Android

Shaudius's page

Goblin Squad Member. Starfinder Charter Superscriber. Starfinder Society GM. 470 posts (577 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 39 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 470 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

While this isn't the SFS forum, in SFS my general rule as a GM has been that if a success condition or credit condition (i.e. you lose credits if you fail to do a certain thing) I do not allow take 10, all other times outside of combat I will pretty much allow it.

Not to get into too big of spoiler territory but this covers situations like in one of the scenarios where you have a series of 6 checks, you're not particularly stressed although you are trying to impress someone, the DCs of these checks are in the low teens, it doesn't make sense story wise to allow people to take 10 there because it would be auto-success at one of the key success conditions for the scenario (its not the whole success condition but its one of those PCs must succeed at 2 of these 3 things with that being of them) so I do not allow it.

I think this also makes sense in the skill challenge context. Skill challenges are basically the non-combat equivalent of combat that allows more skill focused versus combat PCs to shine since you cannot take 10 in combat, I think it makes equal sense, and this key element of the story clause allows (although the stressed condition would potentially allow) for the disallowing of take 10 in this context.

I personally see no problem with taking 10 in the context of the opposed disguise/engineering checks in the OP as taking 10 in this context is not an auto success and you don't lose credits for triggering the fight where they spot you. Taking 10 does make it a little easier to not get detected because you minimize the problem of one person rolling poorly, but a nat 20 but any of the guards will likely still beat the take 10 even with bonuses.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
VampByDay wrote:


That’s actually pretty clever, but not presented as an option (no rules for the HP of glass, etc) in the scenario.

Still, pretty creative.

I was the GM of this particular table I consider this to fall under the following guidance from the guide,

"Additionally, the GM may consider utilizing terrain and environmental conditions when those effects have been written into the flavor of a scenario but the mechanics that are normally associated with them by the Starfinder Core Rulebook have not been added to the encounters."

The glass has been written into the scenario therefore I consider it to be a piece of terrain. The general rules for glass walls are written on page 408. I adjudicated that the 9 points of damage was enough to break a square of glass as I ruled the glass was not more than 8 inches thick (the amount of glass that would be broken by 9 points of damage based on 1 point of hardness.)

I also considered this under the creative solution section of the guide,

"Sometimes during the course of a scenario, your players might surprise you with a creative solution to an encounter (or the entire scenario) that you didn’t see coming and that isn’t expressly covered in the scenario." While this is generally applicable with regard to rewards, I think it equally applies when talking about problem solving generally.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Arc Riley wrote:
...and I'm not aware of any situation that requires PCs be susceptible to them for the story.

I'm not sure why that's at all relevant, there's practically no situation where you being susceptible to damage would be required for the story that doesn't mean that a creature with natural DR 75/- would be balanced.

If you don't want poison or disease to ever come up, make SROs legal, because such immunity in the player community completely changes the meta of design space.

I mean I've personally experienced it in Dead Suns with GMs specifically disallowing non-humanoid races because of their immunity to something there (although SROs are somehow subject to these effects although with a bonus.)

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Arc Riley wrote:
I think a lot of people are looking forward to Pact Worlds race boons, especially SRO.

I personally hope its never released as a SFS legal race. Immunity to disease and poison is too disruptive when you can't work around it as a GM.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Bush wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Which give its paizo, may be next week, never or in 9 years.
That is unfortunately true.

So maybe in the mean time you should follow the rules as they are clearly laid out and not make up your own house rule that you try to impose on an organized play table.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Bush wrote:

In my estimation, they intended tech items use internal, likely rechargeable, batteries that could not be removed.

But we know specifically they did not. We know this because the rules state as such, they say explicitly that those technological items without a usage listed use internal batteries that can last for practically forever, like you suggest they intended for all technological items, whereas technological items with a usage use batteries from the ammunition chart. Specifically:

Starfinder CRB, pg. 218 wrote:

If an item doesn’t specify a usage, it needs very little power and has an internal battery designed to function for decades or even centuries without recharging. Items with a specified usage use a battery that comes fully charged when purchased. Such batteries can be recharged as normal using generators or recharging stations (see Professional Services on page 234), or they can be replaced (see Table 7–9: Ammunition for battery prices).

SO there it is in black and white, I'm not sure where you think the rules debate is here, there's no support for your proposition that technological items use nonremovable batteries full stop.

