Well, if it is because of swarms, I have explosive ammo, which can help deal with them ;-)Glad to see someone has AoE damage... For no particular reason...
*taps fingers together while quietly chuckling evilly*
=(
Zolvi is your Perception +8? Or is that a holdover from your first draft?
I see the Wis +5, and the +2 Enhancement to skills, but I don't see where the other +1 is coming from (or whether you have ranks and it should actually be higher).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, first draft holdover issues (looks like I also gave myself too many total skill ranks in general). Corrected.
Friendly Fire: You have learned how to bleed energy from the attacks of your allies when they affect you. You reduce the damage you take from the attacks and effects of your allies by an amount equal to twice your vanguard level, to a minimum of 0.
So 16 points of fire damage mean nothing to Sheher if it comes from Sigmus and she's got plenty of stamina points to spare .
In fact It could be argued that it would allow Sheher to gain Entropy Points that power some Vanguard abilities. Because another discipline she has states:
Energize (Su)
You can absorb harmful energies, converting them to potential energy you use for entropic manipulation. As a reaction when you are hit by an attack or effect that deals energy damage, you gain 1 Entropy Point and can attempt a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + 1-1/2 the CR or level of the attacker) to take half damage. Once you use this ability, you cannot use it again until you regain Stamina Points during a 10-minute rest.
So Sigmus 'hits' Sheher with a flame from the flamethrower so she gains an Entropy Point and then she 'bleeds' the energy off to ignore 16 points of the damage anyway.
It might not be something to do ALL the time depending on how much damage Sigmus can put out, but it's a heck of a card that can be played on occasion at the very least.
Speaking of, here's another question GM. Vanguards can also gain Entropy Points from taking damage equal to twice vanguard level or greater. But Sheher also has a lot of Kinetic DR. Would Sheher gain Entropy Points from being hit by a Kinetic attack of 16 (at level 8) even though DR reduces that to 7?
DR is described in the CRB as "Some creatures have the ability to instantly heal damage from attacks or ignore blows altogether."
So here would the result be... Sheher takes 16 damage, gaining EP, but then that damage gets reduced to 7... or would it be Sheher takes 7 damage and doesn't gain EP?
It seems weird to say that if you want to fluff DR as ignoring blows altogether then you wouldn't gain EP but if you fluff it as instantly healing damage then you would. Obviously I would like to gain as much Entropy as possible :)
Final question! Can I throw in a Ghost Killer Fusion Seal as a part of Sheher's shopping for 792 credits? Didn't do that yet!
Would Sheher gain Entropy Points from being hit by a Kinetic attack of 16 (at level 8) even though DR reduces that to 7?
No (((
You count the actual damage you take to see if it is 2xlevel to gain an EP (it is in an answer in the playtest blog thread).
^ that
Same for Friendly Fire.
I still think DR is worth taking, for survivability, and especially because most high level attacks will be easily dealing more damage than your DR.
Blahhh... it's a bit of an odd thing in the Vanguard where it's build to mitigate damage but some of the fun things it can do are dependent largely on taking damage. It's a weird situation where you'd rather take 16 damage rather than 14 or 15 damage and having DR that juuuust pushes you lower than 16 becomes a not good thing.
Entropy Points don't seem powerful enough to justify making it harder to gain them really.
In any case Sheher is good with being in the midst of team AOE attacks. Send your grenades and whatnot her way!
We'll see what people give as feedback and how they change things, once it is experienced in actual play...
Blahhh... it's a bit of an odd thing in the Vanguard where it's build to mitigate damage but some of the fun things it can do are dependent largely on taking damage. It's a weird situation where you'd rather take 16 damage rather than 14 or 15 damage and having DR that juuuust pushes you lower than 16 becomes a not good thing.
Entropy Points don't seem powerful enough to justify making it harder to gain them really.
Please let them know this exact feedback in the Playtest thread! ^_^
Okay, so same DR5 and Resist Acid 5 I guess.
But bioackers can reduce these (we can later organize re. who uses what weapons and what to prioritize).
That's me trying to convey ooc knowledge in an IC fashion.
