As written, it does provoke. On the plus side (maybe), you can fight defensively while casting the spell as part of a full action. Combined with combat casting you can get a +4 to your AC for the AoO. You could also cast it as part of a charge where you wouldn't provoke.

The greater version of the spell has a duration and is likely meant to be the less awkward version.

Casting the spell is a standard action. Talking is usually not an action, nor does the spell say it changes that. Other than limiting the number of messages per round. So if you had to cast it every time you wanted to send or receive messages it would be pretty bothersome and you couldn't use it while doing other actions.

Darg727 wrote:

Eclipse Defense does not tell you to roll against the target's KAC+9, just the target itself. In any other situation this would default to the target's E/KAC. I don't see why this would be any different

Ok, I think i found the problem.

Eclipse defense has to be made as a reaction (wouldn't do much as a standard move or swift action)

The wording would be clearer if you were swinging at a number.

But it would be really really weird to take a reaction against a static number out of the game, reactions are taken in response to an observable stimulus in game.

So the wording was changed slightly.

I don't know why you think that wording MUST mean that it does damage without ever spelling it out. Changing some but not all of the qualities nested in an attack roll is NOT logic, or math, it's a subjective call. Someone not giving you proof for a subjective process is a given. Claiming that evidence less than proof is no evidence is completely disingenuous.

If you miss a DC nothing happens is the default in the game. If you try to hack a computer and dont then obviously.. you don't hack the computer. If you try to engineer a door open and don't well then the door doesn't open. If you try to hit someone and miss then you missed.
You tried to hit someones KAC+8 (or +9 cause i think that part was an error) and you missed that DC then you missed and nothing happens. Sometimes things happen when you miss, but those need to be spelled out. Otherwise nothing listed nothing happens.

The rules are there to tell you how things work. If the rules say one thing and you claim another, how is it disingenuous to ask for evidence of your claim? Calling rules subjective literally means you can just throw away your rulebook.

This is an attack roll, DCs do not apply. The ability has you make an attack roll against AC, not KAC+9. If you hit someones AC, by default you do damage as the rules say. The ability then provides an exception at rolling KAC+9 or higher by removing your damage and reducing the damage of the attackers hit.

"I could do this somewhat lame effect if I hit KAC+8, or this much better effect if I hit KAC. I, an intelligent person, wonder whether this is what Paizo intended."

Right, I can use a lame full-round action to charge or I can use this much better standard action to do a superior charge or even have the option to bull rush AND do damage.

So yes, I as an intelligent person can definitely see Paizo intending it to be an attack or damage reduction by the roll of the dice. It is definitely not of a power level that outstrips all other revelations one can choose.

The rules don't say that any time you make an attack roll you deal damage.

An attack roll represents your attempt to hit your opponent in melee or from range on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus (see Ranged Attacks and Melee Attacks below, as well as the Basic Attack and Damage Bonuses sidebar on page 241). Various other bonuses can apply from class features, feats, and so on. If your result equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Are you saying this quote from the CRB does not exist? Are you saying explicit exceptions to rules cannot exist within the rules?

Just because you use that mechanism when you make an attack does not mean that any time you use that mechanism you're making an attack.

What? If it says you are making an attack, you make an attack. Are you maybe referring to spells and casting spells as a spell-like ability in the "Magic and Spells" chapter of the CRB? If so, the book doesn't say that ALL supernatural abilities function like spells. It only uses the words "many of which."

Difficulty Class (DC)

Source Starfinder Core Rulebook pg. 8
This is the target number a creature must meet or exceed when attempting a check in order to accomplish a given task.

Abilities are exceptions to the rules. What the special ability says is -instead of the normal rules of attack AC and Deal Damage use these rules - . The normal rule is that if you fail to hit a difficulty class you fail and nothing happens.

Please provide rules citation to prove what you just said. I've been through the book several times, but might have missed it.

Combat maneuvers use the same language

Combat Maneuver

As a standard action, you can attempt one of the following combat maneuvers. For each maneuver, choose an opponent within your reach (including your weapon’s reach, if applicable) and then make a melee attack roll against the opponent’s KAC + 8. The effects of success vary depending on the maneuver, as described below.

Combat maneuvers don't have a clause where if you miss KAC +8 but exceed KAC then you fail at the maneuver but deal damage anyway.. otherwise there's no downside to trying the maneuvers.

They absolutely do not use the same language. If they did it would say to make a melee attack roll against the opponent and if you exceed KAC+7 do the effect described. Instead it says to "make a melee attack roll against the opponent’s KAC + 8." Very different language. The Eclipse defense does not tell you to roll against KAC+9. It just tells you to roll against the attacking creature.

Actually, you're proposing grapple has a three tiered approach. Grapple uses the same language for an attack roll, so what you're saying is that

Lower than KAC= miss
Kac to KAC +7= regular melee hit
KAC +8= grapple
KAC+13= pin/swallow your head.

I already wrote this above, but because you missed it:

Combat maneuvers provide an exception in how they work: "make a melee attack roll against the opponent’s KAC + 8. The effects of success vary depending on the maneuver, as described below." You roll against KAC+8 and then on a success you do what it says.

Because you are rolling against KAC+8, it's impossible for your "Kac to KAC +7= regular melee hit" to exist. Eclipse Defense does not tell you to roll against the target's KAC+9, just the target itself. In any other situation this would default to the target's E/KAC. I don't see why this would be any different.

