Halek's page

Drones have low strength scores.

If you toss an industrial backpack on one does this apply to it?

When wearing a properly fitted industrial backpack, you treat your Strength score as 2 higher for the purpose of determining your carrying capacity.

I haven't found anything that would stop it and wanted to check.

Every armor has a comm unit built in to it. Comm units are treated as tier 0 computers. By default they have no upgrades or modules. Say you want to install an artificial personality into your comm unit. How much should that cost?

The comm unit itself came free so is the cost 0 credits?

Does the armor used matter at all?

I was leaning towards free for things that rely on a percentage of the cost of the computer, but I wanted to hear different perspectives. Any input?

Thanks for the handy links and advice. I am gonna follow GM Wageslaves groundwork and gather up answers for those questions about motivation.

I am not sure if I should post this here or the advice/pathfinder forum. I decided on this one. I want to be clear that this is a relatively minor issue.

There have been several instances where I go to use a minor ability that isn't just attacking something. I pull up all relevant rules for what I plan to do on the turn before it comes to me. The issue that has made me decide to post here was bizarre from my end at least. I don't really do social interactions well so I might be missing something.

I won't post spoilers but we were in a cave area and everyone except our Soldier had darkvision. I was going to spend an action to activate the flashlight built in to the personal comm unit built in to every armor. He began asking why I had a flashlight in my hands. I just flipped the device I was using with my pdf around with the section highlighted and said that every armor has a built in flashlight.

He responded with a groan and said in a deadpan, "No". When I asked why he just kept saying no.

It has slowly developed like this. The general theme is just ignoring mechanics that aren't just basic attacks. In pathfinder 2e lifting a light object using mage hand doesn't work because reasons. In pathfinder 1e chill touch wasn't allowed to sneak attack because reasons. It was all minor things that had clear cut rules but he just ignored direct rules quotes.

Whenever I brought this up with the person in charge of the lodge it was always waved off. Oh it is no big deal that's just how he is. Am I missing something? Is there anything I can do to address this?

Maybe he is illiterate, or has some sort of learning disorder.

He is a fifty year old guy who brags about how much he reads. I won't say no but I got nothing saying this is the case.

He sounds like a moron. If you can't turn him away, the only other thing I can think of is to sideline or marginalize him as much as possible and maybe he'll get annoyed enough to leave. Sorry, I don't think there's a "magic bullet" solution, that's the best I could come up with.

I don't want to assume the worst in people. He shows up regularly and admittedly he doesn't use warhorn like he is supposed to but I was hoping for something nicer than being passive aggressive at him.

First a bit of background for context. I semi recently moved my isolated library group into the normal PFS lodge in my area. Things are fine in that regard. There is one player from the PFS lodge that has been playing since to quote him "before I was born". When playing first edition together he would drag combat to a crawl because he would only play pregens and then never read anything about his character. I am not exaggerating here is some incidents to illustrate that point.

I don't mean to sound harsh here but it happened every session nearly every time he took a turn. He plays the Ezren pregen and just ignores that wizards have to prepare spells. Plays Valeros and refuses to understand opportunity attacks. Plays Harsk and ignores that crossbows need to be reloaded. It was a drain to have him at a table for the entirety of first edition and he never bothered to learn the rules or even listen to anyone. The rogue spots a trap and tells the group to stay back? He is to busy chatting about Magic with some randos in the game store to pay attention and triggers it. Then complains that we didn't warn him. Any rules discussion he would just loudly declare that it doesn't make sense and scoff at us for caring about the game.

I have played one game with him in second edition. He was playing the cleric pregen. We played a 5th level pregen special with the sheets thoroughly describing every ability and spell. Not sure if the scenario comes with those or if the DM added some notes for his printoffs. I thought it would be great finally all his questions have answers right in front of him. It was just more of the same.

First combat was mostly him being confused about the bless spell and being upset it doesn't instantly give everyone on the map a bonus to hit. After combat the rogue goes to use medicine because why not free healing? He asks the rogue "Why would you do that when i can just cast heal?" He casts it as the 3 action version. His healing amount seemed high so the dm asked him how he got that. What followed was a 20 minute conversation about how you don't get the bonus healing from the 2 action version on the 3 action version. It said so right on the sheet. We have a section were we do some skill checks so that 2 people doing the same thing is pointless. The rogue uses an ability that makes it take twice as long for a minor bonus. He does the same skill check completely removing the point of the rogue having done that. Then acts all surprised when everyone calls him out on it. During a later combat he kept trying to use a focus spell every turn. Despite being shown directly on his sheet where it says he needs 10 minutes of rest to regain a focus point.

I hope I have conveyed my frustration with the situation. I am looking for advice on how to deal with a player who just has a history of refusing to learn rules. We organize sessions via warhorn and I really can't turn people away, but I dread whenever I play with him and have managed to avoid having him as a player by pure luck only. Has anyone else had a similar situation? How did you deal with it? Does anyone have advice in dealing with this issue?

Thanks for the advice il try raising my concerns to the venture captain that runs games once a month in my area.

He is doing readied actions wrong. As an example he has an enemy ready an action to shoot me if i cast a spell. Per page 249 that should occur immediately after the spell is cast. He has it shoot me before I finish casting and breaks concentration losing the spell.

Other sections of the rules suggest this is possible. you need a board clarification to disprove this one.

Ok let go through this with my basic premises.

Also conveniently the designers clarified this. Here is Owen K. C. Stephens Developer, Starfinder Team saying as such. He edited the post to clarify that aoos are not subject to this rule.

LordInsane wrote:
Yes, I'd heard if you take damage you lose the spell, no roll... which is the main reason I worried about some form of casting defensively, if obviously looking radically different (while reluctantly admitting that making it so spellcasters *cannot* cast a spell while threatened without being more likely than not to lose the spell does help in some ways).
[Edit]Three things make this not an issue.

First, reactions resolve directly after the triggering action. So if you cast a spell and someone readied to shoot you if you cast, if the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action you get the spell off before the AoO gets made.
Secondly, most touch-range healing spells specify they do no provoke attacks of opportunity (as do a few other touch spells including some offensive ones).

Third, you lose the spell only if an attack successfully hits your AC or you fail a save against it. For example, if someone lobs a grenade and you are caught in the area while casting, but you make your save against it, that doesn't cause you to loose the spell.

