Charlie Overtorch's page

RAW is certainly unclear. Best support you could say to not trigger is it says "you move" which could be different than "your character moves or is moved"

I agree that RAW is definitely unclear. Whether or not "you move" includes cases where someone else moves you does not seem to be settled for me.

I don't think the rules settle it and I think a FAQ answer would be ideal.

That said, to add some of my own speculation as to designer intent. The Starfinder cheat sheet says only 3 actions provoke. Given that forced movement does not involve me taking any actions, that seems like some evidence that it does not provoke.

Since partial cover exists, why isnt it partial cover in this example?

Partial Cover
If more than half of you is visible, your bonuses from cover are
reduced to +2 to AC and +1 to Reflex saving throws.

I read partial cover as a type of cover, since it still provides a "bonus from cover". Since (if I recall correctly) the example doesn't mention the bonus amount, it could be (and I agree that it definitely looks like) partial cover.

I would have liked it to be something like each time you are attacked it drains a charge.

My initial reading suggested that this was in the case. Can you point me to what I got wrong?

This certainly seems a divergence from the Pathfinder rules (see the Concealment section of http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html)

Thanks for the clarification, I wonder if this was an intentional change to make concealment easier to get.

Both cover and concealment require picking a corner of the attacker's square. However, it appears that the target picks in the case of concealment ("To determine whether you have concealment from a creature's ranged attack, choose a corner of the enemy's square") whereas the attacker picks in the case of cover ("To determine whether your target has cover from your attack, choose a corner of your square").

Am I reading this correctly and is this a rules difference from Pathfinder?

Does anyone have any clarity on this?

I am hoping to start a campaign soon using a lot of legacy monsters.

As I understand it, there are two options when converting Pathfinder legacy monsters to Starfinder in terms of attacks.

1) Increase their damage (add their CR to their damage), no iterative attacks, only SF full attack option
(The example Harpy becomes: morningstar +8 (1d8+5))

2) Leave them as is with the complete PF attack profile
(The example Harpy remains: morningstar +8/+3 (1d8+1), 2 talons +3 (1d6))

Then there is the additional section for single attacks, where it says something like 'if a monster is not going/able to make full attacks in the encounter then you can add +3 or +4 to its attack bonus'. Is this decision independent from the above decision or does it only apply to one of the two options (It seems like maybe it only applies to option 2, but I am not sure)?

That is, if I am converting a harpy and it is not going to be able to make full attacks, are both of the following options possible for the single attack case? (these are options 1 and 2 from above with +3 added)

morningstar +11 (1d8+5)

morningstar +11 (1d8+1)

That makes everything a lot clearer to me, I missed the importance of the 'if you can' clause. I will have to remember to read every card more closely in the future.

It is interesting for a game that feels so natural and intuitive that there keep being new things I learn about the rules nearly every time that I play. Luckily there looks to be no shortage of content, as I look forward to playing all the PACG I can for a very long time.

After reading the second power for Rise of the Runelords Sajan I am now uncertain about my understanding of the Golden Rule (I was looking to see if there were any cards that were exceptions to the 'one card of each type per character per step' restriction). How I think it applies in the Unstable Accelerant case would appear to make his second power useless.

So now I am not quite sure how either case works.

That is good to know, I hadn't thought about the fact that the card plays are all still optional.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but since we are discussing 'Unstable Accelerant' I was wondering how/if it chained.

I believe the answer is 'no, it does not chain', but that depends on using the Golden Rule, which I generally have trouble applying.

For example: If two players are at the same location with 'Unstable Accelerant' and Player 1 plays a blessing on a check to acquire, then Player 2 must play a blessing on that check. Now my understanding is, if Player 1 has a second blessing, they cannot play it even if Player 2 played a blessing.

This is because while 'Unstable Accelerant' tells them to play it, the rulebook says they cannot. The rulebook wins according to the Golden Rule, 'cannot' trumps 'can'. Is that right? Or does Unstable Accelerant's 'can' trump the rulebook's 'cannot' because the rulebook is not a card and as far as I can tell, cannot vs. can in the Golden Rule only applies to cards?

I hope my example is at least clear, even if my reasoning is not.

Thank you for the clarification about the rules distinction between 'always' and 'never'. That said, I must admit to a bit of confusion at this point.

Is the effect of 'Unstable Accelerant' not an exception to 'Playing cards from your hand is always optional'?

Is the card 'Unstable Accelerant' an exception to the last line of the OP?

It says "...each other character who can play a boon of the same type does so", which seems to violate 'Playing cards from your hand is always optional'.