CRB P.41 wrote:
The maximum age listed includes an element of randomness to reflect the capriciousness of death, and it is the assumption for the race’s longevity without magical or technological intervention — with the right life-extension technology, individuals of all races can become nearly immortal.
From Core, talking about vital statistics and 'maximum' age specifically. Existing content may or may not make much use of that last line, but there's more than enough openness that a GM could say extreme life extension is commonplace. If there aren't enough people with extremely extended lives around to make that feel comfortable, just remember that the Starfinder setting has a nasty little habit of routinely producing potential catastrophes that could have massive body counts, as evidenced by basically all of the APs.
If you're interested in the default setting, Pact Worlds is definitely worth getting. Outside of that, the core rulebook and Alien Archive are a perfectly serviceable backbone to build a game with.
If you're less attached to owning copies of everything and are comfortable with online viewing, there are two SRDs that both have almost all of the game's mechanical content; the official SRD Archives of Nethys, and the unofficial The Hidden Truth. THT in particular has a page that lets you filter by source, so even if you want to actually own various books eventually, you can still check out the mechanical options they offer ahead of time.
The relevant Zero Gravity rules boil down to this; creatures in motion stay in motion until they hit something that forces them to stop, and can propel themselves by pushing off a creature or object not more than one size category smaller than them. Creatures can throw objects to reorient themselves if Off-Kilter, but this does not move them. Creatures and objects may be effectively weightless, but there is still a carrying capacity limit, which is 10 times higher than normal.
PH can target an object of no more than 1 bulk. PH is not a character and the spell's target restriction is not a carrying capacity as such, but it's fairly reasonable to let it benefit from zero g and thus have a bulk limit of 10. However, Raxilites and Stelliferas exist and are quite light, so if there are any shenanigans to be found here, they can potentially work with either limit.
There are two ways PH could be used to maneuver in zero gravity. The first is that you simply use it to keep an object close enough to push off of. So long as it fits within PH's bulk limit and is not more than one size category smaller than yourself, you can move it along with you. You can then push off this object to move at half your land speed, causing it to move in the opposite direction at half speed. Most races have a land speed of 30', and will therefore move away at 15', and change the object's speed by 15' in the opposite direction. PH has a movement limit of 15' and a range of 25' plus 5' per 2 levels, so if you allow momentum to add up rather than overriding, you can potentially repeat this multiple times at higher levels. It will be slow and ungainly and you'll eventually probably move out of range, but it's something. Maneuverability with this method will be poor with a single object, but improves if you can pull other objects out of the environment.
The other way is to directly impart momentum with PH by pushing against yourself with an object, and my gut feeling is that's probably illegal by RAW. The zero g rules do not actually cover objects imparting momentum on characters, so there's no real guidance. The closest you can get are pushing off of objects as covered above, or latching on to them. You could potentially do the latter, but the rules are written to suggest they refer primarily to fixed objects. And on top of all that, there's the question of whether this even fits within the spell's effects, since those are quite limited to moving unattended objects and not creatures.
Using PH to use an object to directly propel someone as a watered down Telekineses in cantrip form probably has no actual effect, but at the GM's discretion could have something all the way up to a 15' per round acceleration. Presuming that you can convince them that pushing yourself with an object using PH doesn't violate its target restriction, and that the combined bulk of the system doesn't violate its limits. Maneuverability with this method could potentially be quite good compared to the baseline, as you basically get clumsy bootleg spaceflight out of a cantrip if your GM allows it to work.
Kasatha and other extra-armed races can wield extra weapons at once, in that they can have them ready. They can attack with any weapons they are wielding. They simply cannot make additional attacks beyond the norm, because that actually would upset game balance.
You can hold as many weapons as you have hands. You can choose to attack with any combination of them, up to the normal limit of however many attacks you can make. You just don't get to make more attacks with them.
Unless your rod is getting g acceleration somewhere in the double digits, it's going to take multiple days to actually get the thing anywhere from a few light hours out. Since the acceleration of the system is purely a matter of GM fiat, this is plenty of time for more GM fiat to come in with the rod being detected, deflected or destroyed, and even traced back as desired. The rest of the toys are all quite fun and lethal if introduced, but largely well beyond the reach of a group of PCs.
It is even less likely that a cruise ship will deal with any of these.
