Hasn't this been sufficiently discussed before?
Search Posts
A shield implement with an attached weapon implement looks to be just fine to me. Since both are implements, Implement's Empowerment won't have problems with the number or type of things that you are holding. Regarding Shielded Tome, I would allow the fusing of the shield implement (with any attached weapons or shield augmentations) to a book and let the resulting item still count as an implement as long as the item is in its shield form. When it is turned into a book, it's status as an implement is suppressed. It's status as a shield is also suppressed as well as any attached weapons - so none of those would be usable until it is changed back into a shield. You would be able to Raise a Tome as normal. But the book would only have its book stats (which copies the hardness, HP, and BT of the shield) but wouldn't have any of the shield's special properties or attached items.
Seems pretty good if there's nothing stopping it. It is ambiguous. And to quote the Ambiguous Rules rule: Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is.
Psi Development provides the amp for the psi cantrip you get from Psi Dedication in addition to its own psi cantrip, and gives you a focus pool of 1 Focus Point if you don't have one already. This means that if you already have a focus pool, you don't gain a Focus Point.This just doesn't make sense to me and flies in the face of how focus spells work in the remaster. Agreed. There is no reason to override the standard definitions of how to calculate your number of focus points. The standard rules for that already account for having focus spell cantrips (you don't get a focus point for those). So with the standard rules, you would get one focus point for each different Amp that you have, whether it is linked to a particular cantrip or a stand-alone that you can add to them. Why make it more complicated than that? Amping is now defined as a free action, while still being incompatible with spellshapes. This prevents amping from being used on subordinate actions such as the spell cast as part of the Magus's Spellstrike, as well as out-of-turn actions.The out of turn part has to be an error or oversight IMO. I can't believe they'd deliberately make that not work. I kinda can understand. Amps are mechanically behaving like Spellshapes at this point. And Spellshapes are already not able to work with subordinate actions such as Spellstrike or out-of-turn actions. That doesn't make Spellshapes worthless, so I don't think it is going to make Amps worthless either. At least not in general. There are a couple of specific Amps that need to have an override to allow them to be used as part of a reaction.
It seems like Networked Android is better than the Phreaker skill feat in every situation I can think of. OK. Why wouldn't or shouldn't a heritage be strictly better than a level 1 skill feat? You get one heritage choice. You get at least 10 opportunities to pick up a level 1 skill feat. This comes up for androids since the Artificial Scion Android heritage seems strictly worse then networked android. So pick Networked Android then? There are some differences. Artificial Scion gives training in Computers. Which can be useful for a class that gets fewer skill training points or a character that needs a multitude of skills. Networked Android needs you to pay a skill training to get Computers in order to get full use out of the abilities.
NGL I'm a little surprised at how hostile the reaction to the OP is here. It causes me a cognitive disconnect when people use the wrong words for things. These rules are not unclear. The options are incompatible. That is a very different accusation. By choosing Ancient Elf it does indeed lock out of other options at level 2. That is very clear just by reading the rules for the dedication feats. By choosing a Class Archetype, it limits what options you can choose at level 2. That is also very clear just by reading the rules for Class Archetypes. By choosing both of those options, you are very explicitly and deliberately crafting yourself a footgun that is going to go off when you level up to level 2. There is nothing hidden here. There is nothing confusing about these rules. You shouldn't be surprised when you get to the level up process and find that there are zero options available to you. Because the rules are not unclear. How to resolve this option incompatibility is not defined. That is left up to the GM and the table to decide on. Which can be as simple as 'don't choose both of those options at level 1'. It can also be something more permissive and lenient to one or both of those restrictions in the dedication feats and class archetypes. Things can be very explicitly left up to the table to decide on. That does not mean that the rules are not clear.
Normally I hear people ruling that fire damage is prevented as well. In addition to actions and spells with the fire trait. Because why wouldn't fire have the fire trait? So while you could use a laser pistol underwater, it wouldn't do any damage. But mostly you will want to work it out with the GM on what weapons do and don't work. Maybe a laser pistol should work.
i would vote no, it's atonement time Or Retraining time. Pick a new Cause that does match what the character is wanting to do. There isn't a good reason to have a Champion that is restricted from using their abilities long-term. For an NPC, just have the Champion be built to do what they are doing in the first place. For a PC or plot-important specific NPC that is going through a story arc, they can follow the same rules as for a PC - Atonement or Retraining. It isn't good for the game balance to have a PC that isn't able to work at 100% effectiveness.