No. For that analogy to work I'd have to be arguing that attack rolls that deal damage don't exist. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying they're not applicable in this very specific circumstance.

Yet, you haven't really provided any tangible evidence of what you are saying.

I'd be interested to see you take a whack at it. It's not as easy as people think.

"You can cause your melee weapon to exert a gravitational pull, drawing strikes to meet it. If a creature hits you or a creature adjacent to you with a melee attack and you’re wielding a melee weapon, you can make a melee attack roll against the attacking creature's KAC + 9 as a reaction. If you succeed, the target’s attack deals only half damage."

Simple, easy, less words and characters, and mimics the format of a combat maneuver.

That one looks like they copy pasted the combat maneuver wording for consistency, but for some reason you're still reading it differently than the combat maneuvers.

....

make a melee attack roll against the opponent’s KAC + 8. The effects of success vary depending on the maneuver, as described below.

make a melee attack roll against the attacking creature as a reaction. If your attack exceeds the attacking creature’s KAC + 8, you don’t deal damage; instead, the target’s attack deals only half damage.

I...don't understand how one can see that as copy and pasting. They don't even work mechanically the same way; let alone needs to have said that the attack doesn't deal damage on a success.

If you do not surpass the KAC +8 you... you cannot just reverse the results of everything in the if statement and say therefore you don't do damage.

How is it reversing the results when it is the natural progression of reading the ability...

You make a melee attack roll. The rules say you do damage if you hit. The ability only provides an exception to this when you hit KAC+9 or more. You can say the argument is weak, but the rules say otherwise.

Nothing is listed as the results of a failure vs kac +8, therefore the result is nothing.

Read the rules for rolling an attack. It flat out says you do damage. As it's a melee attack the rules tell you what to do. Gravity surge doesn't tell you what a failure entails. It just references other rules exactly like Eclipse Defense.

Big picture: You can cause your melee weapon to exert a gravitational pull, drawing strikes to meet it <--- that s not going to hurt anyone using a weapon. People try to dismiss fluff all the time , it very rarely works. The ability is listed as a parry and that helps you resolve ambiguities if you can read something two ways.

Or you attack with your weapon and if the ability fails to pull the weapon to your weapon you are still swinging the weapon which has momentum to hit the attacker. It's not dismissing fluff to interpret the ability this way. Grapple has a two tier approach, it's not impossible for other things to have it as well.

What you're doing reading it as a damaging option is a fallacy called denying the antecedent.

If the inns sign reads

"No green dragons allowed"

Then that logically means red dragons are allowed right? Nope. The status of red dragons is technically unknown. Conversationally, the allowance is implied because why else would you be that specific? But technically you don't know if they're allowed or not.

Yours is the fallacy. My reasoning is based on rules written in the CRB and the contextual consistency of terms referencing those rules. To make your fallacy argument more accurate to what I am doing, I'm using sources to prove that red and other colored dragons exist to say that red dragons exist.

If the intention is for it to work as you say, the ability could have so easily been written more simply and clearly without wasting words.

No, a succesful attack roll does not deal damage as a default.

CRB page 240: "An attack roll represents your attempt to hit your opponent in melee or from range on your turn in a round."

If you finish the paragraph, it does tell you that "If your result equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage." Combat maneuvers provide an exception in how they work: "make a melee attack roll against the opponent’s KAC + 8. The effects of success vary depending on the maneuver, as described below." You roll against KAC+8 and then on a success you do what it says. As I will mention below this does not happen. The book relies on explicit exceptions to change how this works.

You are specifically making an attack roll against KAC +8 not against KAC.

Except the ability contradicts this with how it is written.

you can make a melee attack roll against the attacking creature as a reaction.

It says nothing about making an attack roll against KAC+8. In fact with the way the next sentence is written, "If your attack exceeds the attacking creature’s KAC + 8," it would actually be against KAC+9. An attack roll only has to match AC, not exceed it, to hit.

No, the revelation has you make an attack roll. It doesn't say you make an attack. This is just like how all combat maneuvers make an attack roll, but don't make a normal attack to deal damage. Nothing says to remove the damage, because there was never any damage to remove.

"If your attack exceeds the attacking creature’s KAC + 8, you don’t deal damage"

Yes it does. This is different from combat maneuvers which specify "make a melee attack roll against the opponent’s KAC + 8."

An attack roll represents your attempt to hit your opponent in melee or from range on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus (see Ranged Attacks and Melee Attacks below, as well as the Basic Attack and Damage Bonuses sidebar on page 241). Various other bonuses can apply from class features, feats, and so on. If your result equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage

By default, a successful attack roll deals damage. A combat maneuver only does something at KAC+8. Eclipse defense does not have you make an attack roll against KAC+8. It says you make an attack roll, by default against the target's normal E/KAC, and if you exceed KAC+8 (combat maneuvers only have to exceed KAC+7) do you not deal damage.

I don't think it removes your attack from the start. The way it is written is that you make an attack roll and only if the attack exceeds KAC+8 does it not deal damage. So E/KAC to KAC+8 you hit the creature and KAC+9 or more you don't deal damage.

Ambuscade and Deadly aim aren't adding half BAB to damage. They add y and tell you that y = 1/2x with x being your BAB. Just adding clarity because if they did add half your BAB, then both effects would be using the same modifier which wouldn't stack (likely anyway considering how PF1 has been ruled with monk ac for example).