If you want to tweak the rules to more mechanically accommodate this, substantially increasing the number of expansion bays on larger ships - which players typically won't even have access to, if that's the particular concern - is unlikely to break the balance of the game. I believe it would be more preferable to increase the capacity of the relevant expansion bays with ship size, though, either instead of or in addition to increasing their number. Apply further ad hoc modifiers as desired to increase the carrying capacity of truly dedicated transport craft.
Increasing the capacity of a bay rather than only increasing their number will allow (relatively) low tier cruise liners and other transports with the hundreds of passengers that such a ship would be expected to carry, without also demanding high tens to hundreds of BP and PCU invested in guest quarters. Naturally, the precise balance between increased capacity per bay and increased number of bays is a matter of taste.
That doesn't solve the issue. A must be no more than 15 feet from B, while also not overlapping with B. A and B both have 10 foot radii. It is mathematically impossible to have two circles with 10 foot radii not overlap if the distance between their centers is less than 20 feet. C and B have the same issue. That C and A do not have to directly connect to each other does not remove the issue they both have with B.
The questions in the OP still stand.
I would say the rules are more based around a specific kind of small to medium player ship, rather than large. If you don't optimize a deck plan too much for carrying capacity and are a bit generous with how much room people and systems get, you can easily fit genre-reasonable layouts into the limits of those size categories when dealing with player-centric designs.
The system breaks if you move away from those constraints. This isn't anything new, unfortunately. For a topical example, we only have to look at the Opulos Drift Cruiser from Pact Worlds, which by a strict mechanical reading is a huge (800'-2000' long) ship with a total combined passenger and crew capacity of somewhere in the lower double digits.
This is incredibly silly.
The easiest solution is to simply handwave it as stated; a ship carries however many people would be reasonable for that role, and if you really need to stat it out explicitly, don't bother worrying about whether it can fit enough guest quarters in. In fact, don't bother giving it more than one of those bays, because bay capacities in general are a bit silly.
I imagine you could fit an appreciable cruise ship number of people into the deck plan for a large ship. Maybe even the upper end of medium, if you're willing to play with less conventional ship shapes.
It's a roughly 4% chance (3.876%) for the first case and effectively 0% chance (1.08*10^-6%, or roughly 1 in every 100 million attempts) in the second. The odds of multiple identical rolls succeeding can drop off extremely quickly, because it boils down to the odds of the roll succeeding raised to the power of however many rolls you're making.
Missiles don't actually like long range combat very much.
CRB P.257 - Squeezing wrote:
In some cases, you have to squeeze into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. While squeezing, you move at half your speed and are considered to have the entangled condition.
CRB P.275-6 - Entangled wrote:
You are ensnared. Being entangled impedes your movement but does not entirely prevent you from moving unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. You move at half speed, you cannot run or charge, and you take a -2 penalty to your AC, attack rolls, Reflex saving throws, initiative checks, and Dexterity-based skill and ability checks.
While one would not want to fight from within such corridors as a large creature, navigating them is uncomfortable but possible.
While no other dimensional x weapon has the powered property, they also do not have any critical effects. These may even be connected in terms of mechanical balance. Narratively, I'm not sure why you'd apply the "dimensional slice" quality to the chainsaw version instead of the established norm of analog weapons, but perhaps there was a particularly ornery lumberjack in weapons development.
Or perhaps it's more meta and it's a weird quirk that was either overlooked or just accepted.
You could switch the DC calculation to actual APL rather than adjust APL/tier, yes. I'm not entirely sure that's necessary since the DCs have been revised, but it may be worth considering.
There are no particular guidelines for actually building multiple PC ships, unfortunately, but the CRB has ship encounter guidelines on page 326 that include how to calculate effective ship tier for multiple PC ships when designing encounters. For this, it can be basically be summarized as two equal tier ships being equivalent to a single ship of that tier+1. Reversing that and applying it to ship building, PCs who would normally have a ship at tier X could instead have two ships both at tier X-1.
But that's not the only way to handle it. Your proposed tier 2 with tier 1 could work, if you're okay with it. You might do a tier 2 with an even lower tier fighter, or even a tier 1 with the same. Pick your preference.
As for the post Metaphysician slipped in while I was typing...
CRB P.293 - Understanding Starships: Minimum and Maximum Crew wrote:
In a base frame stat block, these entries note the minimum and maximum number of characters who can take actions on that vessel during starship combat.