Also, I believe the expression you're looking for is FUBAR unless there's some acronym I'm not familiar with.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I have no idea what to do with this one, an Exo-Guardian continuation of a Wayfinder scenario.

The Exchange

Imrijka wrote:

Hand: Light Crossbow,

Displayed:
Deck: 10 Discard: 4 Buried: 0
Notes:
Sideboard cards:

Skills and Powers:
SKILLS

Strength d8[ ]+1 [ ]+2
Dexterity d10 [ ] +1 [ ] +2 [ ] +3 [ ] +4
Ranged: Dexterity +2
Acrobatics: Dexterity +1
Constituion d8 [ ] +1 [ ] +2 [ ] +3
Fortitude: Constituion+3
Intelligence d4 [ ] +1
Wisdom d6 [ ]+1 [ ]+2 [ ]+3
Divine: Wisdom +2
Perception: Wisdom +2
Charisma d6 [ ] +1 [ ] +2

Favored Card: Player's Choice (Blessing or Weapon)
Hand Size 5
Proficient with: Light armor, weapons
Powers:
When you defeat a monster on your turn, you may recharge a chard
When you would discord or bury a card that has the Ranged trait for its power, you may recharge it instead
You may recharge a card that has the Divine treait to add 1d4 to a combat check by a character at another location

The Exchange

Discard Night Watch for the initial Damage, then to beat it To Beat: 1d10 + 1d8 + 2 ⇒ (2) + (8) + 2 = 12 Recharge my Stalking Armor to reduce by 2 (so 0 combat damage.) Then discard Troubadour for the after combat damage.

The Exchange

Cure myself for Cure: 1d4 + 1 ⇒ (3) + 1 = 4 to Recharge Recharge: 1d6 + 2 ⇒ (2) + 2 = 4 no recharge.

The Exchange

To Defeat DC 12 Ranged Attack: 2d10 + 1d8 + 2 ⇒ (4, 3) + (5) + 2 = 14

The Exchange

Damage from Pitborn Scoundel: 1d4 - 1 ⇒ (4) - 1 = 3

The Exchange

Reroll: 1d10 ⇒ 5 Still a failure but only one damage.

The Exchange

Ranged Attack Against Corrupted Soldier by Revealing Light Crossbow: 1d10 + 1d8 + 2 ⇒ (3) + (3) + 2 = 8

The Exchange

Imrijka wrote:

Hand: Sage's Journal, Dagger, Hand Crossbow, Light Crossbow, Javelin,

Displayed:
Deck: 9 Discard: 1 Buried: 0
Notes:
Sideboard cards:

Skills and Powers:
SKILLS

Strength d8[ ]+1 [ ]+2
Dexterity d10 [ ] +1 [ ] +2 [ ] +3 [ ] +4
Ranged: Dexterity +2
Acrobatics: Dexterity +1
Constituion d8 [ ] +1 [ ] +2 [ ] +3
Fortitude: Constituion+3
Intelligence d4 [ ] +1
Wisdom d6 [ ]+1 [ ]+2 [ ]+3
Divine: Wisdom +2
Perception: Wisdom +2
Charisma d6 [ ] +1 [ ] +2

Favored Card: Player's Choice (Blessing or Weapon)
Hand Size 5
Proficient with: Light armor, weapons
Powers:
When you defeat a monster on your turn, you may recharge a chard
When you would discord or bury a card that has the Ranged trait for its power, you may recharge it instead
You may recharge a card that has the Divine treait to add 1d4 to a combat check by a character at another location

The Exchange

To Acquire Heavy Crossbow, Ranged/Dex 7: 1d10 + 2 ⇒ (2) + 2 = 4

did not acquire.

The Exchange

Corrupted Soldier, DC 11: 1d10 + 1d8 + 2 ⇒ (10) + (3) + 2 = 15

Defeated, Explore Location

The Exchange

Imrijka wrote:

Hand: Sage's Journal, Dagger, Shortbow, Light Crossbow, Blessing of the Gods 1,

Displayed:
Deck: 10 Discard: 0 Buried: 0
Notes:
Sideboard cards:

