Darg727's page

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."

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.

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 isn't the case. It would be if the feats were weapon critical hit effects, but the basic disagreement is that the rules don't specify that the feats are actually weapon critical hit effects. Some of us here would probably classify them as feat critical hit effects instead.

It is a totally valid question. It's either reaffirming the move action per use or it's imposing a move action per target. It's a capstone ability that is maxed out at +3 AC per target for a single attack. Power wise, the first option seems more sensible. The second makes the cool int modifier worthless.

Personally, I would rule 1 move action to target int mod targets.

The benefits don't stack but multiple castings can provide the different benefits. Greater cast twice would give you the DR and resistance. Lesser cast 6 times can grant DR and resistance to the 5 energy types.

Line of effect is simply an unhindered line from any one point in your square to any point in the target square.

Total cover means you do not have line of effect. No matter how you maneuver the line it will always run into a square occupied by an obstacle such as a wall before reaching the target square.

Regular cover happens when the line of effect sometimes runs into an obstacle, but it still can get to the target square. This is what happens to #2 and #3 in the image in the CRB

Soft cover is almost same thing as regular cover, but the line of effect sometimes passes through a creature to reach the target. The difference here is that the border of a creature does not block line of effect.

Nefreet's image #1 does not provide soft cover to the wolf because the the line never passes through the square that is occupied by the creature. The reason #3 provides cover is that the wall blocks line of effect. The rule is that the border (edge of a square) of something that blocks line of effect also provides cover. A creature wouldn't block line of effect unless it occupies the entire square, like a gelatinous cube. I don't believe a gelatinous cube type creature exists, but who knows.

To explain the FAQ answer in more detail: If the line of effect is unhindered using any point in either square simply ignore the rule of borders give cover. This is shown in the CRB using the Cover image with example #1.

This manifestation functions similarly to solar weapon, except it deals 1d4 damage at 1st level. This damage increases by 1d4 at 6th level, 9th level, 12th level, and every level thereafter. Your lunar weapon also has the feint (Starfinder Armory28) and operative special qualities (though it can’t be used to make trick attacks, if you have that class feature)

Lunar Weapon says it functions like solar weapon with 3 exceptions: damage and the feint and operative qualities. I'd say it strongly works with the soulfire infusion.

The raw was undeniable that it did not work. It was complicated, but the no answer dropped objectively out of the rules like an f(x) problem. The flare cannot have any fusion that would not go on a small arm was the most specific exception, and solar flare can't go on a small arm.

I'm curious where this small arm exception for soulfire fusion is. The only thing I can find is that it can only be applied to a solarian weapon crystal. The FAQ only says "no" which isn't helpful unless it is simply meant to errata it away. I don't like it, but I wonder if it was simply too good for society play?

Edit: Ok, I see it. It felt like a gut punch when the logic of it hit me.

Its not. At least not in a metaphysical universe like starfinder. There being something there but the light not behaving as it normally would to show that something is there, is exactly what True seeing stops.

What? The light would be behaving exactly as it should. People manipulate the physical properties of matter all the time. You don't think building a dam stops water from behaving as it should do you? It's the same principle.

Absolutely not. Point blank no.

If you are unaware of a creature, aware of a creature’s presence, or aware of a creature’s location, that creature is considered to be “unseen”

Observed is NOT unseen. Its very specifically the other state of awareness. If the arguments need to contradict the plainly and specifically written text to save the cloaking field, its toast.

Wait, so a creature that is seen can't perform a hide check to hide? Looks like Cloaking Field doesn't work as written. Oh wait, what does the ability have to say about it?

While the cloaking field is active, you can use Stealth to hide, even while being directly observed and with no place to hide.

Seems like it makes an exception to the rule

You confer upon the target the ability to see all things within 120 feet as they actually are

The operative is actually there. You see him as he is. there. Fully visible. The creature.

The target sees through <---- Again. Sees. Not senses a location, gets a vague hint, not knowing what square the person is in, sees.

I have never in 30 years of the spell being virtually unchanged seen someone try to read true seeing that way. You cannot focus only on one sentence and extrapoliate endlessly from there without looking at the bigger picture, especially when the bigger picture goes contrary to your extrapolations.

I think with this I've just about settled on there being no justification for true seeing not working.

You focus on one thing that goes against your belief of how something works and you throw in the towel. Alright then.

It's simply how the spell is worded. If bending light is not reality, I really have to wonder what a black hole looks like.

And I really have to wonder if you read Cloaking Field. The operative is already seen and you don't need true seeing to see the operative. The operative is not, I repeat, not invisible. I already said that I'm not advocating for the alternate interpretation of seeing invisible creatures, but I do wonder what this big picture you are imagining you are seeing.