First, a note. Ship tier is determined by APL, and a party with more than 6 characters is treated as APL+1. 8-9 level 1 characters would thus by RAW get a tier 2 ship. You would still need to make some difficult design choices, but it's technically enough to get a functional 'destroyer' if you really wanted to. Not all ships are new ships, after all. Not all ships are in good condition either. Maybe they got it at a discount. Maybe there's a reason it had such a nice price.
Pact Worlds give us the launch tube, which lets a medium or large ship carry a single tiny ship. If you don't have Pact Worlds, you can get almost the exact same effect by just letting them carry a shuttle bay that can only carry a tiny ship; they function almost identically, save that the launch tube has special rules for in-combat docking. In either case, a medium frame with a tiny support ship gets you 8 crew slots, so there's only a problem if you actually have a 9th person. And if you really wanted, you could stick another launch tube on, though you've now used four expansion bays. Alternatively, as you noted, you might just give them a pair of comparable ships rather than a larger and smaller one.
In either case, you're now dealing with the problem of how to build multiple PC ships. There are a couple ways to handle that, if you'd like to go that direction.
Another option would be to just ignore max crew size for the party, at least on their initial ship. If you don't want to hand them a technically-functional but underwhelming destroyer, you can just let them cram a couple extra crew actions into an explorer or transport. If you're the GM, you can just do that sort of thing if you want.
I wish we knew what languages the new races spoke, what their naming conventions are like, and their typical age, height, and weight ranges were.
While languages, naming, and more details of that sort in general would be nice, we do have the vital statistics for the new races listed quite plainly at the start of the section. Now, since the theme of the moment seems to be critiquing the races...
The astrazoans are good. Solid concept with good mechanics from what I can see. I have no issues with them, though I do hope they will cause some things (reptoids) in Alien Archive to be reconsidered. SROs are mechanically good, I think, and strike a reasonable balance between construct properties and normal playability. I would have liked at least marginally more lore for them, but I can tolerate what we have since they can cover a far broader class of creatures than any other race so far. I like the idea of the khizar, though I'm very wary of the 30 foot blindness problem. I would have preferred them to be actual plants, but that's mostly a quibble.
I find bantrids almost wholly uninteresting as a playable option, but there are enough people with more enthusiasm for them that I can just shrug and move on. Strix don't do much to capture my imagination narratively, but I can at least appreciate them mechanically.
And then there are the borais. I don't particularly care for them. I can appreciate the basic concept behind them, and don't object to them existing as such, but they're frankly quite disappointing. They were billed as the undead race, but they feel more like a watered down equivalent to the androids, which are themselves similar to but not actually constructs. Their mechanics are questionable as well, primarily because Old Talents as written generates absurd results. Undead androids need to breathe. Undead ysoki grow a size. Perhaps they simply start bouncing around on their tails instead of walking?
If the mechanics were cleaned up a little, I wouldn't have any problem with borais as a second undead race, since I do appreciate the conceptual niche they're designed for. But they're terribly underwhelming as the first offering of a playable undead option.
Two good, one maybe good, two apathetic, one disappointing. Mixed bag leveling out to a slightly positive neutrality.
The AC may be a discrepancy, though between the drow enforcer and the aeon guard I believe NPCs may simply ignore maximum dexterity limits. This is not explicitly stated anywhere, but it probably should be if that is in fact the reasoning. Unfortunately, even that explanation is not entirely consistent, since there are other examples of NPCs with proper armor that still have ACs matching the monster creation tables, completely ignoring their equipment.
The Create Darkness ability is not a mistake, as NPC and PC abilities may explicitly differ despite narratively being the same race. You may also notice that both NPC drow have spell resistance, while the PC racial stats provide no such bonus. In both cases, they are abilities that NPC drow possess that PC drow will not.
Complement does not describe the minimum number of people required to run a ship; that is provided by the frame, not the individual ship. Complement describes the number of people that can be expected to be running the ship, which will be anywhere between the minimum and maximum crew sizes listed by the frame. As noted, this maximum number becomes rather questionable as a ship gets larger.
But Pact Worlds was never going to be the book to fix the absurd ship scaling problems, if they're ever fixed at all, so I'm not surprised it has some very questionable examples like the 14 passenger space cruise liner.