Skills and Powers:
SKILLS

Strength d8[ ]+1 [ ]+2
Dexterity d10 [ ] +1 [ ] +2 [ ] +3 [ ] +4
Ranged: Dexterity +2
Acrobatics: Dexterity +1
Constituion d8 [ ] +1 [ ] +2 [ ] +3
Fortitude: Constituion+3
Intelligence d4 [ ] +1
Wisdom d6 [ ]+1 [ ]+2 [ ]+3
Divine: Wisdom +2
Perception: Wisdom +2
Charisma d6 [ ] +1 [ ] +2

Favored Card: Player's Choice (Blessing or Weapon)
Hand Size 5
Proficient with: Light armor, weapons
Powers:
When you defeat a monster on your turn, you may recharge a chard
When you would discord or bury a card that has the Ranged trait for its power, you may recharge it instead
You may recharge a card that has the Divine treait to add 1d4 to a combat check by a character at another location

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The custom rig is specifically called out as being able to be installed as a cybernetic augmentation though, personally I'd allow you to overclock the custom rig as an augmentation, not sure if it should be level 1 or your character level though.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This may or may not be an error but for some reason I have 2 packages one with one flip-mat and the other with an AP volume and a flip-mat, I'm not really sure why it would be cheaper/better to ship one flip-mat and an AP in a separate box than the other flip-mat. Its not the end of the world since I'm sure the shipping difference is something like $3 but it was curious, so I figured I'd post.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


- People are aware that their smartphones and power tools use different kinds of batteries.

I think this is a fundamental issue that people have when playing Science Fantasy that they don't have when playing Medieval fantasy they use the real world to explain things that may or may not work the same.

We're literally dealing with a era in which basically everything can be created through UPBs, if everything can be created through one common substance I'm not sure why its a stretch for technological items and weapons to use the same batteries (besides the fact that in Starfinder smartphones and power tools are both likely technological items that DO use the same batteries.)

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Bush wrote:


I would allow a player to use a battery that was purchased from the battery table.

It makes a lot more sense than letting a player use a com battery or flash light battery.

Per the rules they can't do that though, as BNW has already explained. I'm also not sure why technological items and weapons using the same interchangeable batteries doesn't make sense on a fundamental level(I recognize the wealth issues implicit in this acceptance), the rules specifically say they do and it certainly makes more sense to allow someone to use the rules to do something than it does to let someone do something by ignoring explicit rules (namely that a 10 charge item can't use a 20 charge battery.)

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

The argument is NOT that it is inconsistent to work with powered armor.

The argument is that it is inconsistent to not work with a naked pilot in powered armor, but to suddenly start working with a pilot wearing second skin. THAT is what makes no sense. You're not addressing that even though its been brought up multiple times.

That's not an inconsistency though, its like the raining and sunny argument, its like saying it doesn't work when its raining but it works if its sunny, its not inconsistent to work when its raining and sunny even if it doesn't work when its just raining because the important thing is the sunny part, and in this the important thing is the light armor part. It may not be the result you think is correct but its not an inconsistency.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Stop that.

Deriving meaning from the text by means other than grammatical dissection is not ignoring the text. Its an important and necessary step in rules interpretation. The meaning might not be possible from your grammar scheme but it is CERTAINLY possible

Your grammar dissection is not being ignored. Its been taken into consideration, given the weight it deserves, and dismissed because it is not the only thing that matters. Sense, evidence, reason, providence, fairness and game balance are all things you consider when reading the text.

But the text is the only thing we all actually have in common, that's the problem, in a normal legal interpretative context we have all sorts of other things to go on which we share, in a legal framework this consists of things such as, legislative history, canons of construction, framers intent, etc. and courts have relied on each of those things to varying degrees through the years, each person may choose which things are most important to them in a given arena but they have all been established as tools in interpretation. Here all we have is the text and then what people think about things because no such framework has been set forth from Paizo as to how we should be looking at rules(to my knowledge). What makes sense to you, and what makes sense to me, and what makes sense to someone else, are based on our own experiences and may be completely different because all we have to go on is the text and what we think about things.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Don't need one. What on earth (or off it in this case ) makes you think that a completely nonsensical answer is more likely the intent than paizo either flubbed up or expected common sense to kick in?

I disagree that its nonsensical, and no one outside of the dev team has the authority to tell anyone what is and is not nonsensical because as I said above we have no common source besides the text with regard to Paizo rules.

Expecting common sense to kick in implies that everyone has the same opinion on what common sense is in a given scenario, they don't. That's the whole problem, the only common thing we all share is the text of the rule, everything else is just us carrying our own baggage into the rules and deciding things based on it, which can and may lead to widely varied results, that's not good.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its that it's light armor. It's the thematic armor for operatives and rogues and the game wants a reason to keep them...