Ha ha! Years playing Vampire we’d RP not giving OOC info’ so our stats became a « very » for each dot: 3 dots in Dex was « He is very very very agile ». Quite lame (very very lame).
they should appear at the moment of the attack, as I understand it, and then make a new attempt to hide
I may be misinterpreting this. It's my first time running a Ghost Operative. Here are the relevant quotes:
You can use Stealth to hide if you have either cover or concealment (or a special ability that allows you to hide in plain sight), or if you have successfully created a diversion with the Bluff skill. You can attempt a Stealth check to hide either as a move action (if you are planning to stay immobile) or as part of a move action. If you move at a rate of half your speed or less, you take no penalty to your Stealth check. If you attempt to hide while moving more than half your speed or after creating a diversion with Bluff, you take a –10 penalty to your Stealth check; these penalties are cumulative if you do both. The check is opposed by the Perception checks of creatures in the area that might detect you. A creature that fails the opposed skill check treats you as if you had total concealment as long as you continue to have actual cover or concealment. A creature that succeeds at the opposed skill check either sees you or pinpoints you (see page 260) in situations when you have total concealment. If you lose actual cover or concealment during your turn, you can attempt to stay hidden, but only if you end your turn within cover or concealment.
You can bend light around yourself and muffle any minor sounds you make, allowing you to nearly vanish when not moving. Even when you move, you appear only as an outline with blurry features. This cloaking field doesn’t make you invisible, but it does make it easier to sneak around. Activating the cloaking field is a move action. While the cloaking field is active, you can use Stealth to hide, even while being directly observed and with no place to hide. Attacking doesn’t end the cloaking field, but it does end that particular attempt to hide. If you remain perfectly still for at least 1 round, you gain a +10 bonus to Stealth checks (which doesn’t stack with invisibility) until you move.
It seems to me that they make their Stealth checks (Taking 10 as a Level 7 Operative) while moving during their Trick Attack, using their Cloaking Field in place of cover or concealment.
The field remains active after they attack, so I am uncertain what "but it does end that particular attempt to hide" means.
Have other people had more experience with this sort of interaction?
Well there's also the Sniping part of the Stealth skill that goes:
Sniping
If you have already successfully used Stealth to hide from a creature that is at least 10 feet away, you can briefly pop out of cover or concealment and make a single ranged attack against that creature. As long as you can reenter cover or concealment, you can attempt a Stealth check to hide again as part of that attack with a –20 penalty.
So, for a Ghost Operative the way I understand it, they can use their cloaking field to 'snipe' without cover as a part of their attack at -20 since their field acts like the cover. Then if they move they can do a stealth check as per usual as a part of that move if required. (If they manage to hide at -20 then I wouldn't roll again, but if they didn't then I would if they moved if they're trying to hide)
They're not Sniping, though.
The way I interpret Paizo's layout for rules is that when the Cloaking Field makes reference to "Stealth to Hide", I then refer to the "Hide" part of the Stealth rules.
"end that particular attempt to hide" means to me that they become visible at the moment they attack they can then use the snipe rule as a part of that attack to hide at -20 and then move to get another chance to hide without the -20. The snipe rule, to me, comes into play if they make a single ranged attack (doesn't have to be a sniper)
What the cloaking field provides is the ability to do that without having any cover or concealment from the terrain. So they can do that in the open.
There's also the attacking from hiding part of the stealth skill:
Attacking from Hiding — If you are successfully hiding from a creature, that creature is considered flat-footed for the purpose of your first attack from hiding. If you remain invisible after your first attack, that creature is considered flat-footed against your attacks until it succeeds at a Perception check to locate you or until you become visible.
I don't think they 'remain invisible' after the first attack unless they have some strong magic or technology that says they can stay invisible after attacking.
Ok, I can go with that.
The Cloaking Field does not grant invisibility.
With -20 Stealth, they will be much easier to see ^_^
By the way, it’s interesting idea of using sniping rule here. It make sense. But with a shoot on the run feat they can do it without penalty (if they’ll move at half speed).
Sadly, Shot on the Run is a Full Action, just like Trick Shot, so I believe you can't use those together.
Otherwise, for what it's worth, I've always run it like that: the enemy appears when it shoots (or melee attacks), from "Attacking doesn’t end the cloaking field, but it does end that particular attempt to hide".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Benefit: As a full action, you can move up to your speed and make a single ranged attack at any point during your movement. If you have the trick attack class feature, you can take your movement from trick attack at any time during a trick attack (see page 93) with a ranged weapon (instead of only before).
I think, you can use it together:)
That makes sense (and is nice!). I think I misread--
you can take your movement from trick attack at any time during a trick attack with a ranged weapon (instead of only before).
--as meaning you could take your move at any time, before or after, instead of only before. Like having to make your move before or after, not split it into a possible before and after (but it's true that that is not much of a Shot on the Run!, rather a Run and Shoot or Shoot n'Run).
Yeah, by RAW you're right. I read it wrong. Nevertheless, the scheme of the "shot - move with this feat with half speed - hide not by sniping but by the usual rules of stealth (without penalty)" should work. I hope :))
(Speaking of the Ghost operative, of course)
Thanks GM, I’ll try « Preview » (and thanks for trusting the roll).
re. the sneak/sniping: I’m trying to figure out the RAW for SFS tables... you had me convinced!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(and thanks for trusting the roll)
Just this once ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
re.