In the case with the variant and hack it's more of one gives bonus a and the other gives bonus b. a = 1/2c and b = 1/2e. You have c which is character level and e which is class level, both of which can vary depending on multiclass choices. You have different sources of effects and different sources for the modifier so nothing should be preventing it from stacking (+2 every 2 levels because they are calculated separately).

It functions just like a spell except for the differences pointed out on pg 262 of the CRB. So, yes you can use it with agile casting.

You aren't actually casting a spell, so it can't be used with something like Magic Hack because it says, "When casting a spell," which is the trigger for the effect. If you'll notice, the spell focus feat explicitly prevents SLAs from benefiting from the feat.

If it has to do with how a spell functions you are usually good to substitute spell with spell-like ability unless otherwise told. If it requires the casting of a spell, then you would not.

It's the using the bipod as a forward grip that makes it ridiculous. Why bother stabilizing it on a surface? So it can be Rambo'd with multi-weapon fighting with 2 arms?

At least Multi-weapon Fighting is more useful than Fusillade which needs 4 identical small arms.

Single reflex save for the entire ability, but they can take damage from more than one burst.

The nanites maintain their array until you direct them into a different array, you fall unconscious, or you end your turn more than 10 feet from the array.

You aren't directing them into a different array, you didn't fall unconscious, or ended your turn a distance away. I would say the sheath array is still active even if you reform the array to benefit from different skill bonuses.

To answer your question, no.

Since you are forming a different sheathe array, I would think you would have to spend the surge to gain swarm strike from the new array, yes.

It's not a different array, but the same "sheath array" with different bonuses. Swarm Strike only requires that the sheath array is active, not a specific version of the sheath array.

Yeah, full actions take away your ability to perform any swift or move action.

Another option that might prove useful is that you can ready the action.

And it's not like the ability takes away your movement. You could combine it with a guarded step as an example.

There is always the position of ship cheerleader available.

Indeed - I read that part and am still puzzled. (For me, affects NPCs, as our PC Solarian glows).

so clearly, whichever manifestaion you choose, graviton/photon, black hole, whatever, you can have it glow (and shed light). Indeed assorted Paizo artwork shows Grav mode characters with a creepy purple glow (eg Horizon in Fly Free Or Die vol 1).
But you can instead make it dark.

But what is the game effect, if any, of a dark manifestation? Lots of flavour text sounds like it sheds (creates) darkness), but nothing ever con firms it like it does for the glowy ones.

The description is saying you can choose a glowing color or black. Mechanically speaking, only the colors glow. Black does not.

How it's written implies heavily that you simply make your manifestation not able to be seen, whether as a mote or as armor/weapon, when you turn it off. Either way, your first turn in combat it becomes visible as you automatically enter one of the 3 stellar modes. So I recommend black if you want to stealth.

To put it in perspective: a mote floating around or a wielded weapon/worn armor is going to attract attention. It would be silly not being able to make it not visible because it would immediately mark you as being suspicious. "In order to blend in," is not mechanical and more roleplay.

Lasers bypass force fields for what it's worth.

Versatile Specialization text.

Prerequisites: Weapon Specialization, character level 3rd.

Benefit: You gain specialization (see page 243) in all weapons with which you are proficient that can be selected with Weapon Specialization.

The issue is that last part since it directly references Weapon Specialization itself.

Prerequisites: Character level 3rd, proficiency with selected weapon type.

Benefit: Choose one weapon type (small arms, longarms, heavy weapons, etc.). You gain specialization in that weapon type, which means you add your character level to damage with the selected weapon type, or half your character level for small arms or operative melee weapons. You can never have specialization in grenades.

I kind of see where you are going, but that is very specific parsing out of the clauses in the text.

Versatile Weapon Specialization only requires that you have Weapon Specialization. It says nothing about requiring weapon specialization in the weapon you want versatile weapon specialization to apply to (the whole point of the feat in the first place). The professional quality only says that it doesn't apply toward prerequisites, not that you wouldn't benefit from affects that apply to all weapons you are proficient in. As the weapon quality does not state that you aren't actually proficient, you are actually proficient with the weapon.

If you have a number of ranks in the listed Profession skill equal to the item level, you are considered proficient with that weapon, even if you would not normally be. This proficiency never counts toward prerequisites of any kind.

You are considered proficient in the professional weapon. Your proficiency in the weapon type of the weapon is not part of the prerequisite line of Versatile Weapon Specialization. It doesn't qualify for weapon specialization, but it should benefit from versatile weapon specialization as you are considered proficient in the weapon.

It can be read differently, but I find it more stretching not to take the weapon quality at face value. Just take specialization in a weapon you are normally proficient in which then qualifies you for versatile weapon specialization. Of course, you could just wait until 5th level so you reach at least 3rd in one class giving you weapon specialization as a class feature which also qualifies for versatile weapon specialization which would apply to your professional weapon.

I don't see why versatile weapon specialization wouldn't work. When it mentions only applying to weapons that are selectable by weapon specialization it is making an exception for weapons like grenades which are not valid for the weapon specialization feat.

I would say that should you pick up the versatile weapon specialization then your professional weapon would qualify to benefit from the feat as you are considered proficient. Prerequisites means you wouldn't be able to use it to qualify for feats, not that you wouldn't benefit from them.

Fighting defensively specifically calls out standard actions, so I don't think it works for full attacks, or any attack rolls made as part of non-standard actions.

You can fight defensively as a full action. It's in the full action section. It has a parenthetical that calls out the penalties for fighting defensively and full attacking are cumulative.

