Isaac Zephyr's page

So basically what you meant in the OP by "some of the more interesting builds" was closer to "these extremely specific builds" and by "bar of entry" you meant "make the character able to do everything well"? Sometimes things have boundaries, not hurdles; that's part of why it's a party-based game.

You can low key insult me all you like. I have a bunch of odd builds I like to try with different bars of entry to meet the game's proposed difficulty, and those who play with me know I'm the first to be the team player or leader.

These two specifics are my one with a BAB problem, because in my head, the sorcerer in particular, I did more envision a Bloodrager. I liked the Phoenix bloodline for its thematic though for a very old character from one of my earliest stories. Unfortunately, they do not mix. So if I want the abilities that fit the character concept I need to be a Sorcerer, and get at least 9, preferably 20, levels of the class to get all the bloodline abilities I want from it.

The concept revolves around idea of struggling with one's inner demons and letting it out. Part of why I would have preferred Bloodrager, but again, lacks the flavor I'm going for. For that reason my first racial ideas were the Pit-Born Tiefling or the Emberkin Aasimar due to their flavor, before settling on Half-Elf to cut out the dead level range needing to pick up Skill Focus for Eldritch Heritage.

How I want him to fight to fit the concept involves being up in people's faces. Whether taking advantage of Immolate, Claws, or the variety of other tools the class has available. The downside is the class I'm stuck with doesn't do that very well, it casts spells well. I'm trying to build the class against the grain (with a 16 starting Str, to be boosted by Abyssal bloodline Str boost to an endgame 22 without magic) to at least reach a passable level for what I want to do, while still committing enough to what the class does well that I can make a meaningful contribution to the part I play in.

People have seemed pretty on the nose with things thus far. I was going to go provocative just like my Envoy does and say "please consult my finger located between first and third".

I'm a full Cha, melee Envoy without Get 'Em or Inspiring Boost, and no combat feats outside of Improved Unarmed Strike. Bad character? Well considering I'm pretty much second most effective in combat (even having solo'd a boss encounter through sheer dumb luck), and probably the person at the table who has the most fun, I'd say not.

I have max Intimidate, Diplomacy, Computers, Engineering, Piloting, you name it. Three Skill Focuses because hey, when you can roll a 1 to Aid another, but use Lend Expertise to give someone else with a higher Int your +1d6+1 to Engineering and still get a +3 for yourself? Or else if you really need to succeed a Diplomacy, drop the die, but still have a +3 bonus?

Oh, and did I mention I'm archtyped as a Skyfire Centurion? Our hammer fist Vesk takes good advantage at our current level from my combat feat choice. And I have a whopping one point in the Medicine skill that not only will let me first aid as a move action, but again, hey Mystic, want my Medicine Expertise die?

Like oh no, I don't do as much damage as the Vesk or the Operative. The Shaken condition which I can give as a move action with Quick Dispiriting Taunt, and the Cruel fusion on my sword mean I Sicken, and that has saved the ass of our teammates on more than one occasion, and forgoing heavy armor and just taking an Electrostatic Field to mean I can run around provoking AoOs and eating hits that deal damage back?

Yeah, I don't do the optimal Envoy stuff. Yeah, my to hit is fairly low compared to my max combat stat allies. Screw the numbers though, I do more on the battlefield than most of them combined, and as I level will just get more long-term tools to power my allies and continue being a menace myself. Our GM knows he has to focus me over the soldier, because as hard as he can hit, if I get into the right place, Coordinated Shot and my Combat Bond means I'm giving +5 minimum to my ally of choice so long as I've still got resolve. And max Cha I have a boatload of it (even though I don't have a personal upgrade for it yet).

Not to mention what I can do in a Starship. Combat Bond from Centurion is huge, and Orders to our Pilot and Engineer (Mechanic with the unique actions so better me give him two than to do it myself, which I can also do if his higher Dex wants to get on a gun). I can literally do every role effectively.

The Envoy is an amazing class in hands that don't reduce it to numbers and go along the grain. It has really cool synergy with a lot of "sub optimal" stuff. Sky Jockey, Coordinated Shot with Jump Jets and the Electrostatic Field alone makes anyone a combat threat. The Envoy's late action economy with taunts, boosts, and others make the combo a menace.

I have a few characters who stray a little off the beaten path: A Str Rogue, a Shifter with a decent Int, more characters with 14+ Cha than the average person.

However, my more odd characters are generally from archtypes which many would say suck. And unfortunately due to the priority shifts that those archtypes provide, most of the unusual stat choices are actually rather justified. Like a Warpriest rocking a 14 Cha because they're a Champion of the Faith and thus get Smite, or a Thunderstriker Fighter with 16 Cha since they're taking the Sanguine Angel prestige class and get a lot out of Signature Skill: Intimidate skill unlocks.

I've also got some oddities like a 14 Str, 13 Wis Witch, but as the White Haired Witch, most of that is to get feat prereqs on the grappling line.

He's an embodiment of evil and chaos? Bits of his body come off and become almighty raging monsters and abominations?

To quote from another game, the actions of gods defy mortal understanding.

Had a fun Wednesday Starfinder session as usual, but the story for this one was too good to pass up. Spoiler warning for book 3, of the AP, so if you've not played these encounters, your fair warning has been given.

So we hit the point of book 3 where our team was hunting down Xerantha Mortant. Thus far, our team of 5 including a Hacker/Sniper Operative/Starfinder Data Jockey, Drone Mechanic, Hammer Fist Soldier, Healing Mystic, and Intimidating Envoy/Skyfire Centurion were working about as effectively as that team can on Eox. The Envoy (me) can't do much with Dispiriting Taunt, the Mystic can't Mind Thrust anything, and the Vesk Soldier is our go to combatant (For Skyfire, the Envoy and Mystic are combat bonded so they can Harrying/Covering each other for +4). We're also only level 5 just due to the larger experience split, not that it means a tonne, just some checks are harder than others.

We get to the hut, looking down the path and of course seeing the gargantuan Ellicoth we get combat ready, failing our checks to learn anything about it. So it's big and scary, and our Vesk and Sniper do what they normally do. As the Envoy, I'd invested in a Radiation Badge, so we were able to find out the creature had that radiation aura at least. Our Vesk was the only one with level 7 armor to ignore the radiation, so the normal Envoy + Soldier melee plan is out the window (+1 Fort save means as usual the Envoy would be totalled by the saves). So with a call, we shift strategy to fan out, so that it can't get more than one of us in the aura. The Sniper was already fallen back, the Mechanic goes wide, the Mystic stays just close enough to the Soldier to still heal, and I as the Envoy Jump Jet (+Sky Jockey Feat so extra fly speed) onto the roof of the hut.

The hut is made of skin, so my being on it isn't exactly subtle. As the Ellicoth is moving in to keep us in aura, and I'm prepping a Mk 3 frag, a shot comes up through the floor. The GM has decided me being on the hut triggers Xerantha's ambush. So now we're a team of 5 level 5s, fighting an Ellicoth, and a Marrowblight, equivalent CR 10. Both these creatures basically can't miss us with attacks due to our armor, so it's a slug fest war of attrition to figure out which one we can drop first, or else die.