No rule as to whether my shot bypasses those 5 DR if it hits? Who knows...
Additionally, [yellow] still has 10 points of force field, which absorbs all the damage from your dart. No idea if: 1) DR applies before dart's damage, 2) whether force field stops dart's effects, or 3) whether DR reduces dart to 5 damage before hitting force field.I'll be favorable and have your dart pop the force field and affect with its counteragent, but if you could bring this up in the Playtest thread that'd be great ^_^
I thought of the force field just after I posted!
I just had another look at the playtest material and there is no info' re. this:An injection can also be loaded into a weapon with the injection weapon special property as a move action, and you can deliver the injection with a normal attack with that weapon.
I'll try to have a look through the CRB too, but a little busy these days.
All I can say is that I'm pretty sure that in PFS you cannot deliver a "wound" poison if you do not do at least 1 lethal HP (pretty sure that was a legal rule, not a regional house rule), so could be the same here, that the Force Field absorbs the blow thus no puncturing, thus no -DR. But who knows for sure.I'll put it in the playtest feedback, yes.
Thank you!
My rationale for the dart still having an effect is that you don't need to damage your allies for it to affect them.
I agree with you (though I'd have no problem at all with whatever ruling you have as DM, since all is debatable).
I just checked the CRB and did not see anything about poison being active only if you deal effective damage (so, it seems that RAW would see you poisoning even if DR soaks damage etc.).
I'm a vehement opponent of the use of the acronym "RAW". In linguistic anthropology you learn there is no such thing. It is impossible for a rule to be written, because text is just a medium for communication. A rule is a concept. It does not exist in physical form.
Two people can read the same text and come to different conclusions as to what message it's trying to convey. This alone should show that "RAW" is a fallacy. If text could only be interpreted in one manner, ever, then you wouldn't have different sects of religions. You would never need judges. You would never need FAQs.
Reading is an interpretive activity. It relies on shared understandings. If you and I see the acronym "KAC", we both would understand it meant "Kinetic Armor Class". But if you ask someone on the street, they'd likely reply with something different. If they subscribed to the fallacy of rules-as-written, they might even say that KAC *clearly* means "Kicking Alley Cats" and claim there's no other way to interpret it, and then call you a terrible human being for endorsing animal abuse.
People who stand by what they refer to as "RAW" only do so to silence other opinions. It's a way of saying, "I'm right, and you're wrong", with no basis. It is impossible to counter anyone who relies on "RAW" as an argument, even when their opponent uses it themselves. Developers find it incredibly damaging to their work. Forum moderators find it contributes to a hostile online community. It's really best if we stop using it altogether.
Instead, explain why you interpret something the way you do. "RAW" doesn't mean anything. It's just a lazy way to end a discussion. Instead, add a few more words for context. Say, "I don't see that X is discussed anywhere", or, "I think X means Y, because other things similar to X mean Y".
Those sorts of conversations are constructive.
Starfinder (and Pathfinder) are also not written to be interpreted as technical manuals. They're not meant to be picked apart by English doctorates. Granted, Pathfinder had a LOT of technicalities towards the end (such as handedness) that did require some backwards bending to get right, but generally speaking a newbie and a veteran should be able to casually read a passage and come to the same conclusion, given a shared understanding.
And when you encounter something genuinely ambiguous, or that seems unbalanced compared to game design, adding more text usually solves the problem. But word count is precious. Imagine if the Pathfinder Core Rulebook contained the entirety of the FAQ. It'd be huge! So authors and Developers cross their fingers that their understanding is shared by those reading their works. It's just inevitable that you'll have some things that are poorly understood.
And reading these sorts of books requires not only a shared understanding, but also some critical thinking. An easy example was a hilarious typo in the 2nd Edition AD&D supplement The Complete Barbarian's Handbook. It listed a new ranged weapon option for Barbarians: the non-returning boomerang. It dealt 14+12 damage.
There's no arguing with the math. That boomerang always dealt 26 damage. But while someone could easily claim that to be the inerrant "RAW" truth, someone who thought about the issue a little more would see that other Weapons were listed as "1d6+1d2", or that the "returning boomerang" only dealt 1d4 damage, and come to the conclusion that what was written wasn't infallible. There had just been a couple "d"s left out.
Oops! Sorry for sparking this and bugging you so )))
Didn't think I'd move these rules questions into the realm of Leibniz's monads, but...
I totally agree with you.