I propose a more precise wording of that bolded sentence: "If you do nothing that interferes with making steady progress toward your goal, you move at the full travel speeds given in the table." The intent of the rule isn't to force characters to not be able to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Alchemist isn't the only class that has things like this. Sorcerer can also regain focus points while traveling at full speed. Arguably depending on what the Refocus activity is, so can a lot of other focus point caster characters. A Cleric can probably walk and pray at the same time, for example.
Sounds like Sanctuary spell but as an alchemical item. Agreed. I'm also thinking Pet Cache. But that has a different purpose. Which brings me to my first question: What is the intent with this attack-immune horse? Is the idea to bypass the low bulk carry amount that a Wizard typically has by having a pack animal? Would Ant Haul or Carryall work instead? Is the idea to have a mount that will speed up transport between the local settlement and the various dungeons and other plot points but can be left outside the entrance to the dungeon to await your return? Would Marvelous Mount work? Or Pet Cache to put the horse in?
Looks like 7200 credits lump sum.
An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon. Talk to your GM about getting a houserule exception. But the rules say that it doesn't work.
Unclear? No, there's no way for the character to be legal. That's pretty clear.It's only once you reach level two that the bind presents itself. Causing an invalid character doesn't mean that the rules are not clear. They don't work, and should be houseruled in some way so that they do. But that is not the same as having rules that are not clear. Unclear rules are when two different people can read the same rules text and parse the sentences or game terms or examples in different ways and end up with different ruling results. For example, Ready allowing you to prepare to use one action as a reaction. Does that mean one simple action, or are single-action activities such as 1-action spells allowed? That is an unclear rule. Ancient Elf not removing the restriction on taking additional dedication feats is not unclear.
Whether the triggers are written differently is never the standard for trying to take 2 Reactions to one thing, anyway. That is true. I still say that it is a weak argument in this case. In the example scenario, Reactive Strike is being triggered from a move action, so if I remove the other possible triggers for it then I end up with: Brace trigger: an opponent that moves within your reach
You might be able to find a GM that would rule that those are similar but different triggers. I'm certainly not one of them. And it would still run into the problem that SuperParkourio pointed out that the same Move action can only be reacted to once by any particular creature. It doesn't matter if the Move action provokes multiple reactions with very different triggers. It still only counts as one.
Using Brace in conjunction with Tactical Reflexes will be difficult to pull off. A creature cannot react to the same action twice, even with multiple reactions. So the enemy will need to perform two move actions: one to provoke the Readied Strike and one to provoke the Reactive Strike. Hmm... Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). Each square moved can trigger reactions. But yes, I think you are right that one Move action, such as Stride, could only be reacted to by your character once. It could be argued that the two triggers are different. "Strike an opponent that moves within your reach" and "A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using." But that is a pretty weak argument that those are different enough to be different triggering actions. Especially with the specific rules text in triggers from Move actions saying that you can only react to the same Move action once. That looks to be specifying that one Move action is still only one trigger even though each and any square moved through can be that triggering point.
Yeah, the ability now conflicts with itself. Affected creatures don't make new saves on Sustain. But only additional failed saves (that they don't attempt?) will increase the Stupefied condition. How I would run it:
Is there a MAP for the reactive strike ? No, not for the Reactive Strike. However, there are some other things to note about this. Ready will apply the MAP the character is at to the reaction when it is used. So in some circumstances, the readied reaction that benefits from the Brace trait will have MAP applied. The Reactive Strike made after that still wouldn't. Also, Ready will immediately end the character's turn even if they have actions left. So it is valid to do Recall Knowledge first and then Ready with your last two actions (as described in the example). A different example that doesn't work would be to Ready a Strike for the Brace trait for your first two actions, and then Strike an opponent already in reach with a third action. Another thing to note is that it is possible to have multiple reactions available, but it requires a fairly high level feat (Tactical Reflexes being the only option as far as I know). Without that, a character would have to choose which reaction to use: the readied Strike with the Brace trait, or Reactive Strike. You couldn't do both. Now, given the wording of the Brace trait, it looks to me like you would get the Brace trait's damage boost even if you don't use the readied Strike. It would still apply to the damage for Reactive Strike whether you use the readied Strike first or not. It is a little strange to use two actions on Ready and then not use the reaction - but strange doesn't mean that it isn't allowed. So you could Strike, Ready, then make Reactive Strike when an enemy comes in reach to attack without MAP and still get the Brace trait boost to damage.