I frag the Ellicoth and back up to stay out of range of the radiation. We're now spread enough the Ellicoth needs to focus the Soldier, but the Marrowblight is a secondary CR 7 problem to deal with. The following round, Xerantha busts up through the floor with Pounce and is on top of my 19 AC no Fort arse. The only one close enough to even help me is the Mechanic.

I drew my Noqual Dueling Sword which has been my go to since undead are immune to my Improved Unarmed Strike as a human. And this is where luck shone brightly on my Envoy. I didn't roll less than a 17 the rest of the fight (except the first Fort save vs. Red Ache of course... But at this point it's almost expected my Envoy attracts diseases). The Mechanic shot once, and saw I had things more or less handled between insane rolls staying mobile enough to avoid the full attack, and punishing attacks with my Electrostatic Field Mk 1 (if my AC is too low to avoid most hits anyway, may as well benefit from it right?). So the Envoy is fighting Xerantha on the hut roof, while the rest of the party are all trying to focus down the Ellicoth which has started to really hurt our Soldier just from repeated blows. I have never felt more like we were in a Star Trek/Wars moment than this combat.

It was beautiful, my Envoy getting repeated strikes in and then taking blows back from the spurs. It was almost a rinse repeat of hit, back off, get approached, get spurred, until I was down to just 5 HP. At which point there was a choice. Either repeat again, and know the next blow would have me burning 2 Resolve to stay at 1 HP, or use my actions to draw a Healing Serum and heal myself, at the cost that I wouldn't have the distance between us and would be full attacked. The Soldier had been dealing with similar against the Ellicoth, with the Mystic doing everything possible to keep him alive (ironically giving the Ellicoth more healing from beating on our Soldier's HP, something we were unaware of due to our failed knowledge checks), but with the Mystic too far away I didn't have that backup.

I had been rolling hot all fight, even had a crit, (and with only a +5 to hit and a KAC targetting weapon, I needed it, min roll 16 to hit) but I knew pushing my luck would likely get me killed, because if I didn't heal the full attack would do me in through all my resolve. I also knew she wasn't doing so hot from repeated max to near max rolls (11-13 damage a hit from the sword, plus 3-6 from the Electrostatic field, and 24 from the Frag Grenade she was in the initial radius for since the GM ruled skin walls thin enough for her to shoot me through meant she got hit with the grenade when it tore through the wall). I took my gamble with the attack, knowing I probably stood a better chance at delaying her even if I missed since I could still move away and prevent her full attack.

I scored a second crit. Dealing near max (24 out of 26 potential). It wasn't enough to take her down, but my brash captain nature paid off. I was Kirk in that brief moment, where no matter what stupid decision I made, I would win. So instead of moving, knowing my remaining resolve would let me live 2 attacks from the full and proc the Electrostatic Field twice, I drew the Healing Serum. Xerantha died after hitting me one last time, forcing 2 resolve for me to stay in the fight, but dealing the last of her HP, destroying her.

The socially built Envoy, defeated a CR 7 boss solo, before the rest of the group had finished with the Ellicoth. So I was able to Jet Dash back next round close enough to get into gun range and help out on the last round.

It was one of those moments that'll be shared around the table as one of the best moments of the campaign, because we had no right winning, but the stars aligned and let everything work out. And how often does a 15 Str Envoy get to out-damage a maxed out Vesk Soldier? But yeah, really fun time and wanted to share, even though I don't frequent the AP threads for spoiler reasons.

I knew the correlation already, which is why I was curious. Totally fair homebrew to adjust metamagic'd spells appropriately.

Purely RAW though it's just an oversight then? I know a lot of players who'd knick down my door if I charged them 10,000 GP for Dancing Lights to make a Drow player less of a hindrance. (And made them wait to level 12+ depending how fast the Drow is building Deeper Darkness).

Not to mention the unwritten cost of if they aren't a Wizard and are purchasing these spellcasting services. That's an expensive ball if 20 ft light.

I did a Cavalier build (Sister-in-arms) who was all about sponging hits and retaliating/giving allies the chance to retaliate. Building up Archon Style was a really fun way to do that, and it's a Combat Expertise prereq. Though it also needs Combat Reflexes. Also requires a shield, so you'd need a Buckler with your axe (I think that would count for Archon Diversion?).

Yeah, I see the damage problem now. I was more thinking a trench run kind of thing, but I would probably just run that as a separate thing instead. Sorry for wasting your time on this.

Don't be sorry, my time's never wasted. And don't be ashamed from a fresh idea. Making mistakes is how we learn and improve as humans. It encourages communication and learning from others too, and helps them develop ideas of their own.

Basically, you did nothing you need to be sorry for. ^_^

If you're playing in a game using Sanity, sleep deprivation is still a problem yes.

Technically you are right, in a basic game you're looking at ignoring most of the basic penalties for not getting sleep, that being fatigue and exhaustion. However, the larger penalty for flat out not sleeping is going to be not being able to restore HP through resting, or getting your used spell slots from the day back.

Why would they? Most NPCs aren't tracked out of combat in order to know when they'd spend resolve to regain them. And it is easier for enemies to simply have one pool so they don't need abilities that restore one or the other like PCs.

Come to think of it, NPCs don't really have Resolve either. Again, most of it would be out of combat bookkeeping no one really wants to do or has time for. It's not important for what's happening in the moment with PCs. Plus no Resolve means no "Oh the NPC that's down stabilizes and gets up with 1 because they had Resolve left." It it's important to the story a GM can do that kind of contingency anyway, there's no reason to quantify it and have the PCs able to complain "but we burnt all his resolve".

Yeah, I'd kick the player. Granted, I have waiting lists for most of my tables of people who want to play, so it's easy enough for me to find a replacement even locally. Each of the four problems can be done individually and be fun (I have done some of them myself), but all four points more towards an Evil NPC than a member of the party. Examples:

1. I've got two characters who technically cannot speak common and they've been pretty fun the the parties they were in.

The one was just a Tongues curse Oracle, so in combat the spirit of her past self possessed her and she could only speak Celestial. She was still the healer and fulfilled her party role though, just with the roleplaying aspect of being unable to understand the rest of the party. A few of them nabbed celestial though so they could explain to the character if something was a particularly dumb idea, or had been discussed prior to combat, since I roleplayed it like two seperate people. The combat warrior was more or less unaware of what the Oracle did when she wasn't in the driver's seat.

The second was a Kobold though he was more or less a Wildling, using the Hinyasi Brawler archtype and playing to the savage nature of that part of the world. He often simply hissed profanities at people in Draconic and threw rocks at things. He was played incredibly anti-social and anti-society, so he didn't really take part in social situations and more just communicated with people through universal body language. Point at the bad guy, go.

So no Common can be done right, and be a little fun. If it's used as an excuse to just explicitly ignore the other players though, that's not really fun for anyone but the, forgive my generalization, troll player.

2. Again, can be done okay with the right character, though I don't really recommend it. I had a Dhampir Gunslinger who was Lawful Evil, and she made it explicitly clear to the other party members that if any of them did anything to jepordize her end goals she wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet in them. Her goal was to rescue her half-sister from prison because she felt responsible for why she got put there, so essentially nothing that would get the party arrested (because then she can't save her sister). However she was also a bounty hunter and willing to follow her contract with the party to the letter. She was an alright time, even though she was abrasive and made her threat clear (omiting the reasoning until later of course).