The example ships in the CRB do not add the pilot's full skill bonus to AC or TL. Every number I've seen for the core ship defenses is entirely consistent with ranks, size modifier, armor, and countermeasure selection, and is exactly the same as you would get if you stuck a PC with the same number of ranks in the ship.
Gunnery checks are where they are using their full skill modifiers when they perhaps shouldn't, not AC and TL.
As for the original question, as has already been noted, NPC ships have already included Pilot ranks in their AC and TL, such as in the CRB. Ships intended for player use do not, as with the Sunrise Maiden and Hippocampus in Dead Suns 1.
Yeah, this is bizarre to me. What happened to conjuration (creation) as a spell type and subtype?
What happened to simple transmutation? You're just turning stuff into a specific type of other stuff, which is junk. Frankly, I think the other two junk spells should probably be transmutation too; they're explicitly turning junk into a different thing, not creating new junk.
I don't think it actually matters for anything in the game yet in any of the three cases, but it's still a puzzling design choice.
CRB P.321: Critical Damage - Shields wrote:
A starship takes critical damage from an attack only if that attack deals damage to the ship's Hull Points, even if the result of the gunnery check is a natural 20. If the attack's damage only reduces a starship's Shield Points, no critical damage occurs.
Shield damage is inadequate. The hull must take damage for critical damage to occur.
I do not believe there is a clear and explicit answer to the first question in the rules as such, though there are examples. The Novaspawn in Alien Archive has a completely different set of systems than normal ships, reflecting its nature as a gigantic spaceborne creature rather than a vehicle. It accordingly has a different table for when it suffers critical damage.
I believe the implicit answer is thus to roll on the special table provided for the special ship. In instances where that has not been prepared in advance, I would either reroll or follow the rule for critical effects on wrecked systems; apply it to the next system on the table instead.
As for the second question...
CRB P.321 - Critical Damage Effect: Weapons Array wrote:
Randomly determine one arc containing weapons...
If an arc does not contain weapons, it cannot be randomly selected to suffer the effects of critical damage on the weapons array. Reroll until you get a valid result.
The Divert action has been changed in the FAQ, allowing you to distribute the new shield points as you see fit. The Balance action has not been changed, so your understanding of it is correct. Note that the specific wording of balance is 10% of your current SP, so the minimum you are required to leave in each quadrant will go down as your shields take damage.
I believe Metaphysician is arguing not from a hard rules-text perspective, but from a perspective regarding underlying design assumptions. If the rules are intended to accurately simulate a living, futuristic economy, I think it is fairly clear they do so inadequately. But the point of Starfinder is not to delve into the intricacies of the economy of a space-opera civilization inundated with magic and general shenanigans. The point of Starfinder is to go out and be adventurers. Travel to new places, meet new people, get into entirely (un)avoidable firefights with the new people and then kill them and take their stuff.
Though you probably shouldn't jump immediately to that last one if you can help it.
You might not find that argument compelling, in which case I have previously written at excess length about it. Short version: Adjust your assumptions. Use MREs instead of Poor Meals and take advantage of long-term housing price discounts and you'll have at worst a monthly income of 45-67.5 credits after expenses if you let people take 10. Anyone with any business at all being a PC will do better than that, as they will have a modifier higher than +5 in something.
Both are correct. Adjusting armor is not repairing it, it is modifying the armor for better use by a person it does not currently fit. They are two different uses of the Engineering skill with different DC scaling rates.
Whether Adjusting Armor, basically everything involving computers, and any other cases of a DC with +2*Item Level should be changed is an open question for the designers. It is entirely that none of them "should" be changed. And unless the designers say otherwise, that is implicitly the official answer.
That said, I would personally reduce them to +1.5*level for consistency, most likely.
I believe that no such general rule exists. Properties such as Undead Immunities are not tied to type, but to graft, which is a subtle but important distinction; PC stats are independent of creature type grafts. Thus, a PC's creature type is significant only when dealing with an effect that cares about it. A PC gains no special benefit from their type beyond what is explicitly provided by their racial stat block.
It is not mechanically necessary for the Borais stat block to explicitly state it does not provide undead immunities, but it is a point of additional clarity that preempts any possible argument to the contrary.
