I see we have an errata section with the FAQ now, which is awesome. Is there an appropriate place or method to submit things we're pretty sure are typos/errors (and not just rules we don't like)? The sticky in the rules forum indicates that's not it, but I'm not sure where else to go with it.
Part of the issue may be that there are questions buried deep within these discussion threads, so different phrasings of a question might each get a few FAQ clicks. But anyway:
no wait, I guess you would want to do the duster first ..duh.... so halved is 43 -20 = 23 and it would cut threw .. hum ...yea I don't think I want something ignoring the maxed out hardness of a 20th level weapon But I want to cut through a starship...
A baton or survival knife would be less elegant than other operative attacks, and so would get the -2 from bludgeoning or slashing bayonets. What you really want to do is put a sword cane on your sniper rifle.
Right, I more meant to ask if there was a publicly stated policy about errata. Some insight would be great. Thanks. Starfinder is my first Paizo game, so that's new to me. It kind of explains why several of the "FAQ" entries are answered with what appear to be complete changes in wording...
The type of object thrown doesn’t change the damage type or any other properties of the attack. Pretty straightforward rule.
True. It also stops at the end of its range.
But.... but... the RP is the best part! Aeon Throne is too delicious to rush. If this forum allowed images...
The book does not appear to be very clear about gloves. The example in "HOLDING AND WIELDING WEAPONS" (CRB P. 168) talks about holding a longarm while wearing a battleglove: you can do it, but can't attack while holding the longarm in that hand. Does that mean the same rule generally applies for other hand-suits? This is a list of every melee weapon that seems like it might be something one wears on a hand. The format is: {name of item} - {word from description that qualifies it as a hand-worn article} - {what that description says about holding stuff}
Battleglove has a specific note that you can hold objects, as in the example. Painclaw specifically says you cannot. The others say nothing at all.
Why is it that I seem to be the only one who perfectly understands what BigNorseWolf is trying to say...? I assumed it was because you were a sock puppet. You and BNW are using a weakly stated general rule, that a wall blocks line of effect for "most effects" and deciding that it overrules a specific rule that give a method to determine what can stop its effect.
If we're saying the doubling is itself a bonus, it has no type listed. The operative's edge bonus itself is certainly insight, but clearly it can be modified. Good idea looking for the critical hit section. That used the word "multiplying" which got me to try searching that.
So that actually seems pretty definitive at +6 (double twice is triple) I guess the movement costs are the specific beating general, since they do compound.
Line weapons do not say they ignore cover bonuses to AC, so logic would dictate that you follow the standard rules for cover and apply the bonuses. The cover rules also address targeted attacks, which line weapons are not. They don't even say "make an attack against each target." They say "make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment."
Please name any silly result I'm getting. At all. Weapons that can expressly shoot through obstacles can't shoot through walls, because they can't see the other side.
You're right: the line also stops at the end of its first range increment.
Single attacks aren't stopped by hitting one creature, nor are they stopped by hitting cover. They only target a single... erm, target, which may get an AC bonus from cover. Not gonna shock you here, but I think your reading is the one that results in silliness. (Hope we're all still enjoying the debate, though!) Let's talk about a wooden table. By your reading, if Iseph is crouched behind an overturned butcher's-block table (6 inch thick) when the advanced-rail-cannon-wielding security robot shoots down that line, that rail cannon will do 3d12+12(-5 for hardness) to that table and then deal 3d12+12 to Iseph, assuming the attack roll hit their KAC. If we expand that table to make a wooden wall (6 inch think, hardness 5, 60HP, just like the table), by your reading, the rail cannon shot does 3d12+12 damage to the wall (again, minus 5 for hardness), but stops there. Because the wood is wider, the shot can't penetrate it. To me, that's a much sillier reading.
So which part of the rules are you going to insist is absolutely right at the exclusion of the other? Glad you asked! Specific. Beats. General. Generally walls stop line of effect (though even that part suggests they don't always). The line rule says exactly how far they go and exactly under what circumstances they stop. Whether targets along that line get cover bonuses or concealment are good points for debate, but whether or not walls stop the line is clear: only if it can't beat hardness.
so.. apparently these shots do indeed penetrate objects after all and walls are indeed objects by the rules.Got a rules citation for that? Insofar as I'm aware, walls are not objects. They are structures. That's some fine Aristotelian chicanery you've got there. ;)
Button hit. If you want to gm fiat reasonable things like "can't go through a mountain" go right ahead, but don't act like that's the same thing as asking if they can go through obstacles, which they clearly can: it says so right in the book. Also, line weapons are still pretty bad, so I think your fear is unfounded. I sure do like being able to take multiple shots per turn, sometimes our of the first range increment, often through my allies' spaces without having to damage them.
Yes it does. It does explicitly that. This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles.
I actually had a similar problem with my Vesk Soldier. ... I then dumped the new skill points in to Piloting just to make it possible to hit enemy ships as the Gunner. But if he's a soldier, doesn't he have full BAB anyway? Max ranks of piloting would match what you already had...
Have:
Want:
|