[An earlier version of this post noted that all AoO were resolved after the triggering event, but while that is true for readied actions and most other reactions, it is not for attack of opportunity -- this is one reason we have to write down rules, especially after going through 6 versions of ho things work in development, rather than just trusting out memories].

breithauptclan wrote:

I don't see it as such, no. The 'penalties from being broken' are specifically the penalties listed under the broken condition

broken wrote:

(Item Only) Weapon: attack and damage rolls take a –2 penalty and can’t deal extra effects on a critical hit; armor: AC bonuses are halved and the armor check penalty is doubled; vehicle: –2 penalty to AC, collision DC, and Piloting modifier, and it halves its full speed and MPH; tool or tech that provides bonuses: bonuses are halved.

Yeah, but are the penalties just the -2, or is it all of the above? If it's the latter, than why couldn't the other ill effects be considered penalties of the broken condition as well?

This is what I was saying. You can have a bonus feat and bonus nonnumerical things but penalties are only numerical elements. They are not just the inverse of bonuses which is a bit wonky.

Halek wrote:

Garretmander wrote:

'to suppress the penalties from the broken condition'.

The item is still broken when you try to repair it with engineering. It simply doesn't have the penalties from being broken.

So, no, you still need to spend the money.

Isn't it counting as broken a penalty? And therefore suppressed?

I don't see it as such, no. The 'penalties from being broken' are specifically the penalties listed under the broken condition

broken wrote:

(Item Only) Weapon: attack and damage rolls take a –2 penalty and can’t deal extra effects on a critical hit; armor: AC bonuses are halved and the armor check penalty is doubled; vehicle: –2 penalty to AC, collision DC, and Piloting modifier, and it halves its full speed and MPH; tool or tech that provides bonuses: bonuses are halved.

These penalties are suppressed for the duration of Provisional Repair. None of them reference the cost for doing repairs on the item.

And the broken condition has not been removed. So it must still be paid for when doing repairs.

Thanks for posting this. Rereading the core rulebook I found something fairly weird. Penalties are not defined as the inverse of a bonus. You can have a bonus non numerical effect like a bonus feat but penalties have this as a definition.

Various effects can cause you to take penalties to ability scores, Armor Class, die rolls, movement, or other statistics. Unlike bonuses, penalties do not have types. However, multiple applications of the same penalty generally don’t stack—only the highest penalty applies.

So as weird as it seems penalties are not the inverse of bonuses.

Let me set the scene here. I run and dm for a small starfinder society group with some friends at the public library. I occasionally play at the local game store which has rotating GMs. One of them is aggressively bad at rules and imposes houserules for society play. One of which that is particularity irksome is a natural 1 is an autofailure for skill checks.

The core rulebook has you automiss on a natural 1. I can't find anything to support autofailing skill checks on a nat 1. He makes players roll for everything since, "you could roll a 1"

That isn't in the rules so I can't for the life of me figure out why he keeps doing this. This is the main issue but here is a variety of smaller problems in decreasing importance.

He is doing readied actions wrong. As an example he has an enemy ready an action to shoot me if i cast a spell. Per page 249 that should occur immediately after the spell is cast. He has it shoot me before I finish casting and breaks concentration losing the spell.

Not understanding anything about environmental protections in armor. He makes players roll for inhaled poisons even when they have their armor on and the environmental protections activated. Once when we went to activate out suits before entering a radiation filled area he wanted us to make life science checks to activate them.

He keeps "forgetting" how withdraw works for enemies. They not only ignore the square they start out in for opportunity attacks but for there whole movement. Withdraw past 3 melee vesk, "they don't get opportunity attacks he withdrew."

He doesn't apply flat footed to enemies when they run away. They still get 4 times movement but they can turn and duck into areas out of line of sight. Which they couldn't see when they started to run.

He fills out chronicle sheets wrong. Like he just tells us the fame we get and signs it. Nothing else. This is just a nitpick though.

I have tried broaching this with him but it seems like I am the only one in the group who cares about rules. He isn't a new GM. He ran pathfinder games and made similar mistakes. The skill check issue was the same then so he knows it isn't in the rules. I don't know how to broach this with the group at large. He is breaking the rules for society play willfully and repeatedly. The only reason I don't bail is that he is the only one who does this. I don't always know the GM since sometimes it changes from the person on warhorn the day of.

Does anyone on the forums have advice on how to deal with this? Or what repercussions campaign leadership can use to discourage such behavior? I am at the end of my rope regarding this.

'to suppress the penalties from the broken condition'.

The item is still broken when you try to repair it with engineering. It simply doesn't have the penalties from being broken.

So, no, you still need to spend the money.

Isn't it counting as broken a penalty? And therefore suppressed?

Androids have a humanoid body, so pretty much all humanoids are fair game I'd say.

So if you want your android to look like a Pathra instead of a human, they can look like that, I don't think you even need the Morphic Skin for that.

"Though some androids are constructed or customize themselves to look like other races, such models are relatively rare."

As players are generally the protagonists of the story, why not let them be such a rare model? Adventurers generally are those that don't exactly fit into a standard/average mold.

No I understand that. What I am getting at is are those rare models considered within the normal range of android appearance. Can an android who looks like an elf use morphic skin to look like a catgirl and then change back?

Halek wrote:

Maybe a glass pixie statue with a computer in it that says hey listen would be best.

.... not just no, Hell no!!

Is the objection to that specific one or the concept of aeon plushies in general?

Ok so in game terms you would allow an item of negligible bulk to be on the aeon stones without impacting the functionality.

So if someone were to get a tier 1 computer with maxed out miniaturization and artificial personality they could have a little talking buddy orbiting their head?

Maybe a glass pixie statue with a computer in it that says hey listen would be best.

Also thanks for serving as a baseline for least permissive GM I would still play with.

I was reading through the Armory and found a curios little magitech item called Morphic Skin. It has 3 tiers and allows you to alter your appearance.

My little rules question is in regards to androids and how they interact with the basic version of the item.

The relevant section from the android race section

"Nearly all androids feature a humanoid body shape and tattoo-like circuits that glow through their skin when operating at full power, but beyond this commonality, variations in physical appearance reflect an android’s design, role, and personality. Some take pains to blend into human society, while others deliberately display their mechanical nature. Though some androids are constructed or customize themselves to look like other races, such models are relatively rare."

So my question is can you use morphic skin to look like an android modeled after a race other than human? You can only alter your appearance within the normal bounds of your race. So could a human choose amber eyes? Can an android have elf ears?

The crux of the issue is relatively rare normal? I think it is normal for humans to have amber eyes. Having amber eyes is relatively rare. It is rarer than blue eyes. Barely anyone has red hair and that is still a normal hair color. So do we consider android's that look like catgirls within the normal bounds of an android race?