The Lantern's area of effect is also now treated as an aura If the effect isn't an Aura, then it is pretty easy to make the rules argument that the effect is stationary after use even if the Thaumaturge and the lantern move to another location. That makes no sense and the number of tables that run it that way was likely vanishingly small, but it is still good to have the official game mechanics match what people are actually going to play the game with.
Are you talking about playing specifically Battle for Nova Rush? IF you are, then all I can say is different strokes for different folks.When you play the scenario, you FEEL like you're on a starship in the middle of combat. You're frantically doing things to affect that combat It's more like: different results from different GMs. It very much depends on how often and how well the GM sells the description of surrounding events while the party is doing the first 7/8ths of the adventure. Because yes, I will agree that mechanically the majority of the adventure has nothing to do with starship combat. But that is also why the subsystem is called Cinematic Starship Scenes. The subsystem's mechanics alone aren't going to sell it for you.
Willing to bet most PFS tables let it crit for double regardless though, probably without even realizing that it's even an error. Yup. That is my biggest problem and concern with this in general. With the rules text as it is, Attack roll spells do not double their damage on a critical spell attack result. But that is done by silent omission. So, many players don't realize this. Saving throw spells have the Basic Save shortcut that can be used. But spell attack roll spells don't. And it is really difficult to cite a rule that isn't printed. There is errata needed here too. We need to have some clarifying note in spell attack roll results that explicitly states as reminder text that if a spell does not list a critical success result, it uses the normal success result by default without any doubling of damage.
you need to read Battle for Nova Rush as an example. The link to the free PDF is at the bottom of the description And the link for it is really, really hard to notice. Fortunately, it is just a standard url. So: Battle for Nova Rush.
Which spells require speech in the remaster is not about the Concentrate trait at all. The remaster rule is that all spells do EXCEPT when something like the Subtle trait removes the need to speak. Agreed. To add rule citations: Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures and utter incantations, so being unable to speak prevents spellcasting for most casters. A spell with the subtle trait can be cast without incantations and doesn't have obvious manifestations.]
Normally, yes - the better option would be to fly for 20 feet rather than Stride for 5 feet. You do need the land speed. It is needed for things like Step. There may be niche circumstances where flying at all would be a bad idea such as if a powerful enemy ability can only target flying creatures. Also to note - this only works if you have ground that you can end your Fly action on. Otherwise you are still going to have to spend an action on Fly each round you are in the air in order to not fall.
It has a fly speed, but its own rules text takes precedence and modifies what that can be used for. So no, you cannot fly it up into the air.
it follows the standard logic, Same rune doesnt stack, if the weapon ever has more property runes than it can support then you choose which runes are active up to the allowed maximum. To pick nits: There are no standard rules for this. We generally borrow the rules for Etching and Transferring Runes because it is close enough and we don't have anything better for ruling on applying temporary runes on items. If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them. But it doesn't say that the player gets to choose which runes go dormant and which are active. From the plural usage of 'property runes', it sounds like all of the property runes will go dormant if there are too many of them. Which makes sense for rules regarding tinkering with and upgrading your permanent equipment during downtime. There is no good reason to leave your equipment in a bad state at the end of that process. It makes less sense when applied to fast abilities that are temporarily cloning property runes onto other equipment in the heat of battle. So nit picking aside, I would probably run it pretty close to what you described. But I can see several variations of it that are all rather valid, and are different in how they decide on which property runes are active and which aren't.
