Kerrel's page

Hello everyone.
I have a couple of questions regarding organized play. Although both can be answered as one.

1. I've created a Mystic, everything is based on the core player except for the deity, Sarenrae, who isn't included. I based my information on the deity from Pathfinder player core. The question is, would the character be legal for organized play? Clarification: I added the Divine Bond feat with Sarenrae's Pathfinder stats.

2. I also created a Soldier, with the Knight of Golarion archetype, but I used the Versatile Nephilim Heritage from Pathfinder player core.

Is it completely prohibited to integrate something like this into Starfinder 2e organized play? Or, if it's not very important, would it be allowed? This is my first time playing officially, and I'm not sure if the rules regarding this aspect are very strict or not.

P.S.- My English is very bad and I use a translator, sorry if there is something that is not very clear.

The truth is, what I'm proposing is very convoluted. Normally, they don't go to great lengths to implement a rule.

Yes, it clearly states that a strike must be performed; perhaps I overcomplicated it. What another user commented in another post is very true. If they wanted to clarify that it's only an attack roll, without damage, they would state it clearly, like in the Reactive Interference rogue feat.

In the playtest, it did clearly state that this attack used ammo equal to the weapon's standard expend and that it was an action, not a free action. That's why I thought they nerfed the ability and left it with just the debuff. But if we take into account that it's a strike, it would also use ammo normally, even though it's a free action.

Honestly, it's great for me. I'm making a soldier with close quarters for a campaign, with the idea of taking the Knight of Golarion Dedication feat at level 2 and, if my GM lets me, the versatile Nephilim heritage. I don't know if it will go well, but it looks good.

Hello everyone.
What I'm about to say may be a bit convoluted, but here goes.
The Primary Target feature literally says:

"Before you make an area attack with a weapon (such as from the Area Fire or Auto-Fire actions), you can make a ranged Strike as a free action with the same weapon against a single creature in the area, who's selected as your primary target."

In my opinion, there's a subtle difference between that ranged strike and a ranged strike action.
Let's all remember that a strike is nothing more than an attack roll, and a strike action involves the attack roll and damage.

I think Primary Target is designed to implement a debuff, not a free attack, but of course, this is just my opinion.

I suppose we'll clear up any doubts when Paizo releases the errata.

I'm sorry if the text may be difficult to read. I used Google Translate; my English is very poor.

No, what it's saying there is that if you hit your primary target with a free strike (free action), then when you perform Area-Fire or Auto-Fire, if that specific target succeeds on the basic reflex save, it's considered a failure, just that. It's not a conventional extra attack. At least that's what I understand.

"On a hit, if your primary target rolls a success against your Area Fire or Auto-Fire action, they get a failure instead."

I have the same question, but after all this time and no one answering, it gives me a bad feeling. Maybe they'll say something in the Master Core, but I have no idea. Or in a future supplement, but it would be very strange if such important deities weren't mentioned from the beginning.

There's also no information about the Burning Archipelago, the birthplace of the Sarenrae cult. I think it would be terrible if they removed those deities without a logical explanation. Iomedae and Sarenrae are the quintessential good deities.

First of all sorry for my English.
You are skipping the main thing. "While you are flying, at the start of each turn, choose a primary direction for the round (including up or down). You can move your full fly speed in a straight line in that direction."

Including up or down.

This means that if your main direction is a straight line up, you can use all your speed going up. No additional cost, since you are not changing your flight direction.

The thing is, from their point of view, the *Maneuver* action with a ship with perfect maneuverability (turn distance 0) allows two turns BEFORE moving a hex. That is the point where the conflict arises.

Clarification: This happens in the first combat round. Where the ships have not yet moved a single hex or on the first move of any combat round when they have not moved any hexes yet.

Hello everyone. Sorry for the grammar, all this it´s made by google translator

In the last session I had as a GM, my players and I had a little disagreement regarding a point in the rules of the movement of spaceships.
I see it very clearly, with respect to the turns that a spaceship can make with perfect maneuverability (distance between turns of 0) a ship can move a hexagon and make up to two 60º turns, or what is the same, turn up to two verticals of a hex to its starboard or port sides.
Now we have the pilot action of *Maneuver*: Improve the distance between turns by 1 (to a minimum of 0).
The discussion comes from the fact that as I see it, a ship with perfect maneuverability (distance between turns of 0) cannot improve more... that is, the pilot action *Maneuver* would not benefit a ship that already has perfect maneuverability. Since you already have the maximum distance between turns of 0.
As they see it, by saying that it improves the distance between turns...a ship with perfect maneuverability (distance between turns of 0) could benefit since the distance between turns they see it as that hex that the ship needs to move before turn...therefore it could turn twice and then move.
What do you think?

PS- I may be very intransigent... but I think my way of seeing it is correct.