I am looking for both opinions and how you would rule it in your games.

Halek, who do you believe has the better argument here?

A forum full of very experienced GMs basically concluding with the same philosophy, or a quadruplet of random GMs you encountered at a Convention?

Because, to me, it sounds like you're leaning towards one interpretation over the other.

I want it to be clear that i believe you (plural you) in that what you all describe is how most people are running the rules regarding item use. I am trying to understand why that is since it seems to not be supported or contradicted by the text of the guide.

I have informed my players that my rules only apply at my table and others might just outright ban such behavior under the no pvp rules despite it not being explicit.

The reason I gave the specific examples was that if we are using how it was done in pfs we should recognize that it was inconsistently ruled then as well.

I like the idea of knitted dragon cozies. My character is planning on getting a wyrmling dragon gland so it would fit well. Initially it was just going to be mass effect ship models.

The reason I noted that there was no clause about weight is that there are a few things that will stop it from orbiting your head and providing benefits. Here are the rules.

"Placing an aeon stone in orbit around your head is a standard action, and removing it is a move action. An aeon stone must be in orbit for you to benefit from its abilities. The stone orbits at a distance of 3 inches to 3 feet, as you prefer, but always outside any armor or helmet you wear. An orbiting aeon stone has an Armor Class equal to 12 + your character level, and it can be attacked directly or even grappled (a successful grapple check plucks the stone out of its orbit and into the attacker’s hand)."

The way I am reading it is that the ioun stone provides benefits until 1 of 3 conditions is met. It is destroyed which is why it hs ac. You remove it as a move action. Or someone else grapples it at it ends up in their hand.

There is no other way for the benefits of an ioun stone to be removed in the rules. Putting a bag on it doesn't stop it's orbit.

For dragon plushies do you think a classic red dragon would be best or would going for a more artistic choice like a Pyrausta stand out more?

I noticed something peculiar about aeon stones. They don't have a clause , as far as I can tell, saying they can't hold additional weight. This got me thinking about buying a little costume for it using the 5 credit item from armory. I am thinking a little model ship that makes noises with some clear glass to the center.

Looking through the rulebook this might have some wonky interactions with gear clamps. Am I missing a rule that stops this from working?

Also if this does work what plushies should I get to orbit around my characters head?

@Halek:

If you loan someone a consumable item, you create the understanding that it might be consumed. It's the only way to use the item after all.

With regards to infamy, I think you're mixing two things that are both bad, but shouldn't be confused:

- In-game breaches of the campaign world's rules, such as omitting an evil act. Punished with Infamy.

- Out of character breaking the rules, such as PVP or cheating with dice rolls. You don't punish that by punishing the character, you warn, suspend or ban the player from the session/group/venue/campaign, depending on how severe and persistent the behavior is.

I "loaned' it to them to use under certain conditions. I was playing a rogue and had alchemist fire. Handed one to everyone and said use this if we encounter some swarms. They tossed them at the first enemy we encountered. It was not a swarm. I was upset. DM said deal with it.

For the ropes there was an already triggered pit trap. I tied it off at the top. We climbed down and had the barbarian sunder the spikes at the bottom. Afterwards they cut my ropes down instead of untying them.

For the healing potions I had spent prestige to get some cure serious wounds potions. I handed it to them as an a emergency heal if they are down. I said both in and out of character that these are for emergencies only. The party used them to top off after a fight since the cleric wanted to save spell slots and "if we let you use your clw wand the bless spell will wear off."

For the holy water I had given to everyone to use against the undead that the briefing mentioned might be around. This player lit them self on fire and dumped it on their own head. I still don't understand the how or why they were doing it.

My point is that in PFS players have used my gear that was loaned in situations that I hadn't given permission for. So in practice if not in theory the rules about not using gear without permission don't exist.

Halek wrote:

The rules for pvp are nearly identical so why the variance?

Regional problem?

That actually explains a lot about why we're having this discussion now.

None of that is allowed in PFS, either.

All 4 of these happened at gencon. It is a large convention and variance should be a non issue. Are the rules just not enforced?

Halek wrote:

Destroying someone's unattended gear is vandalism and an evil act. Therefore the infamy system will be used to discourage such behavior.

Attacking gear on a person requires an attack roll against them so not gonna happen unless they are cool with it.

You can still have a robot fighting ring as long as you ask everyone involved before hand both in and out of character. Per the guide on when pvp is allowed.
This rule does not apply in situations where a character is not acting of his own initiative,

While clearly intended to allow mind control effects to impact pcs it does allow drones given orders to not be subject to the no pvp. They still fall foul of the infamy rule and since they count as a player character you are controlling both, issuing the command and having it carried out are an infamy apiece unless the player being attacked consents. AKA any attacks against other player's stuff/minions is 2 infamy minimum and I'l toss you from the table...

Just to reiterate, I don't mean to beat a dead horse I simply want to make sure everyones expectations are realistic, allowing players to attack or destroy other players gear or drones or anything in any fashion, whether you grant infamy or not, is not how the rules are understood in almost anyone elses Society games (as you can clearly see from the responses in this thread).

I don't want you or your players to think this is how others play and they will be allowed to do it if they go to a game at a con, the next town over, online, etc. If a player owns it, you can't mess with it at all without their permission unless they are under a control outside of themselves (this doesn't mean drones with orders, it means drones hacked by an enemy to attack the party, or players mind controlled, etc).

Both me and my players understand that other people can interpret rules differently. I understand that such interpretations are not necessarily wrong. We default to what we think expectations are in unfamiliar settings and not argue rules minutiae at cons. Even when GMs get things wrong like what caster level potions are in PFS we have a general rule of not arguing unless someone is gonna die from the mistake.

This is an area of the rules purposefully left vague and we are using rules that effectively ban behavior not explicitly banned in the guide. If you read the infamy rules it gives lots of leeway for to decide what constitutes an act of evil and therefore when 3 such things occur.

Our rules and guidelines are more restrictive than the guide not less.

In regards to not being able to destroy gear I have found that at least in pathfinder society many players are allowed to destroy borrowed gear without asking and sometimes against the wishes of the owner so that might not be as clear cut as you think. I have had many ropes cut, potions used, and alchemist fires tossed without me being asked, heck one guy was allowed to use holy water I bought to douse himself. The rules for pvp are nearly identical so why the variance?

Society culture starts with you. If you're starting up a society group, you set the culture from the get go. Emphasize 'Explore, Cooperate, Report!' Make it all about teamwork. You set the culture by having a strong vision in your head for what that culture is.