Wow. No. The entire point of illusion magic is that you can have light that bends so it looks like nothing is there (invisibility). You can have nothing is there that works with light to show that something IS there (an illusion)

Illusion magic creates stimuli of something that isn't there. It doesn't manipulate something that is already there (aka "light") to create the effect. If it were it would be more properly classified as transmutation magic.

You really like the "as they actually are" line a lot. You aren't wrong that true seeing does that, but what does it actually mean? Is it defined somewhere in the book? What about the next 2 sentences of the description?

So my Psychic Operative who projects a field should in all reason fail vs True seeing, yet your 'tech' version doesn't.

Cloaking field is not invisibility. It bends light. Meaning it exerts itself on something that exists. If light had mass it would be like using psyochokinetic hand to move an object. And obviously psychokinetic hand does not change the form of an object it moves. All it does is alter its location.

True Seeing wouldn't 'turn off' the mirror. The light would still be there, the illusion would still be there. You would just be aware that the image that this mirror is producing does not represent the actual location of the object.

How does that not break physics?

Maaaaagiiic.

It's not an illusion according to starfinder. I guess the point I was trying to make is that there has to be a line. What we see as objects and color is an illusion created by our own minds to function in life. If we saw things as they actually are, there would a whole lot of nothing in sight as the amount of space an atom takes up is massive in comparison to the size of its parts. If there isn't a line (the book), then it simply becomes a logical rabbit hole.

I don't think arguing any further is going to get anywhere with this topic.

They don't say they reduce your penalty. They tell you what the penalty becomes. So they don't actually stack benefits because they aren't giving you a bonus or penalty.

Light IS reality though. True seeing doesn't grant sight. It enhances sight. You can gain darkvision, but it can't help you if you are blind.

Water is clear and if it weren't for the scattering of light caused by passing through the water in the air fog wouldn't impair vision. If one had the ability to filter and puzzle the light back together then theoretically they would be able to see much further in fog, even if dimly.

Light not reaching your eyes is physically the same as if there were a wall in your way and you can't see through it. The light is being redirected from your sight. The description of true seeing mentions not being able to penetrate solid objects, confer x-ray vision (alter the wavelengths you can see which could possibly not be bent/deflected in the same way light can), and it also doesn't negate concealment.

The wording of the spell and the text on pg 261 about "Dealing With Unseen Creatures" strongly attests that, while you may be able to see and observe it, an invisible creature still retains total concealment from you. The spell only mentions seeing the creature's location, not the creature itself. By comparison, the spell See Invisibility flatly tells you that you see the creature/object. The spell displacement specifically mentions that the source of the miss chance is the altered location and is not a concealment effect. It's amazing how the small details change the how a spell works going from 3.P to starfinder. This detail I'm willing to toss out a window though. I'm not so sure it was the intent to change the spell in this way instead of shortening the description. I like it personally though. It's a nice way to keep see invisibility relevant even if you have the swiss army knife of true seeing.

Isn't bending light tricking the senses to not see whats there?

Bending light is the only reason you can see at all. Light has to be redirected toward your eyes and then the lenses in your eyes focuses the light onto "sensors" at the back of the eye. This sends chemical signals to your brain to process the information to create an image.

Bending the light in a way that it doesn't reflect into the eyes but still allows light behind you to travel around you is no more a trick than you not being able to see through fog. You are being deprived of information, not having your perception altered or tricked.

An illusion tricks the senses to believe something that isn't true. In technical terms, a mirror causes an illusion. What then is the difference that prevents true seeing from turning off a mirror and breaking physics?

The handbook only mentions illusions as part of the illusion spell school or something that requires a will save to disbelieve. There isn't a need to extrapolate further than what is in the book. Normally there is text saying that the effect is illusory or an illusion. Holograms can't all be illusory either as you have the divination spell Hologram Memory that creates a hologram and most holograms don't require a save to disbelieve. Luckily the Holographic Image spell uses the the term Illusory to describe itself to set itself apart.

I still don't think true seeing applies to cloaking field. I can't see it allowing you to look through a prism and see the other side with unbent light. True seeing does these 5 things:

1) The target sees through normal and magical darkness,

2) notices secret doors hidden by magic,

3) sees the exact locations of creatures or objects that are invisible or displaced,

4) sees through illusions,

5) and sees the true form of changed or transmuted things.

Cloaking field is not normal or magical darkness. It is not a secret door hidden by magic. It is explicitly not invisibility, nor is it even remotely described as displacing. It's not an illusion as it doesn't allow a will save to disbelieve it. It doesn't alter the character's form as they are exactly as they were, nor does it transmute the character.

Cloaking field doesn't fit any of the criteria and it already has a counter: perception checks.