There isn't much meaningful rules text in these ancestry traits. And no, an ability is not the same as a weapon. The purpose of these ancestry traits is to create groups and lists in a way that is future-proof - as new books with new equipment and abilities get printed, the existing rules can still work with them. For example, the Kasatha Weapon Familiarity feat. It works with all currently printed weapons with the Kasatha trait. It also will work with all weapons with the Kasatha trait printed in the future. As for being prevented from getting a weapon because it has the Kasatha trait, that is not what the trait does. That is instead controlled by the rarity traits. Uncommon or Rare weapons won't be available by default. Even an Uncommon weapon with the Kasatha trait does not automatically become available to a character with the Kasatha ancestry. That is another part of what the Kasatha Weapon Familiarity feat does - it requires the GM to allow access to the weapon list. However, even without any feat or rules forcing the GM's hand in the matter, the GM can give access to Uncommon and Rare feats and equipment as they decide. So for example, the Puzzleblade does not have the Uncommon or Rare traits, so every character has access to it by default. A Kasatha could buy one at most space dock weapon marts. As could a Pahtra or Vesk. Taking the Kasatha Weapon Familiarity feat wouldn't do much because the weapon is Common and is also a simple weapon. It would give the character the critical specialization effect of the weapon at 5th level. In the future, if there is a weapon printed that has the Kasatha and Uncommon traits, then none of those characters would have access to it. None of them could buy one in the local space dock weapon mart. If the Kasatha takes the Kasatha Weapon Familiarity feat, then they could get one - not from the standard weapon mart, but they can get them from somewhere. The Pahtra and Vesk still couldn't .
For those who don't want the complexity, they can just save up their free formulas? Not for higher level formulas, of course. But if you don't want to spend the time going through the item lists looking for the next thing because you are happy with the items you are already able to create, then I don't see why that should be forced to happen at that exact time. Just write an IOU for the level of item formula that you would get and continue playing.
I'm kinda disappointed how many problems there are with the Undead PC rules. Just reading the rules with no regard to playability and enjoyment. The PC has the Undead trait which says that the character is destroyed at 0 HP. So Stabilizing rules are irrelevant. It doesn't specify if Corpsefolk or any other undead need to eat, breathe, or sleep. Nor does it specify if they are affected by Bleed - though since none of the undead creatures that I am finding are listing immunity to bleed, I would think that they all are affected by it (In Pathfinder2e most undead creatures, such as the Revenant, list out immunity to bleed). However, Bleed Damage itself says that it does not affect nonliving creatures. So...? The rules for PC corpsefolk are different than for NPC/Monster Undead. I would hope so. But I am not finding where it actually say so in Starfinder2e. The Pathfinder2e Undead Archetype rules have overrides for the undead PCs. As does the one undead Ancestry (Skeleton). But as far as I can find, Starfinder2e doesn't have their Undead PCs having rule overrides for the rules in the Undead trait. ----- So what I would recommend is to borrow the Basic Undead Benefits from Pathfinder2e Book of the Dead. That removes that pesky 'destroyed at 0 HP' problem so that you have the standard death and dying rules. As well as giving some of the normal undead resistances and immunities that are thematic. The Stabilize cantrip would not work because it has both the Vitality and Healing traits. But the Stabilize option of the First Aid action should work. Needing to eat, drink, or breathe is pretty low-impact mechanics ruling, so just make a decision for your table that everyone can be happy with. And the Undead PCs should bleed - to the same extent as any other undead creatures do or don't.
I'm not seeing any errata or clarifications regarding unarmed attacks.
Is this thing a living creature? Nonliving creatures typically have a clause in a trait somewhere that says they are destroyed at 0 HP. I see nothing saying that it is not a living creature. It is an outsider. An Inevitable to be specific. Which is a type of Aeon. So it would be as much a living creature as a demon or an angel is. And it has no listed clause of being destroyed at 0 HP.
I wouldn't call it niche, but at the same time it's not common for PCs to try to get chaos damage. And without a forewarning from the GM, it's kind of an impossible fight. Especially after Remaster where alignment damage isn't even officially defined any more. This is a different problem than OP is describing, but it is definitely a problem. Feels like there needs to be a more common ability/item to suppress the regeneration of a creature that is at Dying 3, without needing the specific type of damage that would normally suppress regeneration. That is a good general solution. Something like two characters using a 3-action activity for two consecutive rounds to completely destroy the creature in some manner (some narrative description decided on for each battle - based on the circumstances of the creature and what the party does have available). It isn't something that you can easily do during a fight while there are other enemies to deal with, but it also doesn't leave the battle in a perpetual and unwinnable state where you are completely unable to stop the enemy from getting back up at the start of its turn every round.