If you see your players as squabbling children, that's what you'll get. If they say, 'but there's no rule saying that I cannot destroy their equipment', don't go reading frantically through the guidebook at the table trying to prove them wrong. Instead, with confidence, just state, "destroying someone's resources is very much a player-vs-player action, and that's how I'll treat it at this table. Let's not go there."

Instead you can provide a vision to them of a proud history of this cooperative organization. Set down the PVP rules for your club -- including respecting others equipment, and respecting your team. Make the Society you envision, and they'll soon adapt to it. This is the time when you can set all the expectations and create your group's culture.

And quite frankly, this is the culture that I see in most parts of the Society, globally. Most of what we do is teamwork; our scenarios that are team-based missions. (I am a bit worried about your group being all mechanics, but if they've taken different themes to expand out the teams capabilities, that can work.)

A group's culture and rules come not just from the society rulebook, but also from an unwritten social contract of etiquette and respect. If you need to make that contract explicit by writing a code of conduct of your club for these particular players, do so. Some venues put up signs laying out the rules for cooperative table play, so this would not be out of line if it is needed for your sanity.

I hope that this all works out for you!

Hmm

First thank you for saying this respectfully.

My guiding philosophy as a GM is to not limit player agency. Unless a rule forbids an action a player may take it. I won't tell the operative he has to see a target to trick attack or the envoy can't use inspiring boost if the enemy they are fighting only has 1 hp left.

As a party they have at least someone with full level ranks in a skill. Not necessarily class skills but ehh.

As a group we tend to think unwritten rules are not enforceable or practical. I know most of them prefer explicit rules as opposed to wishy washy unwritten rules.

Also culture can change without purpose or direction. As an example take the animal companion rules for initiative in pathfinder. It was clearly spelled out in the core book that they got there own initiative but people ignored it so now lots of groups run them on the player characters initiative. Trying to foster culture instead of examining rules and correcting them if need be leads to rules being ignored.

That being said I am not trying to write a general code of conduct. I am trying to follow the society guide as it is written right now. Per the community standards section labelled do not cheat

"DO NOT CHEAT Maintain the integrity of the game and do not cheat. This includes, but is not limited to, falsifying rolls, altering Chronicle sheets, using unapproved resources, not owning the sources used by your character, and lying to event coordinators under any circumstances. Participants caught cheating will be barred from Roleplaying Guild events for a span of time commensurate with their offense. Repeat offenders will be banned from Paizo’s organized play programs."

Now if one considers the guide itself rules for the campaign ,which I do, then not following them is cheating. I enjoy playing the game at conventions and don't want to be banned. If following the rules is bad or inconvenient then they should change the rules.

Thanks for your input.

Halek wrote:

Descriptive text is rules. It is in the rulebook and that means it is part of the rules.

Eh... sort of, not always.

Halek wrote:

Page 230 uses the word both not either.

Clothing is often worn both under and over armor

In order for it to be in a state of both under and over armor you have to be wearing 2 armors. Aka you can wear 2 armors.

How else can clothing be in a state of both over and under armor?

Underwear underneath the armor to prevent chafing. A jacket over the armor for fashion.

Halek wrote:

The armor section never states you must wear only 1 set of armor. It has numerous opportunities to say this but it refrains from doing so. You just would apply the stacking rules so you don't gain much from it. It gives special provisions disallowing wearing heavy armor and power armor at the same time.

The rulebook doesn't limit you to wearing 1 suit of armor but you are only going to get the AC from 1 suit of armor.

So, if I have the money at level 20, I could wear 10 suits of estex mk IV, and thirty second skins, under my hardlight specialist armor, giving me 96 armor upgrade slots to do with as I wish?

Doesn't sound munchkin-y at all. Might as well make this character a kobold too.

Ok for underwear it doesn't exist in the core rulebook. Sets of clothing do though. I think you are coming at this from good faith so I am willing to explain if you have more questions.

In regards to munchkinery at level 20 yes you could have 96 upgrade slots. Now let's look at what you can do with them. limiting to the core rulebook just for brevity. Let's calculate out what it costs you opportunity wise to fill those slots. If they aren't filled they do nothing. Also keep in mind it'll take 12 minutes of putting on nothing but second skins every morning.

WBL of a level 20 character is 3,775,000 credits
Your second skins cost 250*30= 7,500
Your extex mk ivs cost 49250*10= 492,500
Your hardlight specialist armor costs 928,000
Total cost of just armor no upgrades is 1,428,000
remaining money 2,347,000 credits left
Now to fill your 96 upgrade slots you need 96 upgrades there are 36 in the core rulebook
The cost to have all of them ignoring armor type restriction is 2,770,750 Not entirely accurate but this is core only and you can sub out armory stuff if you want to.

If you tried to fill all your slots you would have 2347000-2770750= -423750
You would run out of credits before buying all of them. Admittedly your estex mk ivs are doing nothing so lets not buy those. that gives you only -374500 credits. Now for now I am gonna assume I messed up the math somewhere and hand you bonus credits of 500,000 to be generous.

You now have 125500 credits to spend on a level appropriate weapon and any other gear like ability enhancers or magic items
Now this depends on the exact kind of gun you want but for most types you can afford a gun around level 15 with bonus wbl credits.
So if i made a mistake worth 500,0000 you can get a gun that is 5 levels behind everyone else. If I didn't you are in debt for 423750 credits and can't actually use those slots.

I think this shows that concerns about game balance are missing the point. Most armor upgrades are situational at best some actively harmful in some situations and other so minor as to not worry about.
If a character spends an ungodly amount of money on armor upgrades sure they can use them but they pay that price in less resources to spend on other areas. No magic items or augmentations for you if you actually use your 36 armor slots. The limiting factor for most armor upgrades isn't your slots on the armor but your credits available.

I hope this isn't overkill I just wanted to show that it is not munchikenery since the benefit is so minor.

Descriptive text is rules. It is in the rulebook and that means it is part of the rules.

Page 230 uses the word both not either.

Clothing is often worn both under and over armor

In order for it to be in a state of both under and over armor you have to be wearing 2 armors. Aka you can wear 2 armors.

How else can clothing be in a state of both over and under armor?

The armor section never states you must wear only 1 set of armor. It has numerous opportunities to say this but it refrains from doing so. You just would apply the stacking rules so you don't gain much from it. It gives special provisions disallowing wearing heavy armor and power armor at the same time.

The rulebook doesn't limit you to wearing 1 suit of armor but you are only going to get the AC from 1 suit of armor.

Halek wrote:

So when you apply the bonus rules to wearing 2 sets of armor you only get the higher of the ac bonuses but other things inherent to the armor are unchanged.