That is a possible reasoning, yes, but it is also one I strongly disagree with. I look at the sarcesians and I see their ability to survive and even thrive in a vacuum as a cornerstone of the concept; I can accept a reduced fly speed, but I see no value in depriving them of the ability to spend resolve points to extend their survivability. Perhaps it is 'cinematic,' from a certain perspective, and it reflects what the designers think would be more interesting to focus on. I believe it is counterproductive, and erodes the conceptual strength of the race that would make it an interesting option in the first place.
I don't think the reptoids needed the time limit, even with comparisons to Disguise Self, unless there are some particularly compelling stories about kitsune shapeshifters ruining everything in Pathfinder with equivalent abilities. But as the astrazoan in Pact Worlds has been explicitly billed as a shapeshifter, I'll withhold further judgment until I see how that compares.
Wrong, the Dragonkin's land speed in 40 ft. There is no sign that it is 30 ft. I've look everywhere and no change to speed.
Considering they feel the need to specify the goblin has a 35 foot land speed as a PC race when it already has a 35 foot land speed as a monster, I'm inclined to think the dragonkin follows the general principle of not having any benefits it is not explicitly granted. This includes a land speed other than the default 30 feet. The shobhad is another example, if you want a large PC race where its higher than normal speed is explicitly noted.
As a more immediate example, the author of the dragonkin's entry felt it was necessary to specify that the playable version also has darkvision and low-light vision. A curious waste of space and ink if it's implicitly inherited from the monster entry.
As for the original question, while I'm not sure any of the PC race options are mechanically underpowered as such - though I too am a bit disappointed by the breath weapon - I do think some of them have been tweaked in such a way that it is somewhat more difficult to reflect what they are nominally supposed to be capable of. A PC Sarcesian will never spend all day out in the vacuum simply by virtue of race. A PC Reptoid will never have any long-term infiltration ability with a 10 minute per level time limit.
I'm not convinced either of those two examples need to be true for them to be balanced, but they are.
The Aeon Guard's AC is substantially higher than given by the Combatant array, but is equal to the armor provided by an AG Trooper Battle Dress plus the Aeon Guard's dex modifier, +1 for KAC. The latter is explained by the the Armored Advantage Gear Boost, which is unlisted. Ignoring the armor's maximum dexterity bonus may be an error, or it may be an unlisted special ability, or simply an unmentioned benefit of not actually being a PC. Or perhaps simple fiddling with the numbers to make them slightly more intimidating.
The crafting system is no longer useful as a way of saving money, no. That is not the same as being useless, even for consumables. If your campaign gives you regular access to merchants, if they consistently have whatever you're looking for, and if you have time to shop whenever your supplies are running low, then the crafting system will not be particularly useful. The ability to craft your own supplies nearly on demand becomes more useful if any of those assumptions are false.
It is an alternative supply source. Whether it is useful depends on how reliable the normal supply is.
Yes, that's right. The SRO receives a bonus to its save against Charm Person, because Charm Person specifically targets "one humanoid," rather than "one creature." The SRO would receive no bonus from Robotic against, say, Fear, or Mind Probe, or Disintegrate, because while these all target "one creature" and can target humanoids, they do not target only humanoids.
Robotic looks like a strong trait, yes, but it's not nearly so strong as that reading would make it. If it actually was a blanket +4 to anything that can target humanoids in general, that certainly would be ridiculous.
Even with the full description of the trait, I don't see any of the vagueness or ambiguity you're worried about. It's very clear. Spells or effects that normally target only humanoids. That is, exclusively. If a spell or effect targets something other than humanoids, specifically and exclusively, the SRO will receive no bonus to its saving throw against it.
Where is the ambiguity here? I want to help sort this out, but I don't understand what exactly is leading you to to the conclusions you're reaching.
I'm going to presume there's not more relevant rules text that would substantially alter the meaning of what you've provided.
"Can be affected by effects or spells that normally target only humanoids" does not mean they get a blanket +4 racial bonus to saving throws against anything that can target a humanoid. It means they get that bonus to anything that exclusively targets humanoids, which they are vulnerable to despite not being humanoid. At a glance, the "spell" portion of this largely consists of Charm, Dominate, and Hold Person, though I expect this list will grow with time.
No such limitations are spelled out for starship construction, and the level+2 purchase limit isn't relevant anyway since none of the individual components have an actual item level; mk x is not the same as level x. Some of them could be converted to an equivalent fairly easily, but it's not RAW. A GM is within their rights to impose restrictions on what systems can be bought at what times and at what levels, particularly since it's not a given that the players have free reign in design or even much influence over it at all, but it's not mechanically enforced.
