Anybody playing Starfinder?

[Gnaeus]

There, now we can all stop handwringing about autoscaling ships being unrealistic, you have explicit permission for a mismatch between APL and ship tier if your story requires it, since that was needed apparently; enjoy..

That text does nothing for your argument. It merely recognizes that PC actions could put them temporarily at the helm of a garbage scow or an over-tiered ship they can’t pilot. The garbage scow still turns into the millennium falcon for 0 cost at the first inhabited world. Stolen Slave 1 still requires skill checks you can’t make, and creates a big pile of questions about what happens with an over leveled ship. The only thing the text you cited says is that when your PCs are flying the garbage barge you shouldn’t throw equivalent tier encounters at them and blow them out of the sky. That’s good I guess, but it doesn’t fix any previously mentioned problem. A stolen ship is still worth less than its drapes. There’s still no PC involvement. It’s good that you don’t need some kind of CRPG force screen that blocks you from crossing a zone boundary until you are level 8.

[Psyren]

That text does nothing for your argument. It merely recognizes that PC actions could put them temporarily at the helm of a garbage scow or an over-tiered ship they can’t pilot. The garbage scow still turns into the millennium falcon for 0 cost at the first inhabited world.

Nope, the text gives no duration on the mismatch. It can last for as long as the "story reasons" need it to.

[Gnaeus]

Nope, the text gives no duration on the mismatch. It can last for as long as the "story reasons" need it to.

Indeed. The story reason could keep you from ever spending time at any safe inhabited planet. It never says the other clear rules don’t apply. It only says what happens until your ship has its chance to auto upgrade. It isn’t a ship rule. It’s an encounter difficulty setting rule. It’s basically the equivalent to the 3.pf argument that buying magic items isn’t a rule because you could spend an entire campaign without ever entering a settlement big enough to buy stuff.

[Psyren]

Indeed. The story reason could keep you from ever spending time at any safe inhabited planet.

It doesn't mention safe inhabited planets at all. You could have a story reason that applies even after you get to one.

It never says the other clear rules don’t apply.

This is a specific exception to the general (APL) rule. It even cites that general rule.

[Gnaeus]

It doesn't mention safe inhabited planets at all. You could have a story reason that applies even after you get to one.

This is a specific exception to the general (APL) rule. It even cites that general rule.

But it doesn’t overrule it in any way. It confirms it. A story reason can keep you from inhabited planets. It can keep you from having 1d4 months or even 1d4 days to spend. ALL this rule says is that if you have a non-functional ship the DM adjusts encounter level.

It’s like saying that you can’t buy items under the rules in 3.pf because campaign reasons could keep you from ever entering a settlement. That’s unquestionably true. It doesn’t change the rules about how buying items works.

[Psyren]

But it doesn’t overrule it in any way. It confirms it. A story reason can keep you from inhabited planets. It can keep you from having 1d4 months or even 1d4 days to spend. ALL this rule says is that if you have a non-functional ship the DM adjusts encounter level.

It’s like saying that you can’t buy items under the rules in 3.pf because campaign reasons could keep you from ever entering a settlement. That’s unquestionably true. It doesn’t change the rules about how buying items works.

"Stopping you from reaching a settlement/planet" is not the only story reason that could exist. The passage doesn't say that, you're inventing words that aren't there.

[Telok]

Starship & AP issues.

At apl 6, for 155 points you can take an explorer frame, give it basic sensors & drift, the max medium ship pcu (300), the max 600 shields, and upgrade the turret to twin linked... particle cannons? (Heavy long range 8d6 guns). The ship can't do much else, but you win combat against all the published AP ships of 'appropriate' level.

If your DM doesn't like that space is big and refuses to let you hang out at 37 hex range while hammering with long range weapons you can swap in heavy antimatter missiles instead. You get a few points to spend on backup guns, race in to 8 hexes or closer, and get 5 shots of 20d10 damage to slaughter enemy ships with. As a bonus the missiles magically regenerate between fights.

I'm not sure that you can effectively put the PCs in an over-level ship. A +4 level ship jacks the DCs up by 6 to 8 points. Even a totally skill & stat maxxed character only runs 70% success on even level ship checks, they'd drop to 40% or 30% success. Non-optimised characters can easily end up at 10% or 15%. That pretty much makes it so that the only dice rolls that matter will be pilot initative and gunnery checks. Anyone who isn't shooting can just read a book for a while.

