Official Starfinder RPG Bug Report Thread

Slight difference in weapon configuration causes different damage results.

See weapons configured with 'C,S' and 'S,C' damage type, against a 'DR: 5 cold iron' npc..

You can see 'C,S' weapon does the full 8 damage as the 'cold' weapon bypasses the DR..

But the 'S,C', ends up with 'partially resisted' in both cases... and on the '4+4=8' damage against skreeling 2 does 4 damage instead of 3. (8-5 = 3)

It seems to be that DR is applied to the 'dice' 4-5=0, then the +4 strength is added making 4 damage. ( which looks very odd in this case, and not sure on the exact rules for DR vs the strength bonus part which might be classed as 'non type' ? )

The weapons correctly convert to 'TYPE: cold, slashing' and 'TYPE: slashing, cold' so you would expect the order not to matter.

I've attached jpg and campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bratch9

Slight difference in weapon configuration causes different damage results.

See weapons configured with 'C,S' and 'S,C' damage type, against a 'DR: 5 cold iron' npc..

You can see 'C,S' weapon does the full 8 damage as the 'cold' weapon bypasses the DR..

But the 'S,C', ends up with 'partially resisted' in both cases... and on the '4+4=8' damage against skreeling 2 does 4 damage instead of 3. (8-5 = 3)

It seems to be that DR is applied to the 'dice' 4-5=0, then the +4 strength is added making 4 damage. ( which looks very odd in this case, and not sure on the exact rules for DR vs the strength bonus part which might be classed as 'non type' ? )

The weapons correctly convert to 'TYPE: cold, slashing' and 'TYPE: slashing, cold' so you would expect the order not to matter.

I've attached jpg and campaign.

---

Since I already looked quite a bit into this. SFRPG isn't handeling Damage Reduction and Resistances right, as soon as you have more than one damage type. I don't want to go into too much detail since I myself don't have enough information to dicuss this propperly, yet.
First a few tips for you:
Damage of multiple types is meant to be split up into its components equally. So an Attack that deals 16 cold and slashing damage, effectively deals 8 cold and 8 slashing damage. Order does indeed not matter here (rulewise).
All of the attacks damage get's split up after all the dice have been rolled and modifiers have been added. So the strength bonus has no significant impact on this.
DR X/cold iron doesn't have anything to do with the 'cold' damage type. It's a different descriptor that is used by weapons that are made out of cold iron to overcome damage reduction. Anyway FG treats it as damage type. This causes much more problems than it fixes. I highly recommend to always use 'DR: X' without any additional descriptor until someone has a chance to look at this part of the code to, in all honesty, completly rework it.
For your examples specifically. Let's start with Skreeling 2 & 3, since they are easier.
Skreeling 2: Incomming damage 8 S, C -> 4 S, 4 C -> 4 slashing gets reduced to 0 because of the DR and 4 cold stays like it should. Result 4 damage is correct.
Skreeling 3: Incomming damage 16 S, C -> 8 S, 8 C -> 8 slashing get's reduced to 3 because of the DR and 8 cold doesn't get reduced. Result 11 damage is correct.
Skreeling 1 is a good example of where stuff went wrong. This is what I think happend, because I looked into this. I don't know this for certain.
Incomming damage 8 C, S -> 4 C, 4 S -> get's split into 4 C and 4 S, yet FG only checks the first half of the damage for reductions so 4 C doesn't get reduced like it should and 4 S isn't considdered at all. Result is 8 damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evolivolution

Since I already looked quite a bit into this. SFRPG isn't handeling Damage Reduction and Resistances right, as soon as you have more than one damage type. I don't want to go into too much detail since I myself don't have enough information to dicuss this propperly, yet.
First a few tips for you:
Damage of multiple types is meant to be split up into its components equally. So an Attack that deals 16 cold and slashing damage, effectively deals 8 cold and 8 slashing damage. Order does indeed not matter here (rulewise).
All of the attacks damage get's split up after all the dice have been rolled and modifiers have been added. So the strength bonus has no significant impact on this.
DR X/cold iron doesn't have anything to do with the 'cold' damage type. It's a different descriptor that is used by weapons that are made out of cold iron to overcome damage reduction. Anyway FG treats it as damage type. This causes much more problems than it fixes. I highly recommend to always use 'DR: X' without any additional descriptor until someone has a chance to look at this part of the code to, in all honesty, completly rework it.
For your examples specifically. Let's start with Skreeling 2 & 3, since they are easier.
Skreeling 2: Incomming damage 8 S, C -> 4 S, 4 C -> 4 slashing gets reduced to 0 because of the DR and 4 cold stays like it should. Result 4 damage is correct.
Skreeling 3: Incomming damage 16 S, C -> 8 S, 8 C -> 8 slashing get's reduced to 3 because of the DR and 8 cold doesn't get reduced. Result 11 damage is correct.
Skreeling 1 is a good example of where stuff went wrong. This is what I think happend, because I looked into this. I don't know this for certain.
Incomming damage 8 C, S -> 4 C, 4 S -> get's split into 4 C and 4 S, yet FG only checks the first half of the damage for reductions so 4 C doesn't get reduced like it should and 4 S isn't considdered at all. Result is 8 damage.