3. This is a joke you make once, and not at the expense of the other PCs. An Evil PC who views humans as just an animal could be an interesting character. I've git a morally gray wizard who was willing to animate undead in order to prevent try and prevent further loss of life in the party (we had a PC death just prior to finding an Animate Dead scroll as treasure, and to be clear she didn't animate the corpse of the PC because that would have been going too far). The cleric didn't like it, but it proved its worth, later saving the cleric's life. It was fun roleplaying around whether undead made with good intentions could allow their creator some forgiveness.

In the case of cook humans, it's level 10, and a deliberate choice. It could be an interesting concept as kind of a dark secret thing, like blood bending in the original avatar series. Like the character learns it from their patron and needs to make the moral choice of using the power. Like they know there's a big fight coming up and their best chance is to use every advantage, including this new ability, or risk death. It could work, this player though seems more to want it because "oooh, I can be naughty" at which point you tell them no.

4. ... I've got nothing for this one. Positive channeling doesn't really add up with the prior described abilities, including the very evil one. If they know there's a Dhampir then if they're taking Selective Channeling I believe the feat is then fine. If it's a choice just to counter another player then kick. Even my Animate Dead with a Cleric of Sarenrae in the party, for as much as it was opposed beliefs it wasn't like deliberately attacking the Cleric (and the option wasn't something deliberately picked but a moral quandary after found). Extra healing doesn't hurt any party, but yeah... Without specific building for that no... It's just more trolling.

Too many red flags. I'd be kicking the troll. Any one of these ideas could be justified as mentioned above, but all together is just an attempt to push buttons.

Sigh wrote:

So what you're all saying is that if I really wanted to I could conceivably make a very big Golem with an opening in its chest cavity, Reduce Person myself so I can easily fit inside, and then have it walk around through whatever magical BS gets sent my way and still be fine?

Theoretically speaking, of course.

You dun left the rules.

The rules simply do not cover one being inside another. Because at that point its usually digestion and you really don't want rules for that. So whether you have total cover, total cover against most things, or what is up to your DM. He could very well rule that the magic passes harmlessly through the golem. Through you.. not so much.

T'is I, Gorgon Ramsey. Today we're going to cook some delicious adventurer stew. First, you'll want to get yourself a gargantuan sized, cast-iron golem. Make sure he's hollowed out big enough to hold our main ingredient. Four positively stupid adventurers.

Start up your wall of flame and load your adventurers into the golem. The golem can take intense heat, so make sure you keep in there in the flames till your adventures reach an internal temperature of about 165° F. Any less and they'll be f~$~ing raw!

*looks at my new Scroll of Animate Dead* ... *looks at my spellbook* ... I'm a true neutral wizard... Three strikes... And I do save my friends frequently at great risk to myself.

See, in the long run I think the Horror Adventures rule on this one was trying to quantify something that really didn't need it. The rules of certain casters not being allowed to cast spells of their opposed alignment was fine. This felt more like a GM tool to say "I don't want you casting X, so I'm going to punish you for it." There's a handful of spells with the good and evil descriptors that really have no business shifting someone's alignment. Cloak of Shadows being an example.

If characters in general are acting one way, that's going to be their alignment. I've made a bunch of neutral characters who end up acting more good than not. I've had players make good characters that do very explicitly evil things. I've played evil characters who arguably never commit evil but are just selfish in their goals.

Not really sure if it counts as a ruling, but I was at a table where the GM's partner was one of the players. We were playing Shattered Star, and I mentioned that I had found the Player's Guide for it, to which I was called out that if I read any of the AP I would be kicked from the table. To which I had to explain what the Players Guide was.

Her partner on the other hand, could get away with murder. His original character was a Drow Noble who was basically anti-party and allowed because of the homebrew tweak "well I gave up the Spell-Like Abilities, so it's balanced" however they still had the SLA they wanted in permanent Detect Magic which they used to scoop magic gear from the rest of the party. When complaints hit an all time high about this character, he was told yo change the character, but refused unless I did as well purely out of spite. His new character then dipped into 3PP which no one else was allowed to. So I left on blatant favoritism.

One bad ruling though that I didn't leave a table over, what is now an in joke of "I wasn't in the cone!" I was persistently careful with my positioning so that I couldn't be hit by this particular enemy's weapon. After about 3 shots of missing me due to positioning, and my staying out of the area of effect the GM just said "move him to where he can hit everyone", something he couldn't do with his move speed and weapon range. I was always out of the range by 5 ft.

He damaged me with it anyway. It wasn't a lot of damage (like 1d6+3 or so), just more the pride of the matter. That I could play smart but it didn't matter cause the GM would bend rules to hurt me anyway.

I was gonna say yeah. Starfinder really isn't balanced for the 3 action system. Even to the point Swift actions are consumed on any full attack. It's more of a 2 action system at best.

Yeah, the math is just too tight to deviate much from how they've set up attacks in Starfinder. At best you're giving monsters more opportunity to blend PCs into paste by letting them attack more. At worst, there's some move action ability a PC can now abuse twice before the only single attack they'd be making anyway.

As an Envoy player, the three big abuses would be Clever Feint, Dispiriting Taunt, and Hurry normally standard would now be do-able in addition to an attack without their higher level upgrades. Hurry in particular is "hey, have an extra action friend".

Alright. I think I'm missing something so I'll explain each scenario.

When reduced/enlarged, if you remove an object from your person, it returns to its original size. So if a large person shrunk mediuk, their armor at the time would shrink with them, but if they took it off it would return to being large armor before the end of the spell's duration.

If you are reduced to medium, and put on a medium suit of armor, you can wear it while reduced, but at the end of the spell's duration you will return to regular size, and the armor will be destroyed in the process since it lacks the space to accommodate your actual size.

If a medium character was increased to large or larger while inside a suit of large armor (not wearing it, we're talking like standing in the chestpiece), the armor would limit their maximum size unless they rolled a Str check to burst it.

Operatives on and off become a power arguement on these forums all the time. There's the new players which complain of overshadowing or a lack of weakness to which more experienced players step in and advise of other things being more powerful, and then the people who've gotten 12 levels in and complain the Operative's Edge is the strongest ability in the game.

I don't entirely disagree. Basically every level Operative's Edge goes up, it's a level where the Operative is best while everyone else is waiting for their next level for their bonuses to rise. Not going into my table specifics, it's a big problem that our Operative is the Hacker and we have a Mechanic, though as of last level I as the Envoy got Expertise in Engineering and do better than both of them (going for Expert Advice though so it'll make my Aid Anothers for both of them just fantastic).

Honestly I don't think Operative's Edge should go. Too heavy modification like removing it from non-Skill Focus skills would kill Operative exploits like Jack-of-all-trades which apply to skills you have no ranks in.

Honestly I think two fixes would be to take 2 of the Operative's skill points and give them to the Solarian, since I found out a Human Operative can actually overflow their skill points (10/level + 1 from Skilled + 9 from Max Int of 28 = 20/Level out of 20 skills) and the Solarian doesn't even recieve enough to cover their Sidereal Influence. The second would be to stagger Operative's Edge one bonus back (basically remove the +1 from level 1 and give boosts starting level 3), this has kind of the downside of pushing back Specialization Skill Mastery to 11 (when Operatives Edge would now hit the +3), but the new balance would be one level of Operative being equal to everyone else, and the subsequent level others would bounce ahead in the Insight Bonus race instead of bouncing to even.