This does not logically follow. At all. It is a complete, total, and utter non argument for your position.

Ok so when we apply bonuses such as from armor we apply the rules from the core rulebook that say what to do. I will spoiler it for sake of not more walls of text.

Armor upgrade slots are either an untyped bonus in which case they stack or are not a bonus at all in which case we default to the normal armor rules and look at that you can still use multiple armor upgrade slots. Sometimes multiple on one armor.

You haven't shown any rules requiring you to count up how many armor upgrades you have on your character. The armor section on page 205 is clear on this.

"Each suit of armor contains a certain number of upgrade slots. This represents the maximum number of times the armor can be modified while still functioning. If you install upgrades beyond
the maximum, the armor and all upgrades attached to it cease to function until you remove enough upgrades to bring the armor down to its maximum number of upgrade slots or fewer."

We aren't meeting the shutdown criteria so the armor upgrades continue to function.

In regards to game balance being a factor I disagree. That isn't game balance but game design. Just because some equipment options are better doesn't mean the rules don't mean what they say. That is an issue of poorly designed rules not game balance.

The rules show on page 230 that i can wear second skin a tshirt and stationwear all at the same time.

You are the one trying to inject rules that are not there like character limits for armor upgrades.

Here is a summary of our positions please clarify if I am misrepresenting you that wasn't my intent.

Halek: Applying the rules from the core rulebook means you can wear at minimum a set of second skin clothes and another armor. Your armor upgrades continue to function since the shutoff criteria haven't been met.

BigNorseWolf: Armor upgrades shouldn't stack because of game balance reasons and they won't at my table.

Addressing what I BELIEVE to be your primary concern. This is not unbalancing for a character to do.

The limiting factor for armor upgrades that are useful in combat is credits. A 5th level character has 9000 credits of stuff via WBL An on level gun and armor cost approximately 6000 credits. This leaves the character with 3000 for everything else. A 5th level armor upgrade costs around 3000 credits.

Using this hack trick exploit whatever you want to call it means that you can pick up a grab bag of less powerful abilities that make up for lack of depth with more versatility. If we look out of core we can pick up a bunch of minor boosts to various movement modes instead of a jetpack.

Also keep in mind the quicksuit armor upgrade exists. It means that any armor upgrade you want is only 1300 for quicksuit 110 for ceromial troop plate and a standard action away. This drops that cost down but the limiting factor is credits not armor upgrade slots.

For abilities directly useful in combat if you want to remain competitive you have to keep your gear at your level. You can't afford 20 armor upgrades at your level.

A level 10 character has 66,000 credits. For a gun at their level it is oh look it is around 20,000 credits. The limiting factor is money to spend on combat relevant upgrades. It just doesn't really matter how or why the soldier has darkvision at level 10 and yelling about how broken this is and how unbalanced it makes the game shows a lack of understanding about the wbl system and how it impacts player optimization.

This is on the scale of the fusion hop on cost savings and just means that oh no that player character has a +2 bonus to acrobatics checks for only like 700 credits.

Lower level upgrades that characters can purchase a lot of become worth less and less as they level up and are able to afford oodles of them. By the time 700 credits is a drop in the bucket that +2 bonus is as well. It follows like this for most armor upgrades. There are a few standouts like jump jets and hydrojet but most aren't worth buying even with this exploit.

TLDR The rules say you can do this and you are freaking out over nothing.

Halek wrote:

So when you apply the bonus rules to wearing 2 sets of armor you only get the higher of the ac bonuses but other things inherent to the armor are unchanged.

This does not logically follow. At all. It is a complete, total, and utter non argument for your position.

Quote:

Why would you rule that they work any differently from environmental protections?

Because environmental protections are a binary yes/no thing. You don't gain any advantage from stacking them. There's no double protected. From a simulationists standpoint only the outside EP is on and the inside one will be completely irrelevant until the outside one shuts off for some reason.

I am going to lay out premises here since I think there is a disconnect.

If i put on 1 suit of armor with an upgrade slot filled with infrared sensors I gain dark vision and whatever bonuses the armor gives. Do you disagree with this statement?

Are your players, like, 7 years old?

First a little background.

I am in a college town that specializes in engineering disciplines. Nearly everyone who chose that path for their life is literally minded and a non insignificant portion are autistic. My players are students and a non insignificant portion of them are on the autistic spectrum. Spelling out rules about what actions are allowed isn't treating them like they are children.

It is treating them how I would like to be treated. They are not immature they just need social rules explicitly stated so as to avoid confusion.

My word choice might have been better as describing the argument as a rules discussion that paused the game for 10 minutes. I am not trying to berate you but I would appreciate it if you avoided belittling my players by calling them childish.

Ok so here is how you apply mechanical effects in this game. Look at the relevant section of the book first.

In our case armor says certain things happen when you wear it. One of which is it has a number of armor upgrade slot you can fill. Others include environmental protections and higher ac.

Page 230 shows we can wear multiple armor. This is were the section about bonus rules comes into play.

When multiple bonuses apply to the same value, different types of bonuses all apply, but in most cases bonuses of the same type do not add together (or “stack” with each other), unless a source specifies otherwise. page 266

So you do not get double the kac or eac from stacking them but other things that you don't have an ingame value on your character sheet for are not bonuses. For example an armor made of adamantium is still made of adamantium even if you put on two of them.

While this is clear enough the rules call out armor bonuses as not stacking on the same page.

Armor bonuses don’t stack with other armor bonuses, but they do stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class page 266

So when you apply the bonus rules to wearing 2 sets of armor you only get the higher of the ac bonuses but other things inherent to the armor are unchanged. You can activate environmental protections separately. If you have an ability that strengthens one set of armor you are wearing you have to choose which it applies to. If an enemy technomancer explodes one of them with their mind your other still functions.

Just like all those other things your armor upgrade slots remain separate on each armor.

You said you are fine with wearing multiple armors. Your objection arises when we apply the rules and have armor upgrades continue working as normal. Why would you rule that they work any differently from environmental protections?

Ok I was going to let this thread die but I was reading through the core rulebook for unrelated reason and found a list of definitions for some terms and am posting one I found here for anyone else who has this problem.

page 8 of the core rulebook has

Player Character (PC) This is a character controlled by a player.

It has no provisions for a cutoff on the chain of control so drones that you own and have the remote for count as a player character. However your gear does not. Since it is not a character it doesn't have the same blanket ban on breaking it as drones do.

However the other clarifications discourage such behavior and a gm can award infamy points for breaking other players stuff or other illegal activity so the guide has a mechanism to combat this.