As the book is written, spells can be attacks. Either fighting defensively is referring to the attack (full attack) action, all attack rolls, or all actions that can be defined as an attack. Sadly, the book does not say one way or another.

Most people probably play with the vestigial understanding that fighting defensively can happen anytime you attack with a weapon as was the historical norm. My group is currently playing that you can fight defensively when attacking with spells as defined on page 331-332 of the CRB. As you can't cast defensively, it is a nice benefit to casting and combos well with Combat Casting against AoOs and readied actions trying to interrupt your casts.

You also choose whether your solar manifestation (in any form) either glows brightly with one color common to stars (including blue, red, white, or yellow) or is the perfect darkness of a black hole. A glowing solar manifestation, regardless of its form, sheds dim light in a 20-foot radius. You can shut off the light or darkness as a standard action in order to blend in or assist in stealth, but whenever you enter a stellar mode (see page 102), the glow or darkness returns immediately.

It says that you choose a glowing color or darkness. Explicitly only the glowing colors shed light. As written, darkness does nothing or maybe you can make the form invisible to observation (invisible weapon or armor) which would help "to blend in or assist in stealth."

You have done nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to demonstrate that the idea is WRONG. The idea that it shuts off immediately makes the most sense, even if it isn't 100% evidenced. The options are not 100% known and must be wrong.

What you are arguing is that the idea is not PROVEN. And because it's not proven then it is false and the other idea must be true. You tried to do the same thing with definitions. I declare its not definition A, therefore it must be definition B, you are dishonest for disagreeing with me.

Why in the world would I argue that the ability to have it be dismissed quickly be wrong? I am only saying that your implication that automatically/spontaneously/suddenly mean immediately/"without delay" is wrong. You can't just take the meaning of a single word, 'sudden,' that is only part of a definition, apply it to the defined word 'spontaneously,' and then extrapolate that because the word 'spontaneously' is a fraction of one definition of multiple that 'automatically' must only mean sudden.

My position is simple, the rule says I can throw a solar weapon so I can.

Your position is a little more complex. You assert that because one of two meanings implies that something happens quickly it cancels out the other meaning that says it happens without human input. You also assert that an if then statement must be done without delay by default; which might be true in programming, but reality and language doesn't work like that.

"Your plane is automatically landed if the joystick ever leaves your hand." 'Automatically' in this instance cannot mean that the plane instantaneously warps to the ground unless the plane exists in a setting where instantaneous warping exists

Yes, time is relevant. But since the game states shooting a laser takes a standard action, they state how long it takes, which conveniently is the same duration to swing a sword. So how is that helping your case?

It helps my case because it doesn't need to linger to function in the framework of the rules.

Your argument was 'It doesn't say this specifically there for it does this.'

My argument is this: 'It doesn't say this, therefor saying it does is wrong.' Saying or implying it immediately dissipates is limiting the scope of the meaning of the words to one specific scenario when "is automatically dismissed if it ever leaves your hand" can apply to a much broader spectrum of scenarios not limited to something 'instantaneous.'

also covers your it lasts long enough to be thrown argument. Making a point of something else does not invalidate my point.

You comment on rules changing with stuff is a valid point, separate from the 'it doesn't say' argument.
However, nothing in the thrown special quality states it allows a Solar weapon to linger.

By the language used in the CRB, all of the following are valid possible outcomes as we can't read a developer's mind: "dismissal that takes a short amount of time without delay," "dismissal that takes a short amount of time after an indefinite delay," "initiates a process of dismissal that takes an indefinite amount of time," or "initiates a process of dismissal that takes an indefinite amount of time after an indefinite delay." 'Indefinite' may seem like a scary word, but anything under 6 seconds is already indefinite by the rules.

I would agree, until my Solarian hits level 3 when I gain this little beauty which specifically states it does.

if I was a Level 5 Operative and took a level in Solarian, even with Versatile focus I would accept a general consensus rule that the Solar weapon doesn't gain specialisation, especially since Society play already alters what is and isn't accepted. Once my character reaches level 3 Solarian, then I gain an ability to specifically state it does benefit from it, so then it would.

You could also gain this beauty:

A melee weapon with this fusion gains the thrown special property with a range increment of 10 feet. If the weapon has an item level of 10 or higher, the range increment is 20 feet. This fusion allows you to add additional fusions that benefit thrown weapons. You must be proficient with a melee weapon with the throwing fusion in order to benefit from the thrown special property granted by it. Only melee weapons can benefit from the throwing fusion.

Ranged weapons that must be thrown and melee weapons that can be thrown as a ranged attack have the thrown special property and a listed range increment.

With a thrown weapon or a grenade, you can make a ranged attack at a target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in your line of effect

The rules specifically state you gain the benefit of the thrown weapon property and you can make a ranged attack with your solar weapon. The rules do not specify that you are unable to do so. More weight is usually given to what the rules say you can do rather than what is left unsaid. This particular instance seems to be an exception based on the perceived meaning of a single word. From this perspective my argument is because the rule has multiple valid interpretations in context, it isn't specific enough to trump rules more specific than it.

There was absolutely no refutation. At all. There is no coherent argument at all starting from a known and proceeding rationally to conclusion. All you did was insult the idea, and now all you are doing is insulting me.

Tossing ad homs into the mix to demonstrate you're not using fallacies isn't helping your case.

Playing victim is not an argument. Being insulted just because someone refutes your "preponderance" does not make you the target of an ad hominem.