You could run the party with an under-level ship. Then at least the actions that require resolve don't seem like such a waste of time. But you can't run an AP that way unless the party has a ball-of-death ship or you rewrite all the AP space combat ships from scratch. The APs are based on the party having an equal level ship, under level non-op pc ships get crushed (yes, I've played with that group).

[Gnaeus]

"Stopping you from reaching a settlement/planet" is not the only story reason that could exist. The passage doesn't say that, you're inventing words that aren't there.

On the contrary, you are trying to make vague rules text on a totally different topic overrule clear rules text. The rules give 2 circumstances which prevent you from upgrading your ship. No safe port. Not enough time. And the rule you cite actually says nothing about upgrading your ship. Only that sometimes you could be in a higher/lower tier ship. Which is obvious from the section on ship upgrades. When you acquire an existing ship it stays like it is until you use the ship upgrade rules to change that.

Starship & AP issues.

You could run the party with an under-level ship. Then at least the actions that require resolve don't seem like such a waste of time. But you can't run an AP that way unless the party has a ball-of-death ship or you rewrite all the AP space combat ships from scratch. The APs are based on the party having an equal level ship, under level non-op pc ships get crushed (yes, I've played with that group).

But in fact you can, because of that rule Psyren cited. It doesn’t alter the existing bad ship rules in any way. What it does say is that if the PCs find themselves in an over/under leveled ship (often (but not necessarily) due to the story), the DM is supposed to modify encounter difficulties to adjust for what you are flying. So drive that garbage scow like you stole it. You could, per the rules, upgrade it to your APL. But you could also drive the garbage scow and fight enemies adjusted to the power level of the garbage scow, and since space battles give no rewards anyway, you are golden. Maybe just upgrade it to tier 2, for a holodeck and better living quarters.

[Psyren]

On the contrary, you are trying to make vague rules text on a totally different topic overrule clear rules text.

Which clear rules text states that the only story circumstance is that which keeps you from an inhabited planet?

[Milo v3]

Nothing for us to do here then but agree to disagree. The default is the default, you have explicit permission to change it if you see fit, I'm happy with it and you're not... there's literally nothing else to say.

Then why even respond to the point earlier if you're view is that it is a topic not worth discussing to begin with @_@

[Psyren]

Then why even respond to the point earlier if you're view is that it is a topic not worth discussing to begin with @_@

I did discuss it. Discussions end, you know.

[Korwin]

Out of curiosity, what is the motivation behind an higher tier ship being harder to use?

[Milo v3]

Out of curiosity, what is the motivation behind an higher tier ship being harder to use?

Because they needed to somehow apply a DC to what you're doing when not all actions will have direct competition. "Redirecting power of your ship", isn't something that will incorporate external actors so you have to have the DCs coming from something internal if you want "Redirecting the power of your ship" to have a check.

[Anonymouswizard]

Out of curiosity, what is the motivation behind an higher tier ship being harder to use?

BEcause they couldn't think of anything new for you to do.

Because they needed to somehow apply a DC to what you're doing when not all actions will have direct competition. "Redirecting power of your ship", isn't something that will incorporate external actors so you have to have the DCs coming from something internal if you want "Redirecting the power of your ship" to have a check.

Honest question, why does that need a roll? Considering how automated these ships probably are (humanity in this universe has made both biological and digital AGI) redirecting power really should be a case of which bonus you want. IMO it would honestly be more interesting if my character just had to juggle PCU between systems, deciding what doesn't need to be on so important things can get a boost.

Then again, I'm also trying to rewrite the starship rules to be more realistic. I'm torn between keeping the reactionless engines currently used and switching to reaction engines and remass reserves.

[Morty]

If nothing else, I have to give Starfinder credit for having one of the D&D franchise's three attempts at having a skilled character who's not a rogue, next to Factotum and Investigator. Sadly, from what I hear it's not a very good attempt at one.

[Milo v3]

Looks like the July release for starfinder is going to be the Starship Operations Manual... Which so far sounds nearly entirely focused on starship combat, with some flavour on starship manufacturers.... Looks like we're not getting an options focused SF book all of next year outside of Alien Archives 4 having a player-option tied to each monster as usual.

Honest question, why does that need a roll?

I guess they wanted everyone to have dice to roll regardless of their roles in starship combat so that characters attributes matter in some way.