---

I agree the damage is wrong, but I think the fact that it generates 'cold' damage and 'dr:5 cold iron' has 'cold' in it also allows it to match which is why the first case passes..

I think 'cold' with any gap to 'iron', should be internally closed to 'coldiron' so single word for damage type matching, as this is the only one with a gap, so it does not then match against 'cold' etc.

And it gets worse when you consider damage rolled into chat, and the used of 'double' or 'half' on the chat menu for a damage... because it stacks the extra for double or reduced amount for half into the first type only. So '6(1d8) slashing + 9(1d10) force = 15' doubles in the chat to '21 slashing + 9 force' which when passed to resist/immune/vun and also DR, would also end up with very wrong values.

You could also say, what is '+4' from a modifier like str/dex, is this 'un-typed' damage... ie 1d6 slashing + 4 un-typed ? or 1d6+4 slashing..

It could also be considered, 4 C + 4 S damage as neither been above the DR:5 so each set of damage is reduced to zero by DR:5, total zero damage. ( That would be unfair on players !! )

And what happens with both DR and resist in play, say with 10(1d12) slashing, against 'DR:5 slashing, resist: slashing', do you take 10/2=5 - 5 = 0 damage [ resist/dr ] or 10-5=5/2 = 2 damage [dr/resist]

Its a very very complex issue, not just in the SF ruleset but I think its got issues on many rulesets with the mix of multiple lines of damage with optional multiple types of damage a line, and different resists/vun/imm/dr structures in play.

I can understand why it gets calculated wrong.

So i join with you and hope that damage gets a re-write.

What I'd like to see is a more common 'calculation' in coreRPG ruleset for these, a more standard call. Maybe with tables that translate the 'word(s)' versions of damage into unique 'letter/single word', so that a system given a bunch of types for damage and a mix bag of multiple resists/vun/imm/dr gets a consistent calculation. ( While this might cause some issue with ruleset wording, im not sure. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bratch9

I agree the damage is wrong, but I think the fact that it generates 'cold' damage and 'dr:5 cold iron' has 'cold' in it also allows it to match which is why the first case passes..
I think 'cold' with any gap to 'iron', should be internally closed to 'coldiron' so single word for damage type matching, as this is the only one with a gap, so it does not then match against 'cold' etc.

---

It's definetly not the wording of the DR: X cold iron that's causing it. You can test the same thing with DR: X and C, S damage and it'll work the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bratch9

And it gets worse when you consider damage rolled into chat, and the used of 'double' or 'half' on the chat menu for a damage... because it stacks the extra for double or reduced amount for half into the first type only. So '6(1d8) slashing + 9(1d10) force = 15' doubles in the chat to '21 slashing + 9 force' which when passed to resist/immune/vun and also DR, would also end up with very wrong values.

---

The usage of the 'double' and 'half' funtions that you get when right clicking on chat, don't have any impact on the damage rolled, since it's done after the damage has already been applied. If you want to modify the damage done you'd need to use the modifiers presented in the modifiers window (Critical and Half). They work as intended from my knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bratch9

You could also say, what is '+4' from a modifier like str/dex, is this 'un-typed' damage... ie 1d6 slashing + 4 un-typed ? or 1d6+4 slashing..
It could also be considered, 4 C + 4 S damage as neither been above the DR:5 so each set of damage is reduced to zero by DR:5, total zero damage. ( That would be unfair on players !! )

---

It's definetly 1d6+4 slashing, that's how the rules define it and also how FG works with the values. Also neighter of those are how it works, nor how it should work, so I don't see a reason for those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bratch9