That's just like, your opinion, man.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote:


That's only a problem if you think every person's thinking is entitled to equal respect. But you're off in flatearther territory here.

I would hardly call taking the text of something at its word and no further (i.e. as long as you're wearing light armor it doesn't matter what else you're wearing) as the same thing as denying something backed up by centuries of hard evidence.

Re: BNW: Powered Armor isn't something that exists in the real world, the evasion ability isn't something that exists in the real world, you can move faster in the lowest level powered armor than you can in every heavy armor in the CRB except 4 (assuming a base speed of 30).

We can say that it doesn't make sense to allow evasion when you're wearing powered armor, but if it makes sense to move as fast as you normally can in it, why doesn't it make sense for you to be able to dodge out of the was as fast. It working with powered armor is not inherently inconsistent with logic.

You can absolutely ignore the text (which again, I am still not seeing an actual argument for an alternative grammatical reading only readings which add words into the sentence or construe words in the opposite order) and go with an interpretation that allows it to not work with powered armor but that is no more logical or "preponderance of the evidence" than allowing it to work with powered armor since we actually know nothing about what aspect of light armor allows evasion to work and what doesn't (is it ACP, is it speed restriction, is it max dex? The answer is likely none of these things.)

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Bush wrote:
There will be clarity provided, of that I am sure because it is so badly broken.

That's the whole point, it may be broken, but it is not unclear, those are two different things.

Per the rules as they stand the batteries are the same they explicitly say so, "Items with a specified usage use a battery that comes fully charged when purchased. Such batteries can be recharged as normal using generators or recharging stations (see Professional Services on page 234), or they can be replaced (see Table 7–9: Ammunition for battery prices)."

There is literally nothing ambiguous about this statement, it says technological items with a usage use the batteries from table 7-9, i.e. the weapons and powered armor battery chart.

You can't just say, "no they don't use that chart, tech item batteries are different than weapon batteries" the game literally tells you they are the same. You can't do this anymore than you could tell someone their ghost operative didn't get +4 to the trick attack (before the errata) based on a dev comment that that's how he originally wrote it, anymore than you could tell someone their armor has a different EAC/KAC bonus than it does, etc.

You, by not allowing batteries from technological items to work in weapons are ignoring the rules as they are clearly written and stated, please stop claiming you are not because you simply are.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Metaphysician wrote:
If there is an obvious and intuitive explanation for a trivial ambiguity, use the obvious explanation.

The problem with this line of thinking is that what I think is intuitive and obvious and what you think is intuitive and obvious may or may not be the same thing. That's fine for a home game because we can sit down and agree on the rules before it ever becomes an issue but is absolutely untenable in organized play.

Of course they can never eliminate every ambiguity, but what I think they can reasonably be expected to do is write the best they can to minimize such ambiguities and what they can certainly do is not take 8 months (if not far more) to answer questions have existed since the game came out, I'm not sure why this is too much to ask. We as customers should demand more because what were getting now is, as nicely as I can put it, inadequate.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
seriously, r u serious

Good contribution.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Bush wrote:
Shaudius wrote:
....
So maybe Starfinder is not the game for you since it has so many holes in it?

I love Starfinder, I love the setting and I love Starfinder Society(and I especially love how responsive Thrusty is to things which are in his control, which sadly isn't this.)

It is because I love Starfinder that I want Paizo to be better at answering these rules questions, because I'm pretty sure I know how evasion should work(but how can I be sure completely?), but the way they've written it makes it not work like they probably intended it to work, this is a very easy question to come into a thread and answer, Evasion doesn't work if you're wearing Powered Armor even if you're wearing Light Armor under it, but they haven't, and I am doubtful they will (Mikko, while an awesome writer and contributor, I'm fairly certain is not on the design team.)

Look, Paizo has great customer service for their shipment and such(I've never had an issue that wasn't resolved within hours of asking it), and a great Starfinder Society team in place(again shoutout to Thrusty), but the Starfinder Design Team doesn't seem willing or unable to answer rules questions by and large in a timely or efficient manner and its frustrating because there are lots of areas that would be greatly improved by having these things answers.