"Grenades can be launched from grenade launchers, instead of thrown, using the grenade launcher's range instead of the usual range of 70 feet" which strongly implies its the same as throwing a grenade (single action) just with the launcher's range. It doesn't imply that. It implies that it replaces the rules for throwing a grenade. That is what "instead of thrown" means. Activate [two-actions] Area Fire That is how many actions the item takes to activate. And if that item activation isn't launching a grenade, then what is it doing? ----- Counterarguments: Comparison to Undermounted Grenade launcher. Yes, the Undermounted Grenade launcher only takes one action to fire. That is its benefit. Don't gloss over all of its downsides in the comparison. The Undermounted Grenade launcher can also only be fired once per battle, can only be used with utility grenades, and can't be unloaded without destroying the grenade in the process. That is the cost the item pays in order to gain the improved action usage. General rule for Area Fire being overridden by Grenade rules. That would only be a reasonable argument if you were using the Grenade rules for the Area Fire action. If you are using a Grenade Launcher, then you have the even more specific Grenade Launcher item rule telling you exactly how many actions it costs to use the item's Area Fire activity. Grenade Launcher description only overriding the range of throwing a grenade. As noted above, this is just incorrect. The item also overrides the action cost of using the item. It doesn't do so in the description, it does so in its stat block - which is even more explicit of an override.
Check the FAQ for the book that the item is in. That is where the results will show up. The errata thread is for requests - people mentioning things that don't work right. Discussion about it is taken to separate threads, and official response shows up in the FAQ.
Creatures with Regeneration are hard to kill. Beating them to death doesn't work on its own. You have to also deactivate the Regeneration. Otherwise even if they aren't immune to unconscious, they will just stand back up and continue fighting.
Most of this is going to have guidelines in the Building Creatures rules. Especially the section on Design Abilities. 1/ How do calculate DC for the saves, damage with the level of the creature ? Use the tables 'Area Damage' and 'Spell DC and Spell Attack Bonus'. 2/ Help for abilities and the choices. First, don't put a lot of abilities onto one creature. They won't have the time to use all of them in a fight. You could either create a family of these creatures where different ones have their own subset of abilities, or have a collection of abilities that each instance of creature on the map gets to choose one or two of the abilities. Caustic Pustules: I would use the examples of Slime Squirt or Caustic Leak. The permanent action-free retaliation examples from oozes are not balanced correctly for non-ooze creatures. So make the ability cost a reaction or a free action with a frequency limit. For other effects on a strike: Use the examples of Grab and Shove, and Greater Constrict and Rend creature abilities. For debuff abilities, it costs an additional action after a successful Strike and then applies the debuff. For damage dealing abilities it should cost two actions, or one action after two successful Strikes to apply additional damage. For effects not tied to a Strike: Generally those are going to cost two actions. Like spells.
This does not make them immune to, or otherwise count as, Treat Wounds. It is pretty clear that Battle Medicine is not supposed to be the same as Treat Wounds. It just borrows the math for its scaling healing amounts and DC. If something is supposed to apply to both Treat Wounds and Battle Medicine, then it had better say so rather explicitly.
Yeah, I sometimes think that people forget that this is a cooperative storytelling game. If you want a competitive game, play a board game or deck building game with your friends. There are plenty of those that have an RPG fantasy style theme to them. And if you are wanting to create a story where one person has total control over all of the characters, then just write a story. Plenty of authors do that too. The game rules for this cooperative storytelling game are created and balanced the way that they are in order to avoid a lot of common pitfalls involved in cooperative storytelling.
Like unattended objects, you can't by RAW target an empty space with a Strike action. Yes, attacking objects and targeting empty space should generally be allowed with some GM adjudication. If the GM is using their adjudication privileges to treat the other players at the table in this way, then the GM isn't playing in good faith. Abandon that game.