Spontaneously:

1 : done or said in a natural and often sudden way and without a lot of thought or planning

You conveniently left out the other meaning: "without apparent external cause or stimulus."

You also ignore the other meaning of automatically:
1.(with reference to a device or process) by itself with little or no direct human control.

As much as you want to tie the meaning of automatically to the meaning of immediately, it doesn't happen.

Your solar flare is automatically dismissed if it ever leaves your hand.

You try to throw the solar weapon.
Has it left your hand? Yes.
Then it is dismissed.

You throw the solar weapon.

Did it leave your hand? Yes. Was it automatically dismissed? Yes. Is this questionable? No. Word for word it satisfies the condition and the result. The dismissal doesn't have to be over a period of time. It just needs to be done automatically at some point after leaving your hand. It's just like the statement "Your paper airplane is automatically impacted with the ground if it ever leaves your hand."

If you're playing in organized play you're stuck with the consensus. And you should try to figure out what that is before dabbling your toes in table variation.

If the consensus said that specialization didn't work with solar weapon because it isn't actually a weapon, does it make it correct? Group play requires concessions and that is fine.

No, the circular logic is the argument for it doesn't disappear instantly can also be used to argue it doesn't linger.

Except that discounts the fact that time is relative. Shooting a laser takes just as much time as swinging a sword. It also discounts the ability for rules to modify themselves. Feats modify existing rules all over the place, hence the "normal" tag. Fusions modify base weapons.

Insulting the statements does nothing to refute them.

I have to question your comprehension if what I said seemed in any way like an insult when all I did was refute your statement.

Absolutely nothing you have quoted remotely suggests that the statement is false. All you can do is say that the statement is only 99% likely to be true and therefore isn't true. This is nothing but sophistry and polemics.

Sophistry? The only fallacious argument is the one that says that the thrown fusion can't work because solar weapon dissipates before it can hit the target.

Automatically:
1.(with reference to a device or process) by itself with little or no direct human control.

(with reference to a firearm) continuously until the ammunition is exhausted or the pressure on the trigger is released.

2.without conscious thought or attention; spontaneously.

Immediately:
1.at once; instantly.

2.without any intervening time or space.

There is no overlap here. There is no difference under the rules if it dissipates after making the attack. It would still be dissipating automatically as it has left your hand.

There is a reason everyone is telling you it doesn't work: it's because it doesn't work.

Consensus of the majority does not equate to being correct. In fact, everyone in this post is a very small minority being vocal about our opinions. Claiming majority rule in this situation isn't very convincing.

Picking random fallacies doesn't help your case either. Your argument was that "? Increased character options that don't unbalance a game " I'm questioning that statement, as solarions are already very powerful if not the top damage dealers for a good chunk of the game.

I asked a rhetorical question. You responded with a statement presenting a very specific scenario where in the solarian plays with a single-minded purpose and build when there are is a myriad of ways to play the game. The fallacy is yours.

Darg727 wrote:

The rules allow the combination to work by the literal meaning of the words used. The writer didn't use words or a statement like "immediately" or "when it leaves your hand."

CRG Page 102 wrote:

Your solar weapon is automatically dismissed if it ever leaves your hand.

I am pretty sure the writer did use that statement, with 1 word difference.

One of the problems that seem to be a circle logic is the Solar weapon does not state it disappears immediately, however it also does not state it takes a few seconds before disappearing. So that argument has no real evidence to back it up in either case because it can be used on both sides.

In pretty much every situation where automatically has been used (My experience), such as 'the lights come on automatically when someone enters' they happen straight away.

As I mentioned in my response to BigNorseWolf, the meaning of the two words are worlds apart. Just because the common obvious case is a specific example, it does not make every other case invalid. A hot coffee automatically cools to reach equilibrium which takes an amount of time determined by a host of factors. Fog will also automatically dissapate if ever the sun is out. However, it doesn't happen immediately. In this case, the process can even be halted and reversed if the trigger for the process is removed (i.e. the sun returns behind a cloud or sets). There are many other real world examples where automatic processes happen over a period of time or with a delayed result.

There is no circular logic. The rule doesn't say that it dissipates immediately. Therefore saying it does is a false statement unless your DM says otherwise.

That doesn't specifically say that you can make a thrown attack on a solarian weapon. The only way that works is if you can somehow keep your hand on the weapon the whole time you're throwing it... which would more accurately be called a "reach attack."

The fusion > thrown weapon property > ranged attack with thrown weapon says it does. I could quote it, but it wouldn't do anything when the fundamental belief is counter to definitive interpretation by literal definition.

Also, I would consider the solarian class ability that causes your solar weapon to be dismissed to be the more specific rule to the thrown weapon property.

I consider the "functions as an advanced melee weapon" even more specific than that. I can throw an advanced melee weapon with the thrown property.

Consensus doesn't mean correct and it's easy enough to houserule that it dissapates immediately. The rules allow the combination to work by the literal meaning of the words used. The writer didn't use words or a statement like "immediately" or "when it leaves your hand."

That is there the preponderance of the evidence is. That is the more sensible and consistent rules conclussion.

There is no preponderance when the conclusion is based on an arbitrary assumption of limited scope. When you apply the full scope of application of the sentence it proves the assumption false.

Thrown and reach are pretty much the only two advantages a melee soldier has over a melee solarion.

What does this blatantly false strawman have to do with the original argument?