The game has been out for 8 months and there's still issues that have been present since day one, through two additional hardcover books with a third on the way in three months, and I still can't tell you how to ride a drone or how to replace the battery in your 10 charge weapon, that's practically a dereliction of duty.

Heck, I even had a Starfinder Socity VO tell me it works exactly the opposite of how its written with no justification besides its a proper reading of the English language (which it clearly isn't based on how the English language works) and he told me that other VOs agreed, so we literally have a bunch of SFS VOs making up a ruling based on something other than the text of the rule, that is a problem. So here we are, a thread where people are telling me how something works not because that's how English is written, not because the rule is ambiguous but because they are literally ignoring the text of the rule in favor of reading something into the rule that just isn't there and have the gull to tell me that somehow English works in a way that it doesn't work.

This is why we need an active design team, because in the absence of one, people, including SFS VOs can just make up how they think the rule should work and language be damned because we're not going to get an answer to simple questions by the people in charge of writing the rules in the first place. I'm sorry but I expect better and I'm not gonna stop talking about it until we get better because I what Starfinder to be successful, sometimes it feels like more than Paizo does.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Bush wrote:


Clothing is not armor. So a character wearing clothes under their armor is still only wearing ONE suit of armor.

Please point to the part of the evasion rule where it mentions anything about only ONE suit of armor, you can't because it doesn't exist. You are literally creating a condition on the statement that doesn't exist.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Bush wrote:


Nice, I give you a logical explanation and you ignore it.

A character wearing light armor AND power armor (or heavy armor) does not meet the "wearing light armor" qualifier because the character is wearing TWO types of armor.

It is that clear.

That's not a logical explanation because you're reading words into a sentence that just aren't there. "wearing light armor" does not mean "only wearing light armor" in any sense of the English language. No where is "wearing light armor" stated to be exclusive of other types of armor.

One of these two statements is logically consistent, and its not your statement.

1)
a. This only works if its sunny.
b. It is raining and sunny.
c. This does not work.

2)
a. This only works if its sunny.
b. It is raining and sunny.
c. This works.

Only 2 is a logically sound chain 1 is not. Your response is 1.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mikko Kallio wrote:
RAW is a myth; all text is meaningless without interpretation, and interpretation requires understanding and accepting concepts like the aforementioned "disallowing through omission". I'm not saying that there aren't cases where rules text is too ambiguous to understand (there certainly are!); I'm just saying that this isn't one of those cases.

The problem with this is that there's no canons of construction document that I'm aware of with regard to Starfinder rules, so your canon of construction of "disallowing through omission" isn't anything someone can just point to in their interpretation.

In the absence of that sort of document, I am only left to fall back on my interpretation skills I've picked up through my legal training and that leads me to the first thing I look to being the plain meaning of the text(this is true for every interpretation school), and the plain meaning of this text is that as long as you're wearing light armor that's a sufficient condition regardless of what else you're wearing.

Rules as Written is just a shorthand way of saying Plain Meaning interpretation as far as I'm concerned. You only look to other things if this is ambiguous or if there's some other canon of rules construction that would lead you to a different conclusion.

On a fundamental level, I'm not sure why we're okay with loose rules text from a professional company that is literally asking us to pay money for rules (as well as flavor). I'm just asking for better both in responses to rules queries as well as more time being spent making rules clear in the first place. I don't know why this is too much to ask. Anything else just feels like a money grab, as in, we sell you this product and that's our only focus, we'll get around to clearing up rules when we feel like it, I understand that's where the money comes from, but it honestly feels like being taken advantage of. I mean this isn't the topic of this thread, but its been 8 months and we still don't even know how riding a drone works, the various issues with batteries and technological items, and any number of other issues that are easy enough to answer.

I understand why these things don't get fixed, but I'm not really sure how to express them here without literally putting Paizo on blast for how they operate their company (in short as a company of 50 run like a company of 5,000, everything comes back to that really.)

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
whew wrote:
"Too cheap to buy a battery" does not a build make. Further, SFS is not so deadly that we must exploit every broken rule for minor advantage to survive.

Too cheap to buy a battery isn't the issue, nor is it the build, there are level 1 weapons with 10 charge batteries (specifically the diasporan sniper rifle referred to in the OP, but I believe there are others), there is currently no way to buy an extra 10 charge battery besides through buying technological equipment and extracting the battery.