Unless anyone has something I am missing here is how I am going to run it at my table for ease of play.

You cannot attack anything controlled by another player without consent. No murdering their zombies or bought drones or "actual" player characters unless they give the go ahead.

Destroying someone's unattended gear is vandalism and an evil act. Therefore the infamy system will be used to discourage such behavior.

Attacking gear on a person requires an attack roll against them so not gonna happen unless they are cool with it.

You can still have a robot fighting ring as long as you ask everyone involved before hand both in and out of character. Per the guide on when pvp is allowed.
This rule does not apply in situations where a character is not acting of his own initiative,

While clearly intended to allow mind control effects to impact pcs it does allow drones given orders to not be subject to the no pvp. They still fall foul of the infamy rule and since they count as a player character you are controlling both, issuing the command and having it carried out are an infamy apiece unless the player being attacked consents. AKA any attacks against other player's stuff/minions is 2 infamy minimum and I'l toss you from the table and your character from the society if you are killing a downed player character since murder is also infamy worthy.

Probably point 1 because no ones ever described their character putting armor on and my rules lawyer detecting whiskers would start twitching.

On a slow day Just point 5.

And to ask "which one of those upgrades is on? Also freebooter armor doesn't have an upgrade slot. "

NONE of your arguments were remotely close to demonstrating, or even arguing for, multiple armor upgrades in different armors working at the same time. Much less an argument where you can remotely contest a society DMs call about how something works.

The DM is required to go along with a rules citation you can get to quickly without interrupting the game.

The dm is NOT required to believe a good argument.

You are not even making a good argument. You are making a terrible argument. It is distractingly specific, it has the veneer of authority, but absolutely no depth or substance to it because it never goes to the point that you want.

The Aristotelian logic you're attempting to use works in a perfect non contradictory rules system with a perfect logician. It absolutely does not work in xfinder.

If the rules contradict that means it is a flaw in the rules. However you haven't cited any rules to back up your assertion. I have page numbers and quotes showing that you can wear a suit of armor clothes sandwich. It isn't some obscure splat book it is the core rule book.

You disagree and say that part of the armor doesn't function arbitrarily. My argument is just quoting page 230 when the dm asks "why are you wearing 2 sets of armor?" and then applying the bonus rules on how all that should stack. It is just like opening up the book to an aoe spell and then going to the aoe section to figure out how aoe effects work.

What rule supports your position? It seems to me you wouldn't let this work for unknown reasons at both your home games and starfinder soceity. Not only that but you would throw a player out of your table for this.

Here is what you said you would throw a player out of your table for doing.

I am a human and want darkvision. I buy second skin get some clothes and put on my better heavy armor on top. Does that seem reasonable to do?

Halek wrote:

I removed some of your qoute for brevity. Prehaps I am not making my point clearly.

Let me counter your argument

ahahaheem.. NO.

You cannot wear multiple copies of second skin each with their own armor upgrade.

So it just the armor upgrades you object to? So you are fine with wearing 9 set of second skin as long as they don't have armor upgrades installed?

If you are the gm and a player takes the following actions at what point do you stop him?
1 equip second skin
2 put on cool space clothes
3 put on a different armor like freebooter cuz it looks cooler.
4 spend ten minutes installing infrared sensors on second skin
5 spend ten minutes installing a quick draw sheath on freebooter armor.

Do you just object to point 5?

Ok here is the order of actions taken by a player character named billy 99 skins Jim

1 spend four rounds donning second skin
page 196 Light armor requires 4 rounds to don or remove

2 put on a set of clothing which is an indeterminate amount of time.
page 230 Clothing is often worn both under and over armor

3 spend four rounds donning a second second skin
page 196 Light armor requires 4 rounds to don or remove

4 put on a set of clothing which is an indeterminate amount of time.
page 230 Clothing is often worn both under and over armor

Repeat until you upset someone.

The rules for clothing allow them to be worn both under and over armor. The only benefit is more environmental protection time and upgrade slots. The main limiting factor for armor upgrades is that you can have your armor taken and they cost credits to buy. Let's say billy 99 skins jim is level 5.

Billy has 9000 credits for all his gear. For armor that is at his level cost varies between 2000-3000. That is without any upgrades. Billy picks up a jetpack for 3100 credits. Lets assume he got good armor so he is now at about 6000 credits of gear. If he picks up a weapon that is also at his gear level he hits the credit cap of 9000 credits.

If you are getting an armor upgrade at you level it is fluctuates between a third and a fourth of your wbl.

The limiting factor for armor upgrades is that they cost credits which means that you have to give up offensive or defensive potential for the utility they give you. This isn't cheese this is effectively giving up offensive potential via spending money on them.

Looking at the cheaper armor upgrades in the core rulebook you have dark vision, drawing as a swift action, radiation protection, and more hitpoints for the armor. Nice but nothing really major and some are race features.

My contention is that the limiting factor for armor upgrades is your wbl not the amount of armor upgrades slots you have. Let say billy gets an armor at his level called an estex suit 2 for 2700 credits a jetpack for 3100 and an electrostatic field for 3000. Billy has 200 credits left to buy a gun and he still has a spare upgrade slot just from this one set of armor.

Halek wrote:

Ok reading through the armor rules there seems to be nothing stating you can wear only 1 set of armor.

And is there anything saying that you CAN benefit from multiple sets of armor?

No. there isnt'.

So trekking through 6 sections of the rules in a convoluted argument that you can... doesn't show anything. You can make an argument that bad for any position you want.

I removed some of your qoute for brevity. Prehaps I am not making my point clearly.

The requirements to benefit from armor in the armor section are that you are wearing it.

The section on clothing spells out that clothing can be worn between 2 armor layers on page 230

"Clothing is often worn both under and over armor"

There is rules for determining what benefits you get when wearing multiple sets of armor.

First we go to the benefit stacking rules from the core rulebook.Page 266

When multiple bonuses apply to the same value, different types of bonuses all apply, but in most cases bonuses of the same type do not add together (or “stack” with each other), unless a source specifies otherwise. (For an exception, see Circumstance Bonus below.) Bonuses that do not list a bonus type do stack, both with each other and with all typed bonuses. Such bonuses, often referred to as “untyped” bonuses, are among the most utilitarian of all bonuses in the game

So we look at the bonuses you get to numerical statistics such as kinetic ac and energy ac and those do not stack from multiple armors.

The only benefits are that you can use the upgrade slots since they are a property of the item and not a bonus to your character. Also the environmental protections can be chained for longer duration.