Then again, I'm also trying to rewrite the starship rules to be more realistic. I'm torn between keeping the reactionless engines currently used and switching to reaction engines and remass reserves.

Eh. I'd rather the starship rules to be rewritten into something more Fun and less painful to use rather than realism in a game that is sci-fi fantasy.

[Resileaf]

Looks like the July release for starfinder is going to be the Starship Operations Manual... Which so far sounds nearly entirely focused on starship combat, with some flavour on starship manufacturers.... Looks like we're not getting an options focused SF book all of next year outside of Alien Archives 4 having a player-option tied to each monster as usual.

I certainly wouldn't complain to a book to make space combat more fun and involved.

[Psyren]

Looks like the July release for starfinder is going to be the Starship Operations Manual... Which so far sounds nearly entirely focused on starship combat, with some flavour on starship manufacturers.... Looks like we're not getting an options focused SF book all of next year outside of Alien Archives 4 having a player-option tied to each monster as usual.

They might flesh out another subsystem too. AA1 had the rules for summoning for example, while AA2 had the rules for shapeshifting IIRC

[Telok]

I certainly wouldn't complain to a book to make space combat more fun and involved.

Just clearing up the rules surrounding npc crew, radiation weapons, ramming, boarding, etc., etc., would help a lot. Plus fixing some numbers like where the vehicles and spaceships overlap, or having a thumbprint scanner on the doors cost as much as a nuclear missile launcher and infinite missiles.

I wonder if part of the problem is that npcs are generally better as skills than pcs. The math on npc skills is what? 4+(1.5*level) for the bad skills and another +5 for the good skills? Did I remember that right? Which means the npcs good skill is equal to... about a max skill pc three levels higher?

That doesn't sound good. It means all npcs are always better at space rolls than pcs even if the npcs and their ship are two levels lower.

[Anonymouswizard]

Looks like the July release for starfinder is going to be the Starship Operations Manual... Which so far sounds nearly entirely focused on starship combat, with some flavour on starship manufacturers.... Looks like we're not getting an options focused SF book all of next year outside of Alien Archives 4 having a player-option tied to each monster as usual.

That reminds me, I need to get the Character Operations Manual.

I think part of Starfinder's problem is focusing on races other other options. The corebook along has 14 races in total, and we have three books dedicated towards more races. It's great that we have so many options there, but I think the focus should be put somewhere else for a while. (Note: I don't own any of the AA books because I'm not interested in them, maybe I should change that.)

I guess they wanted everyone to have dice to roll regardless of their roles in starship combat so that characters attributes matter in some way.

Eh, I'm not one of those people who thinks that Attributes should matter so much for space combat.

Eh. I'd rather the starship rules to be rewritten into something more Fun and less painful to use rather than realism in a game that is sci-fi fantasy.

Eh, I get that some people might not want more realistic rules. However I do, and I have friends who'd enjoy more realistic rules, and so that's why I'm doing it. I'm doing it because, for this group, accelerating in Gs and dealing with real world physics is actually fun (considering the group consists of four engineers, most of us know this stuff already).

[Milo v3]

I certainly wouldn't complain to a book to make space combat more fun and involved.

Except there is no signs it's overhauling the space combat system rather than just expanding it. So it's unlikely to make it more fun, and my group didn't want it more involved than it already was given how annoying it is to have to go through every phase as a GM for every single ship. While each player effectively has to deal with a single-action turn, the GM has to deal with 1 single-action turn per starship-role that can fit per ship.

They might flesh out another subsystem too. AA1 had the rules for summoning for example, while AA2 had the rules for shapeshifting IIRC

Yeah I'm very curious what subsystem they might touch on in the appendix. 1 was summoning, 2 was shapeshifting, 3 was monster companions. 4 could do cohort/robot-minion/undead-creation type stuff, or it could expand on one of the previous systems like making it so you can summon two creatures of the same theme without them needing to be 100% mechanically identical.

Just clearing up the rules surrounding npc crew, radiation weapons, ramming, boarding, etc., etc., would help a lot. Plus fixing some numbers like where the vehicles and spaceships overlap, or having a thumbprint scanner on the doors cost as much as a nuclear missile launcher and infinite missiles.

There has been no mention about cleaning up the rules so far, seems like they're adding content rather than revising it.