However I'm neither a GM (at the moment) nor a designer, and as a rules traditionalist I will insist on the Operative being played as the designers intended, because perhaps they see something that I do not in the longterm health of the game.

Sent you a message.

Java Man wrote:

Dropping the pole is a free action. As long as he rages until the end of the fight, what else matters?

As I understand it, he doesn't need to drop the polearm at all, and he doesn't need to do anything special. Removing one hand from a 2 handed weapon is Free Action. The example I found in the rules was of a Wizard removing one hand from his staff to cast a Spell.

If the Character intends to make Reach Attacks with his Lucerne Hammer and make Claw Attacks against adjacent targets, and not do both with the same Full Attack Action, the rules say there is no problem, no penalties.

If the character intends to do both in the same Full Attack Action, he can do that, too, but combining regular attacks with Natural Weapon Attacks downgrades the Claw Attacks to Secondary: -5 to attack and only 1/2 the St Mod to Damage.

Yeah, see this is where most of the arguement and confusion is coming in. That free action, which is why I'm hunting (any) alternatives.

Essentially from everything I know about the rules, yes you could full attack or cleave with Glaive + Claws, however at the end of your turn you need to decide whether you're weilding the Glaive to threaten, or holding it 1-handed thus not weilding it and threatening with your claws.

My weapons need to earn their names. My summoned minions all get names of course, but my equipment needs to earn names through deeds.

Like this one time, a player tossed a handaxe as their only option against a high level succubus caster. They were expected to lose, when out of nowhere this thing crit, and after a roll on the injury table, it completely disabled the enemy's arm. That axe became Trueflight, the Demonsbane.

Deeds.

OK. So an Astrazoad and Bantrid can't make an Unarmed attack at all as they don't have a free hand. Or any hand at all?

I did mention this earlier, about creatures without hands. Bantrids though actually do have "Near the apex of their torsos, bantrids have a pair of appendages that resemble large, flat hands with several thin fingers.".

I digress though, it is more appropriate to describe all creatures as having the ability to weild 2 hands worth of items unless otherwise stated, such as with Kasatha and other 4+ armed races. You need to have 1 hand worth of availability left to make an unarmed strike, unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike.

The biggest question with that description of it comes from the Trox, and I've been dreading bringing them up... Trox have Vestigial Arms, which can manipulate objects, but not make attacks. Unarmed strikes, regardless of Natural Weapons or not, do not specify being done with a hand-aproximate specifically, so if a Trox has a vestigial hand free, can they make an unarmed strike? Or do the rules count that hand as what you're making the strike with?

Either way, it's a balance rule moreso than a logic rule. The developers only wanted PCs to be able to weild/use 2 hands worth of equipment, and they consider an unarmed strike as a 1 handed action basic melee weapon.

EDIT: I had to look it up, yeah. Unarmed strike is listed as a 1 handed weapon on the tables. Starfinder considers them a 1 handed weapon regarless of your appendage, unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike.

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

I am not saying that. I think as mentioned, I cannot apply those rules to a monster because they do not play by the same rules as players. They receive full specialization on all attacks, even pre-level 3, they do not have feats listed, and their versions of attacks generally have different values than PC versions if they are available.

Sorry, I was probably bit too flippant with that comment. I didn't think people actually thought that way, but was trying to illustrate the point that natural weapons are not the same as unarmed strikes. Which you're agreeing with. Natural weapons threaten. Unarmed strikes do not threaten. So what happens when you have a melee natural weapon which is also an unarmed strike? They are completely unrelated rule definitions, by how I read RAW.

I actually wanted to revisit this one last time, just to acknowledge I actually made a mistake in my other reply.

I remembered a creature of relevance, the Broodbrother. Its Cold (Su) mentions its natural weapons, unarmed strikes, and slam attack as all things that get Cold (Su) applied to them. So I had to hunt natural weapons rules specifically.

Natural Weapons (Ex) is in the Alien Archive. Natural Weapons (no Ex) is the player ability, so same name but different things, and it means I mislabeled them.

Natural Weapons (Ex)
Natural weapons (and natural attacks), such as acid spit, bite, claw, or slam don’t require ammunition and can’t be disarmed or sundered.

That's all it says though. Doesn't really change any of the presented information in regards to anything.

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

I am not saying that. I think as mentioned, I cannot apply those rules to a monster because they do not play by the same rules as players. They receive full specialization on all attacks, even pre-level 3, they do not have feats listed, and their versions of attacks generally have different values than PC versions if they are available.

Sorry, I was probably bit too flippant with that comment. I didn't think people actually thought that way, but was trying to illustrate the point that natural weapons are not the same as unarmed strikes. Which you're agreeing with. Natural weapons threaten. Unarmed strikes do not threaten. So what happens when you have a melee natural weapon which is also an unarmed strike? They are completely unrelated rule definitions, by how I read RAW.

Which is fair, and un-antagonistic.

It's confusing because you are correct in that: natural weapons =/= unarmed strikes. However, Natural Weapons (Ex)* is an unarmed strike modification, as it states "they can deal x damage with their unarmed strikes". It isn't creating a new attack, but adding qualities to their unarmed strike, such as removing archaic, and as clarified by Owen, allowing them to threaten for opportunity attacks.

There are weird differeces like this in Pathfinder as well, such as Poison Use (Ex). Drow recieve it as a racial ability, but as such, it is not technically the "Poison Use class feature" called for in the metamagic feat Toxic Spell.

Either way, I'm finished with arguing with Norse on this one. He posed a rules question, got a rules answer. If he wanted to open discussion on whether it was fair or made sense he should have put it in general discussion. If there is evidence presented that shows the Natural Weapons PC ability as not an unarmed strike, then I welcome it for further discussion. As such, no such specific ruling has been presented, and thus I've nothing left to say that I haven't already.

*Given Ex here in order to clarify it is the Vesk/others racial ability, despite I believe Starfinder does not differentiate abilities that way.

Or am I misunderstanding and people are saying all natural attacks do use the unarmed strike rules, including for monsters and NPC stat blocks and thus monsters without hands are unable to attack?

I am not saying that. I think as mentioned, I cannot apply those rules to a monster because they do not play by the same rules as players. They receive full specialization on all attacks, even pre-level 3, they do not have feats listed, and their versions of attacks generally have different values than PC versions if they are available.

In the Drow's case, there a number of abilities just missing from the PC versions, like the ability to create darkness, and a number of their SLAs are limited. In the Nuar's case, the "horn" does higher base damage and only applies base specialization. It's really a GM's call if the monster version can make the attack holding their pike, or dueling sword + pistol or not.

For PCs however. Humans have heads, and feet capable of being used (and are mentioned as such by the game's description of unarmed strikes), but the game's rules insist they cannot be used with your hands full unless you have special training. PCs Natural Weapons are called out specifically as Unarmed Strikes, regardless of what they are, and thus unarmed strike rules apply except where otherwise specifically stated, such as their ability to threaten.