And what happens with both DR and resist in play, say with 10(1d12) slashing, against 'DR:5 slashing, resist: slashing', do you take 10/2=5 - 5 = 0 damage [ resist/dr ] or 10-5=5/2 = 2 damage [dr/resist]

---

Your example would work perfectly fine since its only one damage type. FG applies both effects and reduces the damage to 0, like it should. The problems start when you have multiple damage types, like I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bratch9

Its a very very complex issue, not just in the SF ruleset but I think its got issues on many rulesets with the mix of multiple lines of damage with optional multiple types of damage a line, and different resists/vun/imm/dr structures in play.
I can understand why it gets calculated wrong.
So i join with you and hope that damage gets a re-write.
What I'd like to see is a more common 'calculation' in coreRPG ruleset for these, a more standard call. Maybe with tables that translate the 'word(s)' versions of damage into unique 'letter/single word', so that a system given a bunch of types for damage and a mix bag of multiple resists/vun/imm/dr gets a consistent calculation. ( While this might cause some issue with ruleset wording, im not sure. )

---

I'm working on a pretty lengthy bug report for this. It takes a lot of research to get everything right tough, since there is a lot of stuff going on in the background.
I do have some pretty specific ideas on how to remake the system. But since the ruleset is currently in maintainance mode there isn't really a developer who will be doing it anyway.

BUG found (this will not be an easy fix): Operative 3/Biohacker 1 (WIS). Selected Athletics and Acrobatics for Free Skills for Operative, correctly shows 3 free ranks at level 3 (Operative 3). Added a level of Biohacker (WIS), and selected Life Science and Medicine as Free Skills for Scientific Method (Instinctive), but it shows 3 free ranks for those 2 skills when it should show 1. Does not go up unless I change Operative level.

Ideally, the sheet would know which skills were selected as free skills for each class and rank them up correctly based on the class level of the class that selected them. Alternately (easiest fix), allow this to be changed by the player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evolivolution

The problems start when you have multiple damage types, like I said.

I'm working on a pretty lengthy bug report for this. It takes a lot of research to get everything right tough, since there is a lot of stuff going on in the background.
I do have some pretty specific ideas on how to remake the system. But since the ruleset is currently in maintainance mode there isn't really a developer who will be doing it anyway.

---

I feel fixing rule calculations from the Starfinder Core Rule Book is maintenance. I reviewed the scripts for damage and I could see what looks like the code to fix the problem. MY understanding is the original Dev copy pasted code from other rulesets so the calculation might need to be tweaked. I saw one section of damage code that was based on an a 10 year old post on RPGStackexchange for calculating Paladin smite damage. Keep up your efforts. I have seen superteddy57 comment that specific solution allow him to fix these things faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bratch9

Slight difference in weapon configuration causes different damage results.

See weapons configured with 'C,S' and 'S,C' damage type, against a 'DR: 5 cold iron' npc..

You can see 'C,S' weapon does the full 8 damage as the 'cold' weapon bypasses the DR..

But the 'S,C', ends up with 'partially resisted' in both cases... and on the '4+4=8' damage against skreeling 2 does 4 damage instead of 3. (8-5 = 3)

It seems to be that DR is applied to the 'dice' 4-5=0, then the +4 strength is added making 4 damage. ( which looks very odd in this case, and not sure on the exact rules for DR vs the strength bonus part which might be classed as 'non type' ? )

The weapons correctly convert to 'TYPE: cold, slashing' and 'TYPE: slashing, cold' so you would expect the order not to matter.

I've attached jpg and campaign.

---

At the moment, I am working through adding the SOM features to the ruleset. Once those are finished I will be looking at cleaning up the effects/attacks/damage code to ensure things are working correctly. The main issue I am tackling at the moment is the clean up of the base core rules for ships along with SOM. This has made the project a lot more lengthy than I planned. So please keep reporting issues as I will notate them for a look.

What is this error? This happens every time when I start FGU and open any character sheet.
Attachment 45316

These grenades show up strange too .
Attachment 45317

More Skill rank stuff:
While the function that enables Classes to benefit from Free Skill Ranks has been updated to include the Biohacker, a function that displays part of the information related to free skill ranks has not been updated.
Attachment 45319 both of these characters are human Scholars, with 13 INT and 10 in every other stat. The only difference is the Class.
I'm not sure about this since I don't really have much experience working with the ruleset code; I think the section of the code that needs to be updated is located in \SFRPG\campaign\scripts\char_skilllist.lua line 55 and following.