I wonder if part of the problem is that npcs are generally better as skills than pcs. The math on npc skills is what? 4+(1.5*level) for the bad skills and another +5 for the good skills? Did I remember that right? Which means the npcs good skill is equal to... about a max skill pc three levels higher?

Master is 9+1.5*ranks, and good is 4+1.5*ranks yeah.

Which means a master needs to only roll a 1 to succeed every roll, and a good NPC only needs a 6 or higher to succeed on every roll. Since the DCs of starship combat are 10+1.5*tier.

That reminds me, I need to get the Character Operations Manual.

It's a really neat book.

[

I think part of Starfinder's problem is focusing on races other other options. The corebook along has 14 races in total, and we have three books dedicated towards more races. It's great that we have so many options there, but I think the focus should be put somewhere else for a while. (Note: I don't own any of the AA books because I'm not interested in them, maybe I should change that.)

Playing without monster rules sounds weird to me.

Eh, I'm not one of those people who thinks that Attributes should matter so much for space combat.

I can see it so you feel like your character should be the pilot because you're the best in the party at your role. Which would be lost if anyone in the starship is 100% equal to the others at the starship role.

[Telok]

Ok so I've checked some math at levels 5, 10, and 15. A character that starts with an 18 in a stat, always raises the stat, puts the best enhancement on that stat asap, and invests full ranks into a class skill with an insight bonus is always 1 point behind an equal level npc's good skills. If you take a starting 14 stat, always raise it, put your second best enhancement in that stat and put full ranks into a class skill but don't get an insight bonus it runs 3 to 6 points behind the better skill. So two better than the npc bad skill at level 5 but one worse by level 15. Interestingly having a 16 in the stat is only a +/- 1 at half the levels compared to the 18 and 14. The class insight bonus and stat booster completely eclipse the starting stat difference.

So if you can get a racial and theme bonus to a class skill with the class insight bonus, and keep the stat totally maxxed, you can sometimes have a +1 bonus over an equal level npc.

Because the base spaceship DC is 15 + L*1.5 and npc skills are (9 or 4) + L*1.5 the npcs succeed at the base spaceship tasks on a 6+ or 75% for their good skills and 11+ or 50% for their bad skills. That holds true at all levels, unlike pcs who have dips and bumps because their non-skill rank boosts aren't evenly distributed.

So a pc who is totally invested in a skill & stat can get to the 6+ success rate on basic starship tasks. If the pc went melee, is a soldier, solarian, or mystic (unless a max dex pilot mystic), then you're probably at a 50% to 60% success rate for the basic tasks. But there are DC 20 + L*1.5 tasks and ones that use resource points. The maxxed out pc has a 50% chance at those while anyone else is happy to have a 35% chance to not throw away their turn.

I think the assumption is that the pcs are going to get lots of stacking bonuses from the ship computer and aid another checks before even attempting anything beyond the basic tasks, and they'll still fail them regularly. This would explain why all the spaceship fights have been so boring if you aren't the pilot or shooting the guns. With a small (less than 6 pcs) party, a focus on surviving personal combat (dex & con priorities for everyone), and nothing telling you that the ship computer bonuses are critical to not being bored, nobody in my groups has ever had high enough bonuses to make anything but the most basic checks worth while.

[Beldar]

I wanted to weigh-in on Starfinder.
I've played it since it was released, in two different gaming groups (though one gave up on it after 4 months).

I've been playing RPG's for 38 years now, have tried scores of systems, and can say without hesitation that Starfinder is the worst, due mainly to being incomplete.
They released it before it was ready - before it was even done.
For example, there are sentences in the manual that trail off to nothing, neither making a point nor finishing.

There are many instances of unfinished work, in addition to plenty that was clearly never playtested, since it works so poorly.
Every time we play, there is abundant complaining about the game system.
We keep playing from a sick sense of fascination - will they ever fix it, and because nobody else can dm the group right now except the guy that has already read the StarFinder modules.

And they seem uninterested in fixing it.

TL;DR play *any* other game system - you'll have more fun. This does not deliver on its promises.

[Milo v3]

For example, there are sentences in the manual that trail off to nothing, neither making a point nor finishing.

Huh?

There are many instances of unfinished work, in addition to plenty that was clearly never playtested, since it works so poorly.

Only things I can think of off the top of my head that weren't playtested enough was probably solarian (since it was originally designed for the game having a different ability score system which had MAD less of an issue), starship combat, and maybe the hacking subsystem.

