various Pathfinder supplements. The religious system is just a slight modification on the standard Golarion pantheon, and other parallels go on any on.

Most tables will play any game that a GM throws at them, provided the GM buys the books. Most GMs do not evaluate which game they buy based on mechanics or do so only secondarily. When looking at Starfinder the key question is 'why should I play this space fantasy game over another one?' And as far as I can tell the game offers no good answer to that question. It's extremely generic and doesn't offer anything that you couldn't already do in existing space fantasy universes that the average gaming table it likely to be far more familiar with (like Star Wars and Warhammer 40K).

Starfinder would matter if it had come out attached to some sort of existing space fantasy IP, like StarCraft or Stellaris or Mass Effect or something. I'm sure it could be used to play in any of those universes with only a little alteration, but why would anyone bother? As it stands, the game's just an orphan.

[Psyren]

I must of missed that rule. (can't find it with a cursory search either - not that that means it doesn't exist) However, even if that you can still make a full movement and attack - which is still pretty a pretty long range movement on most battlefields.

It's the same as PF and 3.5 - if there's anything in between you and your opponent you can't charge them, and that includes cover.

And no, you can't full move and attack without a charge, only 30ft. Quite honestly, if your GM is setting all your fights in 30ft. diameter rooms, of course ranged weapons will lose effectiveness.

But they rarely see play - so the system obviously shouldn't be based around them. In Starfinder they're a core aspect of the game.

Various TTRPG systems do different things well. Pathfinder not doing modern firearms well is fine even if they technically exist as they're extremely rare (and I don't think they exist in default Golarion). Starfinder SHOULD do them well - and it still doesn't - which is a problem.

Right, so you should be fighting in larger rooms to take advantage of ranged combat. If you don' t get to, the benefit is diminished, and that's a GM problem.

[Resileaf]

Also charge in Starfinder doesn't give you any bonuses.

[Kane0]

They succeeded on their math goals, if you follow their play style and assumptions. But if you do something like think that grenades ought to be dangerous, or that shooting someone with a machine gun on full auto at close range should do more damage than two small caliber pistol shots, or that creatures can't use wings to fly in vacuum, or that nuclear weapons are dangerous... well SF just won't align with your expectations.

I don’t know why, but this made me laugh and i’m a Battletech fan.