It would also be really weird if the ability does absolutely nothing for any characters. What is described here is effectively that the trait is nothing more than a weapon category decrease like with Ancestral weapon feats, but with a lot of extra text. If that is what the ability is supposed to do, then it needs to be worded that way via errata. Because currently what is says is to use the higher of the proficiency values. That is what 'up to' means. If I am on a business trip and the rule is "You can use your per diem for meals or spend your own money up to what is in your wallet at the time" that doesn't mean that my meal costs are limited to the lower of the two amounts. So I am going to argue that it is weird no matter which way you interpret it.
Yeah, the rules for Disconnect Quickly are rather vague. Since the option to Disconnect Safely takes such a small amount of time (1 starship combat round) and can be done without impacting participation in the combat, I would just stick to using that.
I think the effect you are wanting is the Greater Field Discovery ability of Mutagenist. If you imbibe another mutagen while you are under the effects of a mutagen, you can gain the benefits and the drawbacks of both mutagens at once, despite the fact that they both have the polymorph trait and would not normally function together. Which is a level 13 class feature, not a level 6 feat. Combine Elixirs doesn't indicate that it overrides the Polymorph trait of Mutagens.
No, it is for any "Spell that has the vitality or void traits and that restores Hit Points" except "healing over time effects (such as fast healing or regeneration)". Embodiment of Balance is not needed, Channeler's Stance will still work with Heal spells cast from Animist slots, or even Lay on Hands gained from Blessed One archetype. Note that this is different than the list of spells that would qualify for Channeler's Stance when dealing damage. Those spells do have to be Apparition or Vessel spells.
Yes. "As is standard for increasing spell ranges, if the spell normally has a range of touch, you extend its range to 30 feet." So Grasping Spirit Spell + 1-action Harm would have a range of 30 feet and make the drag attempt. b/ Is it possible to drag an ally ? Is it a automatically failure for the ally for the fortitude save ? You can target an ally. How that works regarding saves is up to GM adjudication. Strict RAW the ally would still have to roll the Fortitude save and would get moved based on the results of that save. 3/ Echoing channel : If a heal/harm spell with grasping spirits spell and echoing channel, the grasping spirits spell apply also on the 1-action of the same spell ? I would expect no, but GMs may vary on that answer. 4/Liturgist : Uhh... Ask your GM about anything regarding Liturgist. 5/Roaring heart + Elemental form : If a character is in elemental form (water) and sucess a wave attack and spend an action, is it valid to obtain the temporary hit points ? No, because you didn't use Roaring Heart. Roaring Heart gives you two subordinate Stride actions and two free action Shove actions that can be triggered at any time during those Stride actions. Those Shove actions specifically are what are given the ability to gain temporary HP. Elemental Form (water) gives you something a bit similar to the Push monster ability. When you make a Strike and hit, you can spend another action to Push the target. But when you are using Roaring Heart, you don't have any subordinate Strike actions available that could succeed and trigger the Push effect of Elemental Form. And when you use Strike while in elemental form and push someone, you don't have Roaring Heart active to gain temp HP. 6) With the devouring dark form and Avatar Tentacles from the Dark spells casted And we run into problems here. Devouring Dark Form has the Morph trait.
So the two spells will attempt to counteract each other rather than both taking effect. 7/Spiritual guardian : Is it possible to obtain a ghostly echo from the tentacle of the devouring dark form, avatar tentacles from the dark, Invoke offense (from Rivethun Invoker archetype) ? No. Spiritual Guardian is looking for a weapon, which doesn't include unarmed attacks or spell effects.
Well, I can see that the weapons are pretty equivalent on their stats and traits in general. I'm not entirely sure why that is a horrible thing though. It's also kinda debatable whether Fatal or Deadly does more damage at higher levels. So I am not going to immediately accept the blanket statement that having Deadly d12 instead of Fatal d12 makes a weapon objectively and unarguably worse. You will need to make some sort of compelling argument for that one.