[Telok]

SF guns don't have sights. It costs 1000 credits to add basic iron sights to a gun.

Your best option for elephant wrestling is a small six armed fuzzy with a garotte who auto-pins if he beats the elephant's KAC by 5.

Grenades do less damage the farther you throw them.

Vehicles are about as tough as people, but stop working at 1/2 hit points.

After 10th level a backpack with 30 healing potions is normal and costs pocket change.

Full auto weapons are a joke.

[Milo v3]

SF guns don't have sights. It costs 1000 credits to add basic iron sights to a gun.

Incorrect, the flavour of the Sights accessory specifically states that it's to represent sights beyond the common sights that are innately in your weapon.

Your best option for elephant wrestling is a small six armed fuzzy with a garotte who auto-pins if he beats the elephant's KAC by 5.

Oh no, you're not screwed over from playing a grappling character just because of your size which would otherwise make large races the only viable grapplers. How awful.

Grenades do less damage the farther you throw them.

No idea what you mean by this. Grenades damage is set at the value assigned to it's Explode trait.

Vehicles are about as tough as people, but stop working at 1/2 hit points.

At 1/2 hit points they take penalties and halve their speed, they work but they're broken so they don't work as effectively. All objects gain the broken condition at half hit points.

After 10th level a backpack with 30 healing potions is normal and costs pocket change.

Yes, healing is very easy to get. Not as severe as wands of cure light wounds, but still present to a degree. Slightly less of an issue since healing serums normally cannot heal stamina at all.

Full auto weapons are a joke.

Full Auto-Weapons should probably only use up two or three ammo per target rather than the ridiculous "always uses up the remaining clip". But I wouldn't say it's a joke. More Normal Attacks and Full-Attacks is meant to represent controlled firing, while full-automatic is for when you need to take out ten to twenty enemies, which is frustratingly very uncommon in pre-made encounters.

[Alexvrahr]

But there are DC 20 + L*1.5 tasks

Depends on the role. I played a technomancer with Computers +27 (10R, Int +7, Class +3, datajack +2, techlore +3, race +2) in a one-shot and was frustrated to find that on a tier 10 ship the highest DC for a science officer was 25. Enemy ship DCs might be a little higher but not enough to make a difference.

And on the other hand my +20 engineering wasn't good enough to be actually good at anything interesting. And my spells did nothing in starship combat, so...boring.

[Telok]

Depends on the role. I played a technomancer with Computers +27 (10R, Int +7, Class +3, datajack +2, techlore +3, race +2) in a one-shot and was frustrated to find that on a tier 10 ship the highest DC for a science officer was 25. Enemy ship DCs might be a little higher but not enough to make a difference.

And on the other hand my +20 engineering wasn't good enough to be actually good at anything interesting. And my spells did nothing in starship combat, so...boring.

Yeah, thats about right for going all in on a skill, you need about 7+ for the dc 35 which is about what an npc needs. When I did a technomancer it was in an AP with a 'time limit', a DM who didn't understand absolute adherence to the WBL chart, and lots of solo monster fights at cr+4 making dex & con higher priorities because saving throw spells were useless. So no jack or race bonus, and only a +4 stat. Going on a +20 vs. dc 35 gives less than 1 in 3 success and only 50/50 on the standard rolls.

Thats primary Int casters too. Melee mechanics and operatives will also be lower, but at least they aren't stuck as 'can only gunner' like soldiers or solarians are. Although I haven't seen the new book and the rules for using athletics in spaceship combat. No idea how that works.

[Gnaeus]

Depends on the role. I played a technomancer with Computers +27 (10R, Int +7, Class +3, datajack +2, techlore +3, race +2) in a one-shot and was frustrated to find that on a tier 10 ship the highest DC for a science officer was 25. Enemy ship DCs might be a little higher but not enough to make a difference.

And on the other hand my +20 engineering wasn't good enough to be actually good at anything interesting. And my spells did nothing in starship combat, so...boring.

There’s also the fact that some of those die rolls have minimal impact on combat. Like “the combat has gone for another half hour. I’ve made a sandwich and am playing Mario. The team shouts it is my turn, so I walk to the table and roll my d20 to divert power to weapons for the 4th time and depending on whether I roll above a 6 the gunner may do +2 damage on his 8d4 roll and now I’m back to my sandwich until they shout at me again.