I believe someone from the Pathfinder forums put it to me: "If you want 100% realism then don't play Pathfinder." The same applies to Starfinder. Keeping options balanced takes a higher priority than whether they should realistically be able to horn someone with their hands full.

For balance context: At level 10, a heavy weapons user who's hands will always be full with their weapon. The generally agreed upon weakness of any ranged character is getting up in their face. 1.5× specialization results in this character's Natural Weapons dealing 1d3 + 15 + 2 (Str 15 min for high level heavy weapons) unhindered by archaic. (The only difference between them and a longarm user will be Str minimum, and that applies to any and all 2H ranged.)

Again, weilding a ranged weapon is still armed, just with a ranged weapon. But if we assume as is trying to be said that Natural Weapons is equivalent to always being able to be used, that above character can:

- Make Opportunity Attacks
- Full Attack with their melee + ranged

As a bonus as well, if it work the above way, Improved Unarmed would actually become a detriment to the character.

Improved Unarmed Strike
If you are immobilized, entangled, or unable to use both legs (or whatever appendages you have in place of legs, where appropriate), you lose the ability to make unarmed strikes without your hands. When making an unarmed strike without your hands, you can’t use such attacks for combat maneuvers or similar abilities—only to deal damage.

If it works like it is being suggested, then so long as any Natural Weapons character didn't have Improved Unarmed, they are still armed under any of those conditions. Because they are "always armed", it grants their unarmed strikes condition immunity, which I can guarantee is not the RAI. However it is what is being suggested by your interpretation. EDIT: They can also trip or disarm people with their face. Also not intended.

The standard of evidence you need to meet has to support the inanity that a space minotaur holding two pistols can't gore you. That level of idiocy requires a direct statement of the rules that you don't have. You are trying to merge 2 different rules statements from a hundred pages apart and reconcile them. That is a persons CONCLUSSION about how that works.

Except I presented the evidence Norse. Nuars (your minotaurs) Natural Weapons are as follows.

Nuar: Natural Weapons
Nuars are always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal piercing damage with unarmed strikes and the attack doesn’t count as archaic. Nuars gain a unique weapon specialization with their natural weapons at 3rd level, allowing them to add 1-1/2 × their character level to their damage rolls with their natural weapons (instead of just adding their character level, as usual).

It is a modification of their unarmed strikes, which means they must abide by the rules of unarmed strikes.

From Improved Unarmed Strike
Normal: You don’t threaten any squares with unarmed attacks, and you must have a hand free to make an unarmed attack.

The statement of them being armed, as clarified by Owen, means they do threaten with their unarmed strikes. However that does not remove the need for a free hand. Starfinder doesn't distinguish between a gore, slam, claw, or tail slap like Pathfinder did. All PC versions of Natural Weapons apply by the same unarmed rules. Likely for streamlining purposes.

To drive that home, I pulled up the Uplifted Bear from AA2, and this is how Natural Weapons is written.

Uplifted Bear: Natural Weapons
Uplifted bears have natural weapons that function like those of vesk (Starfinder Core Rulebook 52), except the bears’ natural weapons deal slashing damage.

And for the complete circle, we'll get the Vesk's, which is what Owen was originally commenting on.

Vesk: Natural Weapons
Vesk are always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal damage with unarmed strikes and the attack doesn’t count as archaic. Vesk gain a unique weapon specialization with their natural weapons at 3rd level, allowing them to add 1–1/2 × their character level to their damage rolls for their natural weapons (instead of just adding their character level, as usual).

The always armed isn't unique to the Nuar. Starfinder doesn't care that it's their horns, they need a free hand, or Improved Unarmed Strike. Which they'll want anyway just for the incredible damage dice boosts. Keeps it on par with a Dueling Sword till level 11 or so.

Neil77 wrote:

I typically don't look at Alien Archive for PC things, so I was assuming that someone had an actual Minotaur. If the Nuar entry is like the Vesk, then I agree with you. RAW, they would need a hand free to gore.

How is it the raw? It doesn't t say that nuar are considered armed when they have a free hand. It says always.

RAW normal doesn t say it applies to someone with a similar ability.

I really wish people had more respect for the rules. As it is every time I hear someone say raw what they actually mean is an interpretation without sense.

I have perfect respect for the rules. It's not an interpretation it's how it works. Armed as mentioned is not in the glossary of terms as something specific. But let's break it down with another example.

A Human character weilding a pistol is considered armed. He has a weapon. However, that does not allow them to make an opportunity attack with it. This creates a case where a creature is "armed" but cannot attack because the rules say they cannot.

Another example, a character wearing a battleglove, and carrying a rifle. He is armed with both the glove, and the rifle, however if the hand with the glove is holding the rifle in order to fire it, he cannot use the battleglove (unless he uses a swift action to change his grip, at which point he cannot fire the rifle) for an opportunity attack. Being armed in this way also doesn't allow him to make an opportunity attack with his rifle, simply because he has a battleglove.

Because Natural Weapons are Unarmed Strikes, the rules which govern Unarmed Strikes apply to them in full, except where otherwise stated. They count as "armed" which is different, meaning they can make opportunity attacks with their unarmed strikes as this is stated in Reach and Threatening, however they must still be in a circumstance where they can use their unarmed strikes (as the battleglove example). This means they require having a free hand, unless they possess the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

That is how the rules are written.

Pfft. XD Startoss + Ricochet is just ridiculous in concept.

The dagger leaves my hand, zips through a bunch of enemies, and then back to my hand.

Even just ricochet on a full attack. Just bouncing your dagger off an enemy repeatedly.

Makes no sense. XD Startoss is defs the way to go, if only for +6 damage. Rapid shot makes more sense just from a physics perspective. There's also no reason not to go for both eventually. Startoss Shower isn't very helpful vs a single big opponent, so Rapid Shot would be wanted for those situations.

I was honestly thinking more a Blinkback Belt than crazy physics-defying ricochets, but it does work. Will need to ponder on it.

CRB,p.55 wrote:

If you are wielding a melee weapon or are otherwise capable of making a melee attack (e.g., if you have your own natural weapons), you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn (the exception is unarmed strikes—if you’re making unarmed strikes, you don’t threaten other squares).

Natural weapons are explicitly distinguished from unarmed strikes.

However, re-reading the Vesk entry, although the entry title is NATURAL WEAPONS, the text defines the attack as an unarmed strike that does lethal damage, not a natural weapon (unless there has been errata). That would cause me to change my interpretation of the Vesk (i.e., Vesk must have a hand free), but not Minotaur (gore is specifically a natural attack, so would not require a free hand).

The minotaurs of Starfinder are the Nuar. You will find their Natural Weapons entry to be the same with the exception of stating a damage type. It is still described as "their unarmed strikes".

That said, their alien archive entry as a monster has the attack listed at horn. And doing some quick maths, it doesn't apply the 1.5× specialization to damage. Then again, Starfinder plays by different rules between creatures and players, so by all accounts you can't really apply the same rules to creatures as players. They may indeed be able to horn with their hands full.

In the REACH AND THREATENED SQUARES entry on (CRB, p.255), a distinction is made between natural weapons and unarmed strikes. A Minotaur can gore even if its hands are full, because a natural weapon is not an unarmed strike.