I'l type up an order of operations of actions to test where the disagreement is.

Ok reading through the armor rules there seems to be nothing stating you can wear only 1 set of armor. It wouldn't seem to give any bonuses except for armor upgrade slots, becaus eof the bonus stacking rules.

Here is the relevant section on clothing in other purchases page 230

Clothing (Environmental, Everyday, Formal, Professional, Travel) Clothing is mass produced throughout the Pact Worlds, and the residents of the system are never wanting for clothes. Clothing is often worn both under and over armor, and its benefits apply in nearly all situations. Clothing comes in several varieties based upon its intended purpose, as described below.

So the school of thought that disregards all flavor text would have this mean nothing. However if we apply the rules are the rules school of thought this paragraph has an in game effect. Specifically any item that meets the definition of clothing is often and therefore can be worn under and over armor.

Second skin explicitly calls out that it can be worn under clothing.

So the non controversial use is that a character can equip second skin and a suit of clothing while receiving the benefits of both.

The issue comes when you apply the rule that you can wear armor over your clothing. Some people are objecting to this on the basis of cheese. I don't think that is fair.

The specific case of force fields on the bottom layer should be a non issue.
It has this clause
Once active, the device generates an invisible force field around you, including all your worn and carried items.
I am wearing the armor so it is inside the field. Temporary hit points are a bonus so the bonus rules apply however. No buying a bunch of brown generators to become an unkillable god.

It seems like the main limiting factor in this would be your bulk limits and the time it takes to put on all these clothes. You would have access to all those armor upgrades however you still have to buy them. On page 204 it gives a method to swap out armor upgrades.

A creature can personalize armor by purchasing and installing armor upgrades, described below, which add bonuses or customized abilities to armor. Some individuals keep a collection of upgrades at hand, swapping them out as needed (requiring 10 minutes to replace the unit and resecure all connections). Explanations of entries for upgrades’ statistics follow.

So wearing stacks of second skin just saves you 10 minutes. The main limit for combat focused upgrades is how many credits you have at that level not how many armor slots you have.

Does this make the android ability less impressive probably but dark vision costs only 1750 via darkvision capacitors so it is the intent that you can replace racial abilities with money. Also infrared sensors exist as well for even less.

For home games limiting players to a soft cap is reasonable just to avoid nonsense but for sfs it seems perfectly within the scope of the rules to wear 20 second skins and but a bunch of low level utility upgrades in them.
It might be weird but you can also put on multiple skin tight gym shirts IRL so it isn't impossible.

Halek wrote:

Does a mechanic's drone count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?

Yes. As do their gear, hirelings, class granted features, and little dog too. Anyhthing that belongs to the player belongs to the player.

Mind you, no PVP only covers where the player is TRYING to throw the grenade. If it goes off course, that was the dice, not the player.

But with one player willing to take the blasts, you should be able to position the grenades so that drone and the bad guy antagonist
are the ones getting hit and the one unwilling to take a grenade for the team aren't.

Quote:

Does a drone a player has purchased (aka armory stuff)count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?

Eyup

Quote:

Does a player's unattended personal possessions count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?

Eyup

Quote:

Does a character's equipment (aka aeon stones floating about) count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?

Eyup

thanks for stepping up, and welcome to the hard part of dealing with murderhobos...

I am in agreement that this should be the case however the guide simply says character vs character combat is not allowed.

It doesn't have a clause extending this to a character's possessions or non player companions. I feel like this might be intentional even.

Take a situation where a grenade focused soldier is foiled by a player buying all the basic drones from the Armory and putting them next to enemies. It wouldn't be fair to prevent the soldier from using his class abilities.

The point I am getting at is that the guide doesn't include any provisions of protections for players possessions or followers.

Animate dead exists as a spell and some characters are vehemently opposed to the existence of undead. The spell isn't banned so some people/ ex paladin players might attack your undead servants.

I agree that blowing up a mechanics drone is probably not allowed on the don't be a jerk level.

I am going to explain the situation as thoroughly as I can before asking questions so everyone has context.

I am GMing for new players for starfinder soceity. They are all playing mechanics since one of them found a guide online. They decided to all pick up drones and to qoute them "run a robot fighting ring while shooting who the starfinders tell us to." It was working out as about as well as I can manage when a player threw a grenade at an enemy that was flanked by 2 other players drones. I hide dice rolls from the party so they thought this mook was some kind of boss since it hadn't gotten below a 16 on the dice during combat. Consistently rolling high damage for it made them think that they needed to put as much damage on it as possible.

This started an argument.

The player who threw the grenade said that the no pvp rules only meant he couldn't attack their characters. It didn't say anything about their drones.

One of the players was ok with the grenading. The other was not ok with it. The player who grenaded insisted he didn't need permission. The player who didn't agree threatened to destroy all his gear while he slept. The resolution at the table was bribery with some soda and temporarily extending the no pvp rule to drones for that session.

The only clarification on pvp that I have found is about arc pistols.

Here are the questions I hope I am just misreading something and it is real simple..

Does a mechanic's drone count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?

Does a drone a player has purchased (aka armory stuff)count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?

Does a player's unattended personal possessions count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?

Does a character's equipment (aka aeon stones floating about) count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?

For my table I am tempted to rule yes for all of these but I can't find anything to back me up on this. Is there other rules I am missing?

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

My suggestion is as follows: temporarily rescind the recent ruling that bans sub-par ability scores. Adopt a “wait and see” approach. If actual evidence mounts that this is causing problems, we’ll know the ruling is warranted instead of being based only on hypothetical concerns about bad players causing problems. I may be naively optimistic, but I think the vast majority of SFS players, the vast majority of the time, show up to play in good faith and to have fun as a group. I sincerely doubt the proportionately tiny fraction of the community who would like to explore variant character concepts by using sub-par ability scores present a risk substantial enough to justify the restriction.

Thanks for listening.

Heyya its me the op from the thread that started this mess. While I was a bit unclear describing why I asked that question in the op, I later clarified that some of my players wanted to play 1 in all stat man.

In that thread the first person to answer was BigNorseWolf who said

"Guide page 21

Starfnder Society Roleplaying Guild characters buy their ability
scores as detailed on page 18 of the Starfnder Core Rulebook.
Starfnder Roleplaying Guild characters must use the Buying Ability Scores rules and should never use the optional methods of
Ability Quick Picks or Rolling Ability Scores

The flaws are optional rules on a different page so not allowed."

The thread should have ended there because I misread the guide. Also bear in mind starfinder as a ruleset requires you to have an ability that says you can do something. I can't fire lasers out of my eyes at level 1 just because the guide doesn't say I can't.