Your weapon choice is very much an integral part of your build (especially if you're a sniper as this is basically the only viable sniper weapon until level 5) and you're basically saying you can't reload your weapon if you're ignoring the core rules which say that technological equipment with charges use the same batteries as weapons and powered armor.

This isn't some minor advantage, this is literally only one of two ways (the other being a relatively expensive armor upgrade) to recharge these weapons during a normal adventuring day and is something someone with a diasporan sniper rifle should be reasonably expected to do.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mikko Kallio wrote:
Disallowing options through omission (in this case, not mentioning the armor types that you cannot use evasion with) is a very common writing strategy in Paizo's products. Frankly, listing all the options (and combinations of options) that don't work would result in books twice the size they are now.

I think this is the heart of the problem and really what I'm getting at with this post, disallowing options through omission is always going to be less clear than restrictive writing, and is also problematic as a future proofing solution.

Lets suppose Paizo comes out with a brand new armor option tomorrow, we'll call it superlight armor, its even less dex restrictive than light armor but has some sort of other niche use and you can wear it with light armor, would it work with evasion? Per your analysis, no, but it may RAW, and arguably it probably should work with evasion since its even more flexible than regular light armor but we're left with a completely open question unless Paizo now devotes words to this interaction in the new book(more words later to save words in the past.)

But even beyond that, I disagree with the assertion that writing in this manner would lead to an appreciable larger book, there aren't that many cases where something like this comes up, I can think of specifically two, the Armor Solarian ability and this, I'm sure there are more but its not like every sentence needs a new clause about not working with X or Y.

In the end, if the clause means, "Light armor and no other armor or no armor" it should say that instead of "as long as you're wearing light armor" which is what it says now.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Clothing is not part of the legal options either...

This. For those claiming you can only be wearing light armor, why would evasion work with second skin with clothing over it. What about the ability makes it mean "light but no other armor" and not "light armor and nothing else."

I understand the mobility necessary for evasion argument but I don't see where this isn't just a straight up "how we think it should work because its called evasion and calls out light armor" sort of argument and not a rules as written argument.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This should probably be in the Starfinder Society forum, but an official clarification is available here

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Bush wrote:


At my table, I would not allow this to happen because I think it is flat out cheating.

I'm glad you feel confident ignoring the rules as written at your table, I personally do not. Technological items with a usage listed use the same batteries as weapons and powered armor and the batteries between them are fungible. Until an errata changes that, they just do. This is not a question of GM interpretation, its flat out stated in the rulebook, you could no more ignore it than tell a PC they could not get +2 EAC from their Freebooter Armor I. Its not straight up cheating, its the rules as they are currently written.

And your alternative, as it stands is to limit a PC to 10 shots from his weapon if the scenario doesn't have downtime allowing for a recharge(or enough time to use a forced recharge armor upgrade), this is literally the only way to get more charges out of a 10 charge weapon currently without allowing technological item batteries. So, not only are you ignoring rules you're also nerfing a valid PC choice because of your ignoring of the rules.

Yes, I realize this can lead to potentially problematic results such as buying 20 and 80 charge batteries for way cheaper than you could otherwise, but the infinite wealth loophole is still very much closed with regard to this issue, so at the very most you're getting cheap batteries, not exactly a breaking the bank sort of proposition for most uses (who needs more than a few batteries anyway) and not allowing this to work, as I said above completely invalidates a build.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Bush wrote:
Shaudius wrote:
Grammatically, I can't figure out a way to parse the Evasion ability other than, "You gain this benefit only when...wearing light armor or no armor..." to mean anything other than as long as you are wearing light armor regardless of what else you are wearing you benefit.

I believe the answer is no because a player would be wearing light armor AND power armor. Since power armor is not part of the legal options for evasion, the AND part would not allow the use of evasion.

This would be true if a character was wearing light armor AND heavy armor.

That's kind of the whole point of my question, I don't see any exclusion only a permission in the language, it says you have to be wearing light armor but it doesn't say you have to ONLY be wearing light armor, only that it doesn't work UNLESS you are wearing light armor.

"You gain the benefit only when wearing light armor," as opposed to, "you gain the benefit when only wearing light armor(and no other armor)"

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
r u serious

As serious as the people who want to know if Solar Armor works with Powered Armor.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Big Lemon wrote:
If you are wearing both Powered Armor and Light Armor, you are not "only...wearing light or no armor", you are wearing both light and Powered Armor. Ergo, it does not function.