Random invisible creatures coming up to steal the dropped items and immediately running away stopped rampant weapon dropping for me. There is just something about theft that is more traumatic than destruction.

Darg727 wrote:

That's where specific starts to trump something not said. Thrown weapon fusion specifically says you can throw it. The rules don't say how long it takes to dissapate, but they do say you can throw your solar weapon and make an attack.

Uh, what rules say that? Can you quote them?

Thrown fusion applies the thrown weapon property to your solar weapon. The thrown weapon property allows you to throw your weapon which is a standard action that lets you make an attack roll and a damage roll if you hit.

I've never put Thrown on a weapon crystal because I couldn't find anything that gave an exception to the weapon disappearing when it leaves your hand.

The bolded segment is the mistaken assumption. It doesn't say "when." It says "if it ever." The time frame is indeterminate. This leaves the door wide open for the thrown fusion to function as advertised.

Of course it does. However, there is a difference between an indeterminate amount of time and a set amount of time. The thrown fusion doesn't make the sentence false. Therefore it works with solar weapons.

Does something have to specifically call out solar weapon for it to alter how solar weapon works? No one questions weapon specialization working with solar weapon despite not actually being an advanced melee weapon. Solar weapon functions as an advanced melee weapon. It should benefit from all things advanced melee weapon. Especially when there isn't a rule that prevents it and all the rules support it.

Besides, what's more fun for the player? Increased character options that don't unbalance a game or arbitrary limitations that are not actually written in the book?

Ok, so if you don't drop your items when KOed, then why does the deviant fusion do the following?

A weapon with the defiant fusion resists efforts to be removed from its wielder. If you are wielding it when you are knocked unconscious, panicked, or stunned, it stays in your hand. You also gain a bonus to your KAC against combat maneuvers to disarm the weapon equal to one-fifth the weapon’s level (minimum +1).

To be honest, wouldn't it be more useful to do an FAQ about dropping items when Unconscious rather then going in circles?

Because that would remove DM agency in a situation that is actually quite situational. Saying you always drop what you are holding is false just like saying you never drop what you are holding is false. I don't think it's wrong for the DM to say you dropped your weapon, but I also don't think it's wrong for the player to keep hold of the weapon either. I regularly use both in D&D 3.5 sessions which also doesn't state you drop what you are holding.

That's where specific starts to trump something not said. Thrown weapon fusion specifically says you can throw it. The rules don't say how long it takes to dissapate, but they do say you can throw your solar weapon and make an attack. The same rules say you can use the weapon orbit revelation. I'd rather pay attention to what the rules say you can do than to arbitrarily limit what you can do with evidence that can support or hinder based on subjective interpretation.

I was thinking real world frag grenade examples when I typed that response.

Darg727 wrote:

E-div_drone wrote:

I hadn't realized that the soulfire fusion can only be applied to a solarian weapon, which can't be thrown, unless you have a GM who is rather generous with the usage of the Thrown weapon fusion.

Doesn't have to be generous. Thrown weapon fusion can be added to a solarian weapon crystal. The fusion specifically allows your solar weapon to be thrown. There is no rule that says your solar weapon dissipates immediately upon leaving your hand.

Except on page 102 of the core rulebook:

Quote:

Your solar weapon is automatically dismissed if it ever leaves your hand.

Where does it say immediately? A grenade with the pin pulled will automatically blow up if the lever is released. That doesn't mean it would blow up before you got to throw it.

... I regret trying to Google the frequency of a 'Death grip'...

Anyway, so obviously my search didn't go so well but surely not everyone maintains hold of objects when they die, plus add in the fact that in Starfinder you are more likely to be KO'ed before you bleed to death.

Most people don't die immediately. Starfinder says you die like gut wounds on TV: really fast. The reality of gut wounds is often a long and painful process.

I'm simply going to keep it short because reality isn't why we are here. The rules don't say you drop what you are holding if you fall unconscious. Whether one wants to chalk it up to the laws of gravity working or that it was an oversight when writing the rules is up to them.

I hadn't realized that the soulfire fusion can only be applied to a solarian weapon, which can't be thrown, unless you have a GM who is rather generous with the usage of the Thrown weapon fusion.

Doesn't have to be generous. Thrown weapon fusion can be added to a solarian weapon crystal. The fusion specifically allows your solar weapon to be thrown. There is no rule that says your solar weapon dissipates immediately upon leaving your hand.

Darg727 wrote:

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Now, falling unconscious causes you to go prone and drop what you're holding. I've seen some people mix that up and since it happens when you fall unconscious and fall prone, it happens every time you go prone, but they are as I said mixed up.

Where does it say you drop what you are holding?

The status Dead also doesn't specifically clarify that you drop your gear. Are you going to hold out saying that they are still equipped and ready, being quite literally held in your character's cold dead hands? The Unconscious condition states that someone is knocked out and helpless. Sadly, there is no Knocked Out condition. It would seem to me, however, that knocked out should be at least as bad, if not worse, than stunned.

Wielding something is completely different from holding something. Losing consciousness doesn't necessitate the relaxation of all muscles within a time frame or at all. "Death grip" is a very real thing.

I would argue that being helpless is already worse than being stunned. You can't take actions when unconcious, have a dexterity of 0, and melee attacks get a +4 bonus to hit. The only thing it isn't harsher than being stunned is that you don't necessarily drop what you are holding.

Now, falling unconscious causes you to go prone and drop what you're holding. I've seen some people mix that up and since it happens when you fall unconscious and fall prone, it happens every time you go prone, but they are as I said mixed up.