I believe the PRD has the information you want, as I suspect you may not have intended to ask this in the Starfinder advice forum. If I happen to be wrong, the PRD is still a reasonable starting point for writing some more homebrew to deal with it, since that's the only way you would have encountered lycanthropes in SF to begin with.
A were-shark in space would certainly be a sight to see, though.
Shields are limited only by budget, yes. Medium ships in particular can take advantage of this since they can mount an extra power core if they invest in it, so the main limiting factor is really the total BP of the ship. You can comfortably achieve the full Superior Shields 600 relatively early on depending on your weapon choices, and I'd be surprised if combat-minded groups put it off much later than maybe tier 10 if given free reign in design.
You could ask them to redesign, mandate it, or even do it yourself, but that might not go over well if you've given them free reign to do as they wish within the rules thus far. If you have time for it, redesigning the ships they fight might be worthwhile... or, as you say, just skipping the starship combat for a bit instead of dealing with that headache.
There is no minimum resale value that I can find. Starfinder's rule for rounding down thus means items worth less than 10 credits have no resale value unless they're trade goods, or resold in bulk. A GM is free to circumstantially change this, and the possibility is listed in the rules themselves, but that is not the default.
Per the Powered weapon property, using such a weapon when it has no charges means it is treated as an improvised weapon.
CRB P.169 - Impprovised Weapons wrote:
If you're using an object that wasn't meant to be used as a weapon, treat it as a club. You don't add your Weapon Specialization bonus damage (if any) when attacking with an improvised weapon. At the GM's discretion, the object might deal a different type of damage or not be treated as archaic (see page 180), and in rare cases a GM might decide a nonweapon functions as a specific weapon (such as an industrial grinder functioning as a fangblade). In such cases, attacks with the weapon take a -4 penalty to the attack roll because of the awkward nature of attacking with something designed for another purpose.
One of two things will happen. By default, an uncharged powered weapon will function as a club with no specialization bonus damage - 1d6+Strength. Alternatively, at the GM's discretion, it may deal a different amount or type of damage as if it were a different weapon altogether, though with a -4 penalty to attack. Weapons such as the dragonglaive are examples of where such GM discretion might come up, but it is not guaranteed.
Note that Powered melee weapons drain charges per minute rather than per attack, so you will hopefully not be faced with this problem too frequently.
CRB P.183 Table 7-11: Wounding Weapons wrote:
You can also lose an eye and take -2 on perception, or get your vitals injured, or what-have-you. But limb-loss is covered to an extent, and while losing a leg will impact your speed, losing your hand is somewhat less detailed.
Raise Dead is an issue for the targets who can afford it, though that will not cover everyone - not everyone who wants someone else dead is dealing with the rich and powerful, because sometimes people are just petty and vicious and are willing to pay to make sure other people aren't around anymore. And even if power is involved at one end, maybe they just want to make nosy low level employees disappear after reading a little too much about certain projects...
Raise Dead's weaknesses are primarily time and trauma, and if you can secure the body then it's easy to exploit those; ideal no-revival kills may look like kidnappings or disappearances as a result. It's more complicated if you can't, though, and it raises the question of just how much damage weapons actually do, and how much has to be done to prevent a revival. Unfortunately, there aren't any rules to cover that, nor for exciting science fantasy tech like proper explosive ammunition on this scale, so it's a bit hazy... sufficient mutilation is more or less purely GM fiat. High-end sniper rifles might be adequate, but they may not. Heavy weapons aren't guaranteed within the rules, nor are explosives, but they may see some use for jobs where subtlety is not required.
However, as much of an issue as Raise Dead can be, Reincarnate is potentially a bigger one. It's a cheaper, lower level spell that only needs a piece of the corpse rather than a mostly intact body. Not everyone is going to be on-board with coming back as something else when selecting resurrection packages for their life insurance policy, but those that are may be even more annoying to permanently kill than their richer - or just more conventional - counterparts. And even if Reincarnate isn't considered, how much of the body can you restore with prosthetics before revival in the magical science fantasy future? If you have the means, could you stick a cloned head on a decapitated body and revive them then?