But that's not what the clause says it says "only when wearing light armor" not "only wearing light armor," they don't mean the same thing.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The operative's Evasion ability states,

"If you succeed at a Reflex save against an effect that normally has a partial effect on a successful save, you instead suffer no effect. You gain this benefit only when unencumbered and wearing light armor or no armor..."

Powered Armor has this to say, "The cockpit of powered armor is too small to fit a person wearing heavy armor. If you’re wearing light armor while in powered armor, you gain the higher of the EAC bonuses and the higher of the KAC bonuses between the two suits of armor, and you take the worse maximum Dexterity bonus and armor." Implying you can wear light armor while in powered armor.

So my question is simply, RAW, does the operative's evasion ability work when one is in powered armor and light armor.

Grammatically, I can't figure out a way to parse the Evasion ability other than, "You gain this benefit only when...wearing light armor or no armor..." to mean anything other than as long as you are wearing light armor regardless of what else you are wearing you benefit.

Can anyone provide an alternative explanation that jives with the grammar of the sentence that precludes powered armor and light armor combos allowing evasion.

This doesn't seem to be intended by the rules(but who are we to actually say this without dev comment), but I also can't figure out why it doesn't work besides arguments along the lines of "well it shouldn't work so therefore it doesn't."

Or could a developer/design team member chime in and clarify that evasion does not work when a character is wearing powered armor.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
If by peek you mean the product page material, I think we might see that by PaizoCon. If you mean actually seeing the contents, I wouldn't count on that unless you are GMing it at Origins.

The product page for 1-99 is already up.

The Exchange

Medrick wrote:


I do have a few questions about the mechanics of this adventure, if you don't mind. First, I was curious what the boon from 1-00 did for us? If anything. Second, what did the fan favor do for us? I assume it was related to the boons we got, so I assume we got in the top range?

OOps, I messed that up, only people with the 1-00 chronicle should have access to Salvation's Delver.

The fan favor determined the secondary success condition and the Budding Media Celebrity is for earning 3 or more fan favor.

The Exchange

Your chronicles are available here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GUyXa4VGb94naHc4Q_vicMZi2sdSADfb

Let me know if there are any errors you can't access for some reason, hope you all had fun, I'll be archiving this table some point in the next week or so.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Should this not be November?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not a problem, will be sending out links to chronicles hopefully tonight (reporting now.)

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Bush wrote:
Considering the portable light, that has a 10-capcity battery, there is no way that equivalent of a 'D' battery is going to usable in any kind of powered weapon or armor.

Except that per the rules that's exactly how it works. Specifically,

"Items with a specified usage use a battery that comes fully charged when purchased. Such batteries can be recharged as normal using generators or recharging stations (see Professional Services on page 234), or they can be replaced (see Table 7–9: Ammunition for battery prices)."

They can be replaced, which inherently means they are extractable. The entry for batteries and technological items specifically references "Table 7-9: Ammunition for battery prices", which means that technological items use the same batteries as armor and weapons.

Just because you can't buy a battery with 10 charges does not mean you cannot buy an item that uses a 10 charge battery and extract the battery from it.

Could this be errata'd in the future? Of course, but its perfectly clear how it works right now, a 10 capacity battery from a technological item is the same as a 10 capacity battery for a weapon, just as a 20 capacity battery for a technological item is the same as a 20 capacity battery for a weapon.

The Exchange

Waiting on Raia to do them all at once, giving a little bit more, also can't report on the form as of yesterday, trying to do everything at once.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Michael McNerney wrote:


Check in will be Wednesday afternoon and checkout Sunday morning. There are a couple people who come in early on Tuesday night and pay for a room at the Hyatt. We can work to connect anyone who does come in early and try and get folks the same room at the Hyatt for the rest of Origins.

I signed up to GM and my flight gets in on Tuesday afternoon, so I am interested in getting in on one of these Tuesday night rooms.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Slurmalyst wrote:
I think the understanding is that generally only weapons and power armor come with a removable battery. And maybe armor upgrades? You can't get 10-capacity batteries for 1 credit a piece. Right now there's no such thing as a 10-capacity removable battery

That is not the understanding and that is not consistent with the rules. Per the rules you can in fact get 10-capacity batteries for 1 credit a piece.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
jimthegray wrote:
anyone know when it will be society legal?

Soon

1 to 50 of 470 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>