Where does it say you drop what you are holding?

Panicked and stunned cause you to drop what you are holding.

IRL it is quite common to remain in possession of what you are holding if you rapidly lose consciousness.

Common sense.

Common sense causes a lot of misery throughout history. As it turns out, there is very little in common or sensible in common sense.

Intelligence and goodwill for a weapon fusion that specifically allows you to throw your solar weapon to hit a target would be that it dissipates after rolling to hit and damage. Especially when it doesn't actually conflict with anything.

It does here where it doesn’t provide a duration.

Is there something to back up that claim?

Generally stacking a stat twice is either the same kind of bonus, or a bonus from the same source so it won't work.

The way I see it is that you only have one charisma modifier(bonus) and an effect that adds your charisma bonus to something isn't actually giving a bonus. Rather, it's altering how the bonus is used. In this case, weapon orbit and soulfire are doing similar things. The difference is that weapon orbit includes penalties while soulfire is only if it is a bonus.

No, because the solar/lunar weapon disappears as soon as it leaves your hand. Nothing about Weapon Orbit changes that, it’s for normal melee weapons used by Solarians who don’t have a weapon manifestation.

Automatically =/= immediately.

The wording of Entropic Strike is a little mind bending:

Your entropic strike is a magical one-handed advanced melee weapon with the operative weapon special property that targets EAC (even when dealing bludgeoning damage).

You can also deliver an entropic strike with any melee weapon, or any shield that allows you to make unarmed attacks (replacing the normal attack with your entropic strike).

I think a similar scenario would be the thrown fusion which allows you to make ranged attacks with your Entropic Strike. By default combat maneuvers require a melee attack roll not just being delivered by a melee weapon.

Would you even really need any entropy points if you are fighting an "insignificant enemy", ala the level 10 vanguard vs a bunch of level 1 goblins?

Not really, but it would allow you to do the whole overpowered villain shtick where they laugh at your puny attempts at harming them and then they destroy you with their flashy cool attacks. I mean, who doesn't want to walk around with the All Shall Kneel zenith revelation always active?

All armor, equipment, and weapons are assigned an item level (CRB page 167). It sounds like you are trying to make an argument that the printed tables assigned one item level, but you can choose to assign a higher one if you feel like it.

The upgrade rules for power armor already assign a new item level. You're just shopping for armor that was sold for 10% of it's value to buy for 10x that. The rules already state that the current price is what you sell for 10% at.

You can buy a weapon made of special materials (CRB page 191). You could "buy" a weapon with an installed fusion because that would be identical in cost and function to buying a weapon then installing the fusion. It's a distinction without a difference.

Thanks to a lack of punctuation and a lack of any rule that says you pay for each level upgraded; buying upgraded power armor also has no difference in price

They do have an example. Ironclad bulwark is improved to 11th level for 28,875 credits and then to 12th for 43,312 more credits.

According to the upgrade rules, those are the actual prices for that armor at those item levels

You can technically buy them at the appropriate level (with the sale price of the previous armor it's even cheaper) so there isn't any real reason to have impossibly expensive upgrades.

This is what we don't understand. What are you saying here? Are you suggesting that you can "skip item levels" when improving power armor to avoid paying for them?

I'm not suggesting that you "skip item levels" so much as pay for the level you upgrade to rather than the levels in between. The rules say that "it costs a number of credits equal to 150% of the armor's current price (...) for each level gained." It never says you pay the cost at every level. Let's use the provided example. In 2 upgrade events it would be 28,875 and 1 day + 43312 and 1 day. However, in just one event you would pay 43,312 and spend 2 days working. The reason this works is because you don't pay every level. So the cost is the end result. 2 levels in a single upgrade would be 150% per level or 150% * 150% for 225% of the current price which would be that 43,312. If you were level 20 and wanted to upgrade it from level 10 to 20 it would cost 1,110,052 and 10 days of work.

Now... if that armor was prices as the level 5 price plus the final upgrade to 11 price it's reasonable, but that's not how the rules read.

That's what the current price is though. Price means what it costs to buy. Current means now. 10% of the current price is what you get when you sell it.

Automatically =/= immediately.

There is nothing that actually prevents it from working with either the thrown fusion or the new revelation.

The Weapon Orbit revelation says it allows you to make ranged attacks and then at the end of your turn the weapon returns to your hand. I don't see a reason you can't make your attacks, the weapon is dismissed at range, and then returns to your hand by reforming in your hand as part of the revelation.

Darg727 wrote:

You can technically buy them at the appropriate level (with the sale price of the previous armor it's even cheaper) so there isn't any real reason to have impossibly expensive upgrades.

You CAN'T just buy them at the desired level. They only can be bought at the listed level. That's the problem/point of this thread. The only reason to upgrade power armor is to hang onto the special features of the suit (like Celerity Armor's speed) while still having ACs that are appropriate to the party's tier.

Why can't you? Is there some rule that says that you can only ever buy items at the listed price as the stock item? Is it impossible to buy a weapon made of special materials or with an installed fusion? Upgraded power armor is of the level it is upgraded to and even has a price to match.

Proficiency is a benefit of the feat or the class. Weapon specialization is a benefit of the feat. Class proficiency does not mean the character has the proficiency feats, but the Weapon Specialization feature specifically calls out that you get the separate Weapon Specialization feats as bonus feats which gives you the benefit of specialization as mentioned in the feat.