I don't find anything on the claw/empty hand question. However, nowhere in the Vesk entry does it say that the natural weapon is a claw. I can see an interpretation that it is a bite attack (which, throwing back to Pathfinder, matches the damage described more closely) or even a tail slap. This would allow the Vesk natural attack with full hands, regardless.

That's blantantly untrue. No distinction is made, natural weapons are simply an example of wielding a weapon. Nowhere does it grant the same ability as Improved Unarmed Strike to make attacks with your hands full. And Natural Weapons the racial ability on multiple sources, describes itself each time as: "your unarmed strikes". This means Natural Weapons are indeed Unarmed Strikes, and thus apply by there rules except where specifically stated otherwise.

In this case, reach and threatened describes natural weapons (not capitalized thus may or may not actually be referring to the Vesk ability or is a generalization to attempt to clarify monsters and such can make AoOs even though many do not weild weapons) as equivalent to weilding a weapon for making AoO. This is the only thing it says in regards to them, thus you still have to apply the other Unarmed Strike rules, including not being able to make them with hands occupied.

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

I have curiosity on this based on a character I'm working on. A White Haired Witch whom will gain Giant Shape 1, 2, and Shapechange as spells from the Strength patron.

By polymorph, all three of these spells nix your White Hair (Su), even if the creature you become has hair. Kinda crummy, cause it means Enlarge Person isctye only size spell you can use, and it only targets humanoids meaning any of the outsider races can't use it.

Abilities granted by class are not form dependent.

Quote from polymorph effects:

You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function.

Which means some indeed are form-dependent.

That goes without saying, However, as I said above I want an item to make UPB's out of items you gather adventuring away from those conveniences.

I get the appeal, but it seems something better left as homebrew for that specific type of campaign.

Hear me out, I like the idea and wish it was how things worked already. Unfortunately, if it existed as an item it's a no drawback item. Every party would or should have it regardless of their need for it, because it circumvents the downside of only being able to get 10% of value in UPBs towards making a similar item. Even if the UPBs were "unstable" and couldn't be spent as currency, that's not really a downside since UPBs are 1-1 credit cost, and crafting an item is 1-1 credit cost.

A better downside: Make it a feat. Like the Squox feat, have like "Assembly Ooze Familiar" as a feat, and they come in a little backpack. You can feed them items and they store 10% of the value in UPBs that can be used later when you're crafting (but only you, and not an ally, thus meaning you need the appropriate skill ranks that limit what you can make). If your familiar dies, you can spend x credits to reconstitute a new one.

You could even give them an additional ability like they can quick-craft ammunition in combat. Just expend the ammunition value in UPBs and it pops it out for you as a swift action, letting you reload same turn it pops the ammo.

There's only a couple bad cards. Lol.

But if you have a DoMT and you don't draw from it, you are lacking in a sense of adventure and kinda missing the point of the game, in my opinion.

Alternatively, a player or table can not take enjoyment from gambling.

That isn't to say I don't take gambles in games. Boardgames like Forbidden Island and Pandemic I've had rounds where I've deconstructed the odds and determined a certain amount of risk needs to be taken if we're going to win as a team. A gamble which occasionally pays off, and occassionally doesn't. There's a distinctive gain though.

The DoMT is gambling for the sake of gambling. Not everyone garners enjoyment from that. You can have one bullet in a gun in Russian Roulette, but there's generally a pot to win. The DoMT's good cards are the pot, but most if not all if you get them will still derail the party.

If say you draw the Jester for 10,000 xp. That player will gain at least one level. This adjusts the APL of the party, which is now work for the GM. The power leveled character will now either trounce all encounters, or the lower leveled characters will struggle with the bumped CR (or both).

The Gem, is the only card in the deck which doesn't in some way alienate the drawer, since wealth can be shared. However 50,000 gp depending on level can still derail a story.

The DoMT needs to have something the party wants or needs to be a worthwhile gamble. A party will potentially walk through a trapped door because they need to get to the other side.

Final point on it. People tend to play Pathfinder in general not for the rewards, but the adventure. There are dozens of APs with a quest reward. The Playtest was the most recent one I ran, chapter 1 had a reward of 75 gp. The players didn't care about the 75 gp, it was the adventure. The DoMT's rewards are purely monetary for the most part. Reward for reward's sake, which defeats the purpose of why most people are coming to the table. A player can be super hyped over a free level, but at the end of the day they won't be fulfilled like having gone on their quest and earned it.

Why not use a polearm instead of a greatsword? E.g. a lucerne hammer. Due to extra attacks from AoOs your character will inflict more damage, will take less damage, and will provide more protection to allies. There's not really a down side. Just saying.

Mostly preference. Big sword is one of my favorite weapons and looking at my last 10 characters none of them used it, generally favoring Finesse weapons or various types of Improvised/Unarmed/Natural thus not needing weapons.

Considering I ended up specing a cleave/intimidate build for the first time on this character, the polearm would be just flat out better in pretty much every way. However, just preference is going to keep the greatsword.

That's what happens. You only put the DoMT into a campaign when either it's going nowhere and you need a twist, or you've stopped giving a damn and are rwady for it to end.

Warpriest of a deity that's fine with raising the undead. From there, use your combat feats to run doen the Shikigami Style fear line for that shovel.

I did it with a Makeshift Scrapper Rogue. 4d6 shovel is sweet. And with Improvisational Focus, your spiritual weapon would make that better.

I made a Makeshift Scrapper Rogue that threw 2H shovels. Not as many feats as a fighter, but the feat path went:

1 Catch Off Guard + Throw Anything (Free from Makeshift Scrapper)
1 Two Handed Thrower
2 Shikigami Style (Rogue Talent - Ninja Trick - Style Master)
3 Shikigami Mimicry
4 Combat Expertise (Rogue Talent - Combat Trick)
5 Improved Disarm
7 Shikigami Manipulation
9 Vital Strike
10 Makeshift Maneuvers (Rogue Talent - Feat)
11 Greater Disarm
12 Improvised Weapon Mastery (Free from Makeshift Scrapper)
13 Devastating Strike
15 Improved Vital Strike
17 Point-Blank Shot
19 Precise Shot

That does pretty good for throwing single, high damage shovels, though the character is more intended for melee. I also made an improvised Brawler Hinyasi who's feat chain went as follows:

1 Throw Anything (Free from Hinyasi)
1 Shikigami Style
3 Shikigami Mimicry
5 Shikigami Manipulation + Point-Blank Shot
7 Precise Shot
8 Improvisational Focus
9 Weapon Specialization (Improvised Weapon)
11 Greater Weapon Focus (Improvised Weapon) + Clustered Shots
13 Greater Weapon Specialization (Improvised Weapon)
14 Deadly Aim
15 Quick Draw
17 Grab and Go + Dodge
19 Close-Quarters Thrower
20 Rapid Shot

The both want Gloves of Improvised Might in order to sub out the need for a magic weapin. The Rogue is single strike with 2h, the Brawler is a Finesse build focused on throwing as many light as he can get away with.