I see two basic options for no-revival kills. Either it looks a bit like a kidnapping because you're securing and disposing of the body directly, or you start having to consider things like explosives or heavy weapons to ensure sufficiently massive trauma. Disintegrating weapons may also get involved, for those who have access to them.
No-revival assassinations would probably either be very clean, or very, very messy.
CRB P.247 - Swift Action: Change Grips wrote:
Changing your grip on a weapon, such as going from wielding a two-handed weapon with both hands to holding it in one hand, is a swift action.
Actions in Combat, in the tactical rules chapter. It's the very first example of a swift action too. I'm inclined to think that it's simply folded into Reloading much like the implicit Manipulate an Item move action is, so by extension I would personally say that reloading a pistol one-handed shouldn't require any more actions than normal. Gear clamps and the like exist for a reason.
While that is true, it's also completely irrelevant since extra limbs hadn't even come up in this thread.
Anyway, yes; having it lopped off mid-game is one way of addressing why you're missing an arm, though outside campaign specific peculiarities it probably wouldn't be a long-term situation. It's something that could have interesting consequences if used well.
So far as I am aware, there are no straight numerical penalties for missing an arm. There are some specific things I've found skimming through the CRB, such as needing two hands to climb, but there's not much on the mechanical impact of being short an arm and a hand. So, here are the downsides I can find immediately.
1: You have one hand. No two-handed weapons, no wielding multiple things at once, etc. Weapon selection might not be awful if you account for it in build choice and such, but the action economy part could still be problematic in any number of situations.
2: You can't climb properly without something like Climbing Suckers or Spider Climb. This will be a complete non-issue right up until it isn't, at which point it may be quite significant.
3: It's an open invitation for a GM to hand out various penalties as they see fit to your checks. You would know better than any of us how likely that is to be a problem.
4: This isn't a mechanical problem, but a conceptual one. Why does your character still only have one arm? Why haven't they replaced it already? A cybertech prosthetic is only 100 credits. Biotech for a genuine flesh replacement is only 110. If you really have to skimp, you can get a necrograft version for only 90. This isn't an insurmountable problem, but it's one that would certainly need to be addressed.
As noted, all poisons deal damage on exposure; the Constitution track simply continues to deal damage whenever you need to make a save against its progression. As for your last question, while I would personally say that it ignores Stamina entirely - the exact wording is "loses Hit Points" after all - this is not a universal position.
A person who specializes in cybernetics is a cyberneticist, or perhaps more formally a doctor of cybernetics if they're educated and licensed. Though if you were dealing with an unlicensed surgeon who wants to be called doctor anyway, it may be in your best interest to humor them rather than antagonize the person sticking machinery in your body.
From the most legalistic standpoint, there is some weird ambiguity here because of what is and is not actually mentioned in RAW. So what I'm about to say is not a strictly rules-based thing, but I think it's just about the only way to interpret it in a way that actually has everything make sense together.
The ICM is part of but is not the same as the ship computer. The ICM can be disabled as needed, thereby freeing up the PCUs it is consuming if you need them somewhere else. The computer can also be disabled, but in most circumstances this is probably a bad idea that beats out shutting off your life support; shutting down the ship computer is probably mostly synonymous with shutting down the ship itself in most cases. So you probably turned off the life support while you were at it. Good job!
This isn't actually spelled out anywhere. But the book also doesn't give anything more than a passing mention to life support and artificial gravity beyond mentioning that they exist, they work, and they stop working if you get shot to pieces. So we already have a precedent for being very light on what would realistically be fairly important details, because they're not important for starship combat as it has been implemented.
You can turn off your ICM to free up its PCUs just fine, and there's no inherent problem because your ICM isn't your computer; it's not necessary to keep the ship running, so the ICM isn't mentioned in the Power Budget sidebar. You can't turn off your ship computer as a whole and be just fine, but the basic computer that every starship has costs 0 BP and consumes 0 PCU, so there's no point in turning it off anyway. It is thus also left unmentioned there, because the sidebar is about balancing your power requirements.
Purely by RAW, looking at the numbers and hard mechanics that are explicitly written out, you could argue that you can turn off your starship computer with no problems. It's not listed as essential, and I don't think any other systems explicitly require it to be working. But if you look beyond the rules themselves to the narrative they are trying to model, that interpretation quickly starts leading to very strange things.
More briefly, it's fine if you turn off your targeting computer. It's probably less fine if you turn off the rest of the computer.