At least that is the way I read it as the feats tell you that you gain the benefit of proficiency or specialization as if it weren't the feat itself.

A creature currently being observed can’t attempt a Stealth check without first breaking that observation.

While this is true, it is a more general rule than the one found under dim lighting:

Because dim light is not ideal for observation, if you're in an area of dim light, you can attempt a Stealth check to conceal yourself from creatures without low-light vision, darkvision, or blindsight.

If the dark alley is considered to be within darkness or dim light you can attempt a stealth check. This isn't for all forms of concealment, just dim lighting. A solarian wouldn't be able to make a stealth check while using Blazing Orbit for example (unless they went behind cover or entered dim lighting or darkness). Dim lighting seems to qualify for the "mask itself from your precise senses" requirement.

What is the observed status of an operative doing jumping jacks in a shadowy alleyway?

None of the observed statuses really fit.

Shadowy or dim lighting? Shadowy doesn't do anything directly while dim lighting gives concealment. You have to also be suspending disbelief to think that an operative doing jumping jacks is actually trying to hide or move silently. Sometimes there don't have to be rules to dictate everything because it gets ridiculous when you simply let anything go. You could also have that same operative hide and then move into the middle of the floor. The rules don't say that you lose your unseen status, but at the same time who wouldn't see a person in plain view moving slowly in the middle of the floor.

I don't really see it as contradictory. If a stealthed character leaves cover or concealment, they are in plain view. They aren't invisible so everyone that can see automatically can see them. It would be like losing your invisibility while stealthing in the open.

Being behind cover or having concealment makes it more difficult to see the character. So taking actions like hugging close to walls or following shadows can make them impossible to see unless the other characters can study the area to spot them. An extremely obvious example would be a person in camo in a backdrop that matches the camo. Normally you wouldn't be able to just look at the backdrop and immediately spot them. You would have to make visual comparisons and search the backdrop to find them.

Mechanically speaking, cover and concealment work similarly to invisibility without preventing normal sight from working. You stealth, opposed by everyone that can normally see you. If you succeed then you are unseen and have total concealment. If a character spends a move action to search for you and succeeds, then they see you. That same character could also walk behind the cover so that you no longer have cover and spot you without a perception check because you are now in plain view. Or, if you are hiding in dim light they could move a light source closer to bring you into view. Conversely, if you are stealthed and walk into plain view you are no longer concealed because you can be seen (you aren't trying to hide anymore so why would you get the benefits of hiding).

Invisibility is indeed weird, but is doable. If the creature is invisible, it is not hiding unless it attempts to hide. If the creature is walking and invisible, it's a free DC 10 check to hear the walking. Now you are aware of the presence and can spend a move action searching to pinpoint the location. If the creature isn't hiding, there is no stealth check to oppose your perception so you would easily pinpoint their location. It still doesn't give you the ability to see them; so they have total concealment towards you.

There is only ever one stealth check made when you attempt to hide that is opposed by perception checks of those that can detect you in the area. If no one that can detect you is in the area, then the check is unopposed until some one gets a free perception check to notice you (DC is your stealth check). If they fail, they are unaware of you. If they succeed they are aware of your presence in the area. After this, they can use their move action to search for you to pinpoint your location (if successful they are no longer flat footed against you.)

Blindsense lets you pinpoint a creature with a notice check.
Blindsight lets you observe a creature with a notice check.

~~~~~~~~~

To provide my input to the OP's questions:

1) Aware of presence as mentioned by others

2) You only need to roll a notice check when it would be feasible for a character to do so. In the case of a wall parallel to 2 walkways, unless it's stated that something could grab the character's attention like a sound that can travel through the wall or possibly sense through then they wouldn't get a check to notice anything. If they were close to an intersection, hearing walking is DC 10 and anything easier like talking or battle would be DC 0.

3) They aren't invisible, but they would get the +20/40 bonus to stealth checks. If their presence is noticed, then others could spend a move action searching to locate their position.

4) When Jack attempts to stealth it sets the DC. If the creature doesn't "stealth" then they aren't moving silently and would be fairly easy to pinpoint even with imprecise senses like normal hearing. If they stayed in place, the location is already pinpointed. If they moved without attempting to move silently then their check would be zero. (No rule actually says this, I just don't see why invisibility should confer the benefits of being silent if they aren't trying to be silent).

5) Billy can shoot at any square they want. If billy can't see a creature in a square, but there actually is one then the creature gets the benefits of total concealment from billy which is generally 50% chance the attack doesn't even roll to hit.

Hiding while invisible only confers the benefit of being harder to detect. Both provide total concealment, but you can't be more unseen than completely unseen so only one instance (the best source) of concealment would be in effect.

6) If a character can't pinpoint/see a creature because of the high bonus, that doesn't mean that all is lost. The DM is supposed to arbitrate bonuses and penalties to the check based on factors such splashing in a puddle, fell in a substance with a strong odor, or other factor that could logically help/hinder you locating someone.

The way I had originally read the rule was that it cost 150% of the current price and 24 hours for each level gained (150% x 150% x 150% x 150% for 4 levels or 506.25% of the current price and 96 hours).

The wording is absolutely atrocious. Considering the sentence structure could be read like the above or that you pay the base price every level upgraded, not having an example where they increased multiple levels in one go is honestly confusing.

You can technically buy them at the appropriate level (with the sale price of the previous armor it's even cheaper) so there isn't any real reason to have impossibly expensive upgrades.