However, they are both more Improvised users than they are throwers (even though they both throw). Someone using an actual weapon(s) could sub Shikigami Style and its tree for Precise Shot and that earlier. It's only too bad that the Str to attack on thrown feat is 3rd party. (I had actually assumed thrown used Str by default but learned with the shovel tosser that I was wrong.) Otherwise I'd say it works with just Two-Handed Thrower + Throw Anything if you very much wanna toss unusual weapons.

Not needing Shikigami I'd go with Far Shot too, since most uncanny thrown stuff has range increment of 10ft.

I'd do Cu as the Vigilante Identity. A ghost from the past returned. Alternatively and probably cooler, the Vigilante Identity could be his father, someone whom I imagine would have a more impactful reputation to sponge off. (Or if there's some legendary warrior further up the family tree... You get the point.) I mean, his Social identity in this case is more the lie.

I played a Drow Vigilante/Arachnid Wildsoul and went with Rovagurl (a play on Rovagug) as her Vigilante identity. She used Drow Nobility feats for a pretty nasty Nightmare Fist + Intimidate build. Her social identity, despite being her real name of F'aune Misraria, was still her more false identity, as it was Chaotic Neutral compared to Rovagurl's Chaotic Good. So your Cu's Vigilante identity can be his more accurate self, even if he doesn't actually use his real name beyond the last name.

Most of the time, it doesn't really come up. Our table are fairly mature and none of us would take time away from the rest of the table to bump uglies. When it does, generally fade to black, the character is occupied. Same if the character was practicing the Profession or Craft skills.

Honestly, Sex, Religion, and Politics are the three things that generally stay off the table. If there weren't specific abilities in the books that specify "creatures that could be sexually attracted to you", I probably wouldn't even think about sex at the table.

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

Oh my god! Hilariously stupid ideas!

What if I gave the character Catch Off Guard, and for her melee weapon she used the Stilleto Boots!? :D they're improvised and deal damage as a punching dagger, Catch-Off Guard would remove the improvised penalty, and let me sneak attack with them against unarmed opponents. Piss her off, you get the dominatrix boots.

And then for no reason, Shikigami Style with them to count them 3 sizes larger with the Disarm quality? You get close, she kicks your weapon away in the dark and boots you in the face for 3d6 + Sneak.

:O And they'd be light! So they could be her Finesse Training weapon and get Dex to damage!

I adore the concept, but I think you'll need a DM ruling to have the boots truly count as a light weapon and be valid for Finesse Training. "Deals damage as" is not the same as "as if it were". Look at the heavy/light mace language in Empty Quiver Style for comparison.

I did 2 big Improvised Weapon builds not long ago. Improvised weapons by their oen right fall into the 3 categories of light, 1h, and 2h, which determines their base damage.

The Monk of the Empty Hand goes into more "deals damage as" for improvised as it was prior to solidified ruling. The boot is a light improvised, it just deals a specific type of damage unlike your average improvised weapon.

A party is a pretty close relationship. They are generally going to be spending a ton of time together and have theoretically chosen each other for their common pursuit of a goal and their individual abilities to contribute to a team.

Tell that to my wizard in Iron Gods. Joined up on the first mission because they were getting paid. Did the first book of adventure and all was good.

Second book starts a few in-game weeks later. She hears about the chance to get paid for a new job since she has run out of money. Sees the same group and is like. "Oh great, you guys again."

As a note, this was a true neutral character with a Charisma of 6 (I thought Tieflings had a +2 Cha from my time in D&D and was aiming for a neutral 10. I rolled with my mistake). So it was in character that there was something other than facial scars why she was a bit unlikeable.

What I'm getting at is each group is different. So long as it isn't disruptive to play, I wouldn't really say anything. Being a Vigilante isn't a "super special secret" or "backstory" any more than another character.

I personally don't like what I call "the trap tax". Traps are my least favorite part of the game as a player, and as a GM I tend to go lightly on the outright "save or die/take x damage" traps.

More often I use social traps. The ranger you've been travelling with suddenly turns and fires an arrow at the wizard. Surprise round: roll for initiative. After the mechanic character dived into the pool, they failed a save. A number of scenes later, the character is caught sleepwalking and begins a summoning ritual. You encounter the wizard from earlier in the graveyard late at night. When you go to say hi, suddenly the dead rise from their graves and begin to go after you.

Traps, but not traps. I do tend to do a lot of long con stuff when writing my own adventures though. My players tend to know they need many ranks in Sense Motive and to use it frequently if things get suspicious.

When I do use deathtraps, I always tend to put a way to go around or disable them without being a rogue. You can go the route with the big, uncovered spike pit. It's faster. Or you could go through the guarded room of goblins the other way. This is a suspicious hallway with a lot of one-way doors. Get into the hall and a boulder rolls down it, but with a perception check you can find the three switches that unlock the doors and disable the boulder. Careful though, the third is a trap in and of itself.

The boulder trap and moving blades traps are also good. Ones that have initiative and move a set distance each turn. A player can trip it and you get the rush moments of needing to escape it. If they have auto-reset, it then informs the players without first taxing their HP/resources that they need to come up with a solution for getting past this. They may decide to run through and hope for the best, or take their time giving the villains (who heard the trap go off up the hall) time to prepare for a surprise round.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think Accomplished Sneak Attacker works and is worded exactly as intended. And that it would stack with Sense Vitals without invoking the cap.

I found another form of precision damage yesterday in the Aldori Style feat chains. Sirian's Masterstroke "Once per round when you hit a foe you have successfully feinted against via a melee attack using an Aldori dueling sword, you deal an extra 2d6 points of precision damage..." There's more about damage increases as you go, but that's just what's relevant.

Of the classes which get Sneak Attack, you have the Rogue, Ninja, Slayer, a handful of Prestige Classes, and a handful of Archtypes such as the Greensting Magus. Ones like the Greensting don't actually have Sneak Attack directly, but in their abilities that granted generally have a line like: "If a greensting slayer gets a sneak attack from another source, the bonuses on damage stack."

There are also Sneak-but-Not-Sneak like the Vigilante Hidden Strike I discussed before.

You can only apply one form of Precision damage on an attack, so a character with Hidden Strike and Sneak Attack could not do both on an attack. Same as Sirian's Masterstroke.

A multiclassing Rogue, dipping into the various Sneak classes can get more Sneak dice early. However, to get more than 10 at level 20 you'd need to multiclass 3 different Sneak classes minimum, which would pretty much nerf your BAB as most of them are 3/4 BAB classes gaining +0 1st level. Plus that would only just put you at 11 dice, which is barely over the cap.

Essentially, because Sneak classes only get die boosts on odd levels, eventually you have to commit to one of your classes. This character is intended to never get use out of Accomplished Sneak Attacker. The same as a full Rogue.

Notice wording on many of these classes though. Rogue/Ninja/Slayer: "...extra damage is 1d6...", Greensting: "...add 1d6 points of sneak attack damage...", Vivisectionist refers to Rogue level specifically, Nature Fang/Snakebite Striker: "If the...gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack."

The list goes on, not all have this stacking mechanic like the Sandman Bard for example, the text is either missing or omitted. Some of these classes also only get their die every 4 or 5 levels, not 2.