StarDaddy came in and just reiterated what BigNorseWolf said

This isn't a new ruling. It is just enforcing the guide as written. They said they are going to change the language on it to make that more clear. That is all.

Secondly I am the actual evidence you are talking about in your wait and see approach. New players came to my table with the guide we all misread it and they were going to play 1 in all stat man. The guide could've been worded better but the new players were going to do that. This clarification stops that.

May I then suggest the equitable remedy of grandfathering in PCs made before this new ruling? I think many of us made these PCs in good faith.

I don't think this a new ruling. This is just a clarification of the guide. BigNorseWolf said it at the start what I was missing.

"Guide page 21

Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild characters buy their ability
scores as detailed on page 18 of the Starfinder Core Rulebook.
Starfinder Roleplaying Guild characters must use the Buying Ability Scores rules and should never use the optional methods of
Ability Quick Picks or Rolling Ability Scores

The flaws are optional rules on a different page so not allowed."

The rules for lowering scores are on page 19. Therefore not allowed. But since unlike other games you didn't get anything from this it seems like the simplest fix would be to change your stats. I don't think any dm would turn your character away for an honest mistake so it should be fine.

I don't get why you seem to think this is some big revelation.

So you ran through 5 or 6 gray areas of the rules that can be read one way to save money on a mechanically useless thing that may not even be legal. OK... and...?

Ravingdork said that there was no point in upgrading your gear and I was looking for something that it gave a minor benefit to. I don't think it is some big Revelation. I don't think this really matters at all.

I think this a minor corner case of the computer rules and upgrading rules giving an unintended result. I thought it was neat and that other people might want to know. So I shared it. That's all.

If they ever release some magic computer that does stuff it might matter but until then it is just a cool little game design quirk.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Halek wrote:

If you take a battery from an enemy you do not know how many shots were in it

Citation?

Agreed.

Bullets or arrows or charges I think if there were a difference it would be spelled out.

Here are the battery rules

The Rules don't mention a battery gauge. They also don't forbid them. They are silent on this matter. While I think it is better to have them or just tell players and characters how many charges are in batteries that appears to be a GM Ruling thing.

This minor things lets you get that information while hopefully avoiding table variation all at a discount for higher end guns.

I am not saying people are wrong to just tell players battery levels.

I am not saying this is a super useful omg madhaxxxer skills exploit.

This is a corner case of computer rules not requiring you to change the control module if the price of the controlled object changes AFTER you have installed it.

You seem to be really worried about corner cases that don't actually do anything. I mean, someone saving money by getting a 10% discount on something they could get for free by just describing a battery at x% gauge on their weapon isn't exactly a bargain.

I am going to come back to this. For me I think there is a difference between reading a battery or ammo gauge and being able to ask my AI companion bound into my gun how much ammo I have.

I understand that mechanically they might as well be the same thing. I just think it is cooler and might matter for some people's characters.

Also I guess you can check it blind.

If the player has no way to know the information, then the GM would have to track it.

It is thus much easier for the GM to tell the player how much ammo a weapon has when the player gets it and then let the player track it afterwards.

Yeah I agree you should just tell players how much ammo is left ahead of time. If you have hardcore roleplayers they might want an IC explanation.

Another note: This upgrade rule on p. 8 applies explicitly to weapons. Is there any similar passage about computer upgrades? All I can find is the section on improving power armor, but it expressly works differently than this weapon rule, suggesting the weapon upgrade rule doesn't apply u firmly to all gear.

Ok so here is the order of operations for this and why it saves a tiny bit of money.

Step 1 Buy level 1 gun
Step 2 Buy computer
Step 3 Get artificial personality upgrade for it
Step 4 install control module for 10& of level 1 gun
Step 5 Upgrade level 1 gun to a level 5 gun
Step 6 Control module doesn't need to be upgraded since it is still the same gun

You receive the benefits of a control module while paying a fraction of the cost

Now what those benefits are is nebulous and mostly just nonsense bookkeeping that won't really matter. It isn't mounted so firing it is a no go.

Ammo count doesn't really matter unless your gm hates you.

It can run some attachments that you put on it for you via voice commands.

Basically you can get a voice activated flashlight or rangefinder or whatever, that is on your gun for cheaper than normal.

I can count, and I assume even my 8 Intelligence character can count. So, if I know my laser has 20 shots in it, and I make 5 shots, I know I have 15 more shots in that battery.

If you're the GM and you tell me that I don't know how many shots I have left because the weapons section doesn't list a shot counter or battery guage in the description so I'm "metagaming" if my character acts like he knows and changes batteries when it gets pretty low before the next room, I might just excuse myself from the table right then.

Yes if you are using a batteyr with known charges it is as simple as

You have every right to get upset at a dm who does that. That isn't what I am saying. If you use a battery form an enemy it is different.

If you take a battery from an enemy you do not know how many shots were in it. You have no way of knowing if it was discharged before you showed up and killed them for it.

You can track the shots he fired at you but that doesn't really help.
if he fired 4 shots it is
X-4=Y
Solve for Y.

Now in any game I would recommend just telling the player Y because it is easier but this lets you have in character access to this information.

I don't see that batteries should be treated any different than ammunition clips or any other form of fantasy ammunition that Starfinder creates: you know how many shots you have.

Now, what I wouldn't at all be surprised by is a frustrated GM asking a habitually distracted player that has been full attacking all scenario long through a combat scenario, "How many charges do you have left?" The player responds, "I don't know, but my character would know. You tell me." Which then leads the GM to say, "I'm not your accountant. If you didn't keep track, you don't know. Your battery is empty."

It not being the GM's responsibility to track PCs' ammunition does not mean that PCs don't have an easy way to tell how many shots they have (and attaching a computer to your laser isn't going to make me as the GM keep track for you).

I am not saying the gm should keep track of that. But this is a way to have easy access in character to ooc character bookkeeping information.

I think you can use an engineering kit and have the same results. You just have to track that in character instead.

I am not saying this can give anything significant. It just means you can say give your computer a name and say, "Hey maddy how many shots are left in my gun?" and get an answer. It is also cheaper than a first glance at the rules would imply if you upgrade the gun instead of buying a new one.

While out of character it is easier to give players that info this makes it as simple as a move action to determine a battery charge in game.

Thanks star daddy. The friends I referenced are relatively new players that I was bringing to starfinder society events.

I know this sounds pedantic but can you repeat what bignorsewolf said so we can qoute it when people bring 1 stat man to the table? I understand if you are busy.