Disclaimer: I'm not 'from Paizo', but let's see what I can do here... Hammer being the weapon/toolkit used as the example, and the Professional trait. A weapon with this trait can be used as a toolkit for the listed skill. Clear enough. The Hammer is a weapon by default and can be used as a toolkit for the Crafting skill. Add the weapon's item bonus to attack rolls as an item bonus to skill checks using the listed skill. Also clear enough. If you have an advanced tier of Hammer that has an item bonus to attack rolls, you also use that item bonus on Crafting checks. For purposes of proficiency, you treat this martial weapon as a simple weapon or this advanced weapon as a martial weapon, up to your proficiency with the listed skill (if higher than your normal proficiency for this weapon). So this is basically a two-part benefit. Part 1 is a proficiency level drop from martial to simple or from advanced to martial. In this case the Hammer is a martial weapon, so it would be treated as a simple weapon. I'm not entirely sure what the point of this is because of the next part. Part 2 is to then replace your regular weapon proficiency with your skill proficiency level. So if you are normally Expert in simple weapons, but you are Master in Crafting, then you would use the Master proficiency level to calculate your attack bonus. You would still be using your STR attribute for the melee attack bonus rather than the INT attribute from Crafting though. That is how I am reading it. I'm sure if I am wrong there will be plenty of people who will correct me. =)
I'm assuming a SF1e request here. I would go with Android if you want to stick to core races. The rules text does mention having Androids in non-humanoid design, though it is also specified as rare. SRO (Interstellar Species book) is also an option if you want to go to something more exotic and that has more mechanical differences from a standard humanoid character.
Nah i meant the fortress shield: That's actually worse. A standard Tower Shield is always 1 action to raise and 1 action to take cover behind in order to get a better bonus than a regular shield. The Fortress Shield (which is also a Tower Shield) is 1 action to raise as long as you have a +2 STR bonus. Otherwise it is 2 actions to raise. And it is always still another action to take cover behind in order to get a better bonus than a regular shield. And that is assuming that your campaign is ignoring Bulk rules. A normal shield with level-appropriate shield runes would probably be best.
Consumables, as mentioned, are useful because they are much less expensive and give better bonuses than permanent items of equivalent level. They do eat into your action economy especially in battles where the party is surprised. Automatic Bonus Progression takes the price of the necessary items out of the picture. But it does also put your equipment bonuses onto the same treadmill as all of the rest of your stats. You generally can't squeeze out extra money enough for better items anyway, so that isn't really a bad thing. Especially when playing an AP while having a larger size party and the GM forgets to adjust the loot drop rate... ABP also has some known bugs that have to be resolved at the table, such as being cost inequitable to certain types of classes (mostly spellcasters that still have to pay for their extra learned spells and for wands/staves) and not interacting well with consumables by strict RAW (it strips out those improved item bonuses mentioned and leaves many of them doing practically no effect at all). Houserule the official houserule as needed.
Sounds logical so far... but what is exactly a "body part"? It isn't defined completely, so it is up to GM discretion and table decision. For example, one table may feel that Dragon Claws and Tentacular Limbs are both affecting hands and so they would conflict and counteract, while a different table decides that arms and hands are separate enough parts of the body that the spells can both take effect.
As for magical and non-magical sources, I have always heard that they will still counteract as defined. I know of no rule saying otherwise. Ancestries with at-will polymorph abilities are somewhat prized for this - they can resource-free attempt to remove any harmful Morph or Polymorph effects that they are suffering from.
Effectively, the character will have two 'level' values. Or only one if the character is never going to be in combat. One will be their combat level and the other will be their social encounter level. So:
If the party is level 5 and encounters them on the highway and needs to fight them for some reason, that would be a 15xp trivial threat combat encounter. But if that same level 5 party is facing them in court after doing something stupid and getting arrested, that is going to be a 120xp severe threat social encounter. And you would set their combat stats according to their combat level, and set their skill stats according to their social encounter level.
No one at the table, including me, will have played 2nd edition before, but we all have played a decent amount of 1st. Please, please, please, please please do not expect to use your 1st edition system mastery in PF2. There are plenty of things like this in PF2 where the system is designed to actively counteract or even punish PF1 mentality.
There are probably guides specific for PF2 that can explain the game meta more than I can do here. But a quick summary: PF2 is much heavier on teamwork among the party for combat success rather than numerical dice advantage. For numerical stats, the most important stat is 'Level' and the descriptions of relative level are, if anything, understated - don't put the party up against higher level enemies and think that they will still steamroll it like they could in PF1. PF2 also has a stronger core for skills and skill challenges for those players and campaigns that are willing to engage with it - characters are more than just their combat stats. |