My feeling, though, is that people simply use RAW vs. RAI to talk about those rules that don't seem super logical but are still written that way (all due to trying to have the common interpretation of rules so people can move from table to table... and taste the same Big Mac?).
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even "RAW vs RAI" misses the point, but the online culture right now wants to put you into one of those two "camps".
But sorry again for the tangent.
My computer mouse died last night during that last combat post and I'm out of batteries, but I should have a chance to get to the store tonight. Most of my posts come from my phone anyways.
Carry on ^_^
Oh!
It just occurred to me.
Since the injections are poisons with a DC, does the usual circumstance of poisons dealing direct Hit Point damage (DC minus 10) apply?
Not at home now, so I do not have the Playtest file, but I do not think the Injections have a DC (no saves).
I only have one that has the "poison" tag on it (all the other are tag-less).
Gotcha.
Colleagues-starfinders, pardon me for a slight absence. I am preparing for a long vacation, and a million business cases before departure made me lose sight of everything for a couple of days (strictly speaking, I did not notice how they flew). I want to warn you that I'll have almost a day flight from one part of the world to another, so that my posts next two days will be somewhat non-rhythmic. But I will try. And then I'll be sure to catch up.
Feel free to bot me, plz... so I won't have a guilty conscience. You already knew what usually makes Varnais.
......
2 GM Nefreet - it seems to me that our entire civilization is built on the search for RAW. You write wise thoughts (which I mostly agree, by the way, especially in the place about the constructive dialogue!), but at the same time when you sign a contract to buy a car or a house - you want RAW. Rather, you want a fair deal, but since no one can guarantee you that, you can only rely on RAW. And, in fact, any trial (civil) comes down to how it will be on RAW. In my opinion, the rules in role-playing games is just a social contract between all game participants. And so there's just as important RAW as in any other contract. And in PFS / SFS we feel it especially strongly.
What you want in a contract is "shared understanding". Something that means the same to both parties and to any prospective judges.
But that is not "RAW". It is actually the exact opposite. Because when people use the acronym "RAW", it means they're enforcing they're interpretation to the exclusion of all others.
A "RAW" mindset is wholly destructive.
Happy to bot you as needed, tho. Thank you for the update ^_^
Merry XMas to all who will be celebrating!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would AC apply for things like this? Sheher isn't going to try to stop it.
To my understanding, that's how it currently works.
I don't know about my fellow biohackers, but I even spent the "theorem" to get +3 vs. allies ((( and still I miss...
Back to the shooting range I go!| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The people who need the most buffs tend to be the most armored and the biohacker buffs becomes a bizzare pvp kind of thing and Starfinder PVP is wonky as PCs, by design, have lower attack bonuses than NPCs while also having higher armor. So this is basically a 3/4 BAB player trying to land a hit on highly armored players and failing more than 50% of the time.
Can Signifier Varnais land a Hold Person before we all fire at the same target?!
The people who need the most buffs tend to be the most armored and the biohacker buffs becomes a bizzare pvp kind of thing and Starfinder PVP is wonky as PCs, by design, have lower attack bonuses than NPCs while also having higher armor. So this is basically a 3/4 BAB player trying to land a hit on highly armored players and failing more than 50% of the time.
I think repeating that exact sentiment in the Biohacker thread would be very helpful ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Done! Found a thread that had the same sentiment and posted my thoughts there.
That thread seems to indicate that there's no need to roll if the biohacker is adjacent?
From the playtest info':
An injection can be injected into a willing or unconscious creature (or yourself) as a standard action, as long as the target is within your reach. An injection can also be loaded into a weapon with the injection weapon special property as a move action, and you can deliver the injection with a normal attack with that weapon. When you attack an ally with an injection loaded into a weapon that has the injection weapon special property, that ally is considered flat-footed against your attack.
So:
You can use the injection as itself (the syringe thing we create) w/o an attack roll as a standard action to inject it.
But you use an attack roll if it is in a weapon (only useful for range attacks, unless I am missing something).
Oh. That's a reasonable interpretation.
Could definitely use some clearing up in the final printing.
Let's go with that method starting with the next combat and throughout the book, unless a Developer clarifies otherwise.
I suspect this combat won't last much longer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not know how this works with the Spinneret: does the webbing anchor you to the ground (possible and I hope it does!)? Or, is it still linked to my hand, and thus I can at least try to oppose my "force"?
Starfinder actually doesn't define anchoring well in general. I have the same question about Stickybomb grenades.
My ruling tends to be more favorable for those using entanglement: a creature is anchored in place if there's something there to anchor them to.
Bulkheads and walls are fine. Sandy terrain and water are not.
Mind you, players don't particularly like this thinking when I use it against them, but to rule otherwise would potentially nerf equipment that players invest resources into.