Now to Sense Vitals. After scouring sources written around the same time as Dirty Tactics, it's the only one that words it as "This additional damage stacks with other sources of precision damage." Being the only one that would stack with Sirian's, Hidden Strike, or Sneak without discrimination. The way I read it, which may be wrong, is that it's a unique source of Precision Damage, and not specifically Sneak Attack. It doesn't refer to itself as Sneak Attack damage like other sources, and it doesn't reference Sneak Attack beyond as a "this is how to get the bonus damage".

Because it isn't Sneak Attack the feature, or Sneak Attack dice, I don't believe it's a valid target for Accomplished Sneak Attacker. Again, if it was, then a 1 level Rogue dip, the rest Aldori or Vigilante would result in subbing out your normal Sneak Attack with your more powerful variant, and having Accomplished Sneak Attacker add 1d6 to your Sense Vitals damage to stack with.

I made my Death-Touched character. He was a Skittermander for free RPG Day.

He was black furred and felt people should be happy, so gave candy to people he felt looked sad.

I know it's not much. What I want most from Armory 2.

SMGs. Small Arms with the Automatic quality. Hell, give them Automatic with Unwieldy and Free Hand like the Handcannon.

The only difference between a poison and a venom scientifically are poisons are injested, venoms and through injury. A "poisonous snake" is generally referring to the fact it is venomous.

Starfinder considers both things to be the same so as above, yes. Venom is a poison, and thus effects that resist poison do resist venoms.

So I've been the GM at my table, and it's been a little slow. We can't always get together and we started late so we've just started Part 2 (the advantage being we get to use a lit of the Errata fixes and see how they function afyer the chapter than inspired them).

With Part 1 characters I assumed Heightened just meant when prepared in a higher slot they were better, ala 5e design. However, when running through practice with a Sorcerer character I got to read through Spontaneous Heightening, which basically says heightening in the Playtest works like Starfinder's where you have to purchase the spell again at a higher level. This doesn't make a lot of sense with the character sheet layout which has a section for the spell's level and a section for heightened. This is also weirdly unclear since in Starfinder it works because the only 2 classes with spells are both spontaneous casters, and when they take a multi-level spell they get to immediately replace their lower level version, and they can still cast every lower level version as normal. So half the system appears to be there in buying the spell better.

Here's heightened spells from the Sorcerer entry:

When you get spell slots of 2nd level and higher, you can heighten lower-level spells to higher levels. You must learn them at the new level to do so, as described on page 192. The spontaneous heightening class feature lets you select two spells you can heighten freely.

And here's from the Wizard entry:

When you get spell slots of 2nd level and higher, you can prepare lower-level spells in those slots to strengthen them (see page 192). This increases the spell’s level to match the heightened spell slot. Many spells have specific improvements when they are heightened to certain levels.

Going to page 192, you get essentially two different heightened rules. Prepared get 5e only need low level, and spontaneous get needing 5 copies of the same spell eating up their precious known spells. Maybe I'm just picky but the spontaneous version seems needlessly overcomplicated compared to Starfinder's, and I don't see a lot of sense in having it work differently.

it seems bizarre to me that to improve the Lore skill granted by your background (that must have been a big part of your upbringing?) you have to sacrifice your other skills whereas if you take Additional Lore to pick up Lore: Cheese, you will automatically be a Legendary connoisseur of cheddar one day.

Think of what the background represents though. You used to be an X, but you stopped in order to be an adventurer. You may still choose to keep investing in what you used to do (I made a Rogue Sailor who upgrades on occassion just because he's still a man of the sea at heart), but more likely you stopped being that thing. A Legendary merchant would have no need to become an adventurer, there's little to gain from the risks. A fledgling merchant though who became an adventurer may choose to improve those skills on his journey because he sees some use in them. Maybe selling some of the rarer goods him and his comrades find.

As for whether Additional Lore can be used for other Lore skills. That's up in the air for me. Pathfinder Hopefuls from the Doomsday Dawn AP get it free as their background feat, so if the complaint is wanting your background Lore to auto-level there is a solution.

With signature skills axed, most of my original question is answered, in that it is no longer applicable. Unlike Perception, Lore is on the skills list, so it can be increased like any other skill. Only Additional Lore gives you free ranks in it by level however.

Azmodael wrote:

If you want to crit go fighter.

Sadly this is true; no other class can even come close to a fighter's crit rate. If you want a critical hit based build, fighter is your only option currently.

Can multiclassing Fighter work? Without the Sneak Attack to damage the Katar, even with Deadly and the Knife critical specialization will be lackluster.

Was there ever a concensus on whether Jump Jets added to your move speed, or replaced it? Or other limitations like how normal jumping works where you can fly but not past your normal speed?

I ask because of an interaction my character will have at level 5 with the feat Sky Jockey. This will increase the Fly speed on the Jump Jets to 40ft, 10 above average speed, and thus if she's going in a straight line, her most effective form of movement.

The way I see it for each of the three possibilities:

Adds to your speed: There is the limitation of having to be on stable footing (or in 0G) when you finish your movement. Whilst in a straight line, this would make a character's land speed up to 60ft, this is at the cost of an armor slot (which few early armors have), 2 charges per movement, and 1000 credits. Plus, you can't use the Jump Jets on a Charge due to their action economy only working as part of specifically a move action. When you're not going in a straight line, the limitations of flight movement apply, so 5ft to turn 45°, 10ft to go up 5ft, needing Acrobatics for maneuvers, etc. Plus needing to land, taking a lot of the utility out of flight. All in all, not unbalancing overall when the costs are considered, compared directly to the Jetpack being triple the credit cost but able to take larger battery, having better energy economy, and able to remain in the air, or the later upgrade Forcepack.

Replaces your speed: You're able to make a move action with Fly speed 30ft. It's not "fly during your movement" as the description states, but it makes enough sense. It is really early access to a fly speed which to an extent can circumvent some Athletics checks, and take advantage of three dimensional space and terrain in unique ways. Like flying around the edge of the cliff to get into flanking with an enemy in tight quarters. There's a lot of utility in it despite the costs.

Limitations based on normal speed: It lets you "fly during your movement", so by how jumping works you can get that fly, but so long as you don't cover more ground than you could without. This is a bit confusing to track, because then the 45° turn costing 5ft, would that take 5ft from your original speed's total? Or essentially can you, so long as you only end up moving 30ft total, use as much of the Fly 30ft as you need to. It would also make a little bit of sense with the vertical 20ft part of jump jets, if you could move 5ft towards a wall, leap the 20ft up with your jump jets, and then move the last 5ft forward from your move to land safely on the platform. Again though, difficult to track and what counts as what?

If we could get an FAQ or a consensus on this one, that'd be swell. Flying prone we reached a consensus despite I imagine a well deserved book patch adding "you can only take the Crawl or Stand move actions while prone". The first 2 options though would both still let you fly prone in theory.

Also, something I just remembered. If both PF1 and PF2 there are numerous abilities that let you do things (reroll, add bonuses) based on a roll of a die that occur after the die has been rolled (and you see the number) but before the success/failure of the roll has been announced. These mechanics all assume (and require) transparency of numbers rolled for the player. With secret rolls, those abilities just flat out don't work and would need to be removed from the game.

Except they don't. PF2 already gives those reroll abilities the "Fortune" tag, and it is specified that you can't use Fortune abilities on checks with the Secret tag.

So no matter who's rolling the dice, those abilities cannot be used on Secret checks.