Kitsch Zero's page

I get that highly specialized characters that avoid the normal flow of combat are a problem. But isn't that an argument for removing the ability to specialize and making the base maneuver more feasible, rather than the reverse?

At the moment, if the PCs cleverly trick Mr. Hooded Lightning Fingers to the edge of an infinitely deep pit, when they try to push him in, the rules will state they can't really, because they didn't specialize in pushing people into pits.

The solution to one-trick ponies isn't to nerf anyone so only the one-trick ponies have a chance of succeeding. It's eliminating their avenues of approach and making the base rules something manageable.

The advantage of a Prosthetic Storage Limb over a Hideaway Limb is that some augmentations are allowed to be placed on Prosthetic Limbs. As such, you can have a Prosthetic Storage Limb leg, combined with a Speed Suspension augmentation in the same leg. A simple Hideaway Limb would use up the leg slot and prevent that.

The cost of the combination of Hideaway Limb and Prosthetic Limb may seem out of proportion with their individual costs, but that is because its price is probably linked to its utility, in terms of game balance. So, the hidden 1,200 cr cost is for that ability to double up augmentations.

Regarding whether you can put a Hideaway Limb Augmentation (or Prosthetic Limb) in a hand, I'd suggest that isn't allowed by the rules as they currently exist. Aside from the fact that in English, a 'limb' doesn't include hands or feet, there is text in the Polyhand and Climbing Suckers augmentations that explicitly provides an exception for a limb replacement also including a seperate hand/foot augmentation. The Polyhand text fairly clearly implies that, for example, a hand replacement is part of an Prosthetic Arm, and is not an independent slot.

That is to say, if you have something that takes up an arm slot, it usually prevents you from putting something in the hand slot as well. Those augmentations which can be combined are listed as exceptions.

Edit: Looking into it further, what I said previously may not be true. The slot for Prosthetic Limb is arm and hand or leg and foot, while Hideaway Limb and other augmentations specify only arm or leg. So you can't put a Hideaway Limb in a hand, but the hand slot could be entirely separate from the arm slot. The exceptions are probably only because of how Prosthetic Limbs work.

The loophole thing is dumb (and also doesn't give you infinite money, just cheaper batteries, cause a battery resale value is 6, and a new commlink costs 7).

But the question is still an important one. Even non-cheaters will eventually come to the situation where they've run out of gun ammo, and the rules currently say they can scavenge for a few more shots from their personal equipment. It's literally the plot of one of the original Star Trek episodes, so its not exactly a weird edge case.

My personal opinion is keep the battery as it is, and charge 27 credits for a commlink.

I might be wrong about the double move, you've got me there. I think it's vaguely defined, but the phrase 'your movement' might only refer to the movement of the standard action move. It's open to interpretation, but I see what you're saying. Regardless, though, it's still better than Withdraw if you have the Improved version. Edit: Sorry, brainfart. I forgot the context we were discussing this in!

However, your single example is wrong. Improved Uncanny Mobility would work. It specifies you can trick attack, and your movement from that action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. You could avoid the big melee guy and still attack a second target. That's one of the primary differences between it and basic Uncanny Mobility.

With Improved Uncanny Mobility, a double move is a Withdraw action, but without Withdraw's many restrictions. You negate all threatened square attacks of opportunity, not just the one of the square you are leaving, and you negate AoO's from invisible opponents, as well as opponents you can't see because you are blinded.

Trick Attacks are allowed with Improved Uncanny Mobility, and they include a single move in them.

Running provokes its own attacks of opportunity, which aren't for leaving threatened squares, and Starfinder doesn't have Combat Reflexes, so enemies can only take one reaction. This means if you Run out of a threatened square, that creature must choose between attacking either against your AC + 4 (for Mobility) or just your AC. Mobility isn't likely to help you there.

This leaves you with one situation left: you want to move, and then perform a standard action that is not an attack with one of your Operative-approved weapons. So what are they? Operatives don't get spells. Operatives should never Feint. It's not entirely clear if Covering/Harrying Fire or Combat Maneuvers can be Trick Attacks; if they can be, Mobility is superseded by the OpExs. If they can't, Operatives aren't very good at them, as their attack rolls are balanced assuming they get their Trick Attack bonus.

Which leaves 'Activate an Item'. You can throw in this category some miscellaneous plot related standard actions. Perhaps someone needs to activate a computer in a scene, and its not just flipping a switch, but not quite a full action either. In those situations, you can leave a threatened square with a 20% bonus chance to avoid being hit.

And maybe you want to Run and you have Jet Dash. Or you need to do a combat maneuver even though you suck at it, because its your only option. Or some other incredibly non-ideal situation where you are also in a threatened square. In those rare occasions, you can give up your complete immunity to threatened squares for a +4 to AC.

The mobility feat, heck any feat, is a description of how you intend to use that character. For Mobility, you expect to be bouncing around a battlefield, often risking Attacks of Opportunity. If you have even the basic Uncanny Mobility, you would never want to use Mobility. Yes, there are some rare situations where Mobility applies and Improved Uncanny Mobility doesn't, but they are edge cases, when you character is having to do something they clearly weren't designed to do, because of a special case. And even then, you don't avoid the Attack of Opportunity, you only get a bonus against it. That is not a feat anymore, that's hardly anything.

The next OpEx, Improved Uncanny Mobility essentially makes Mobility obsolete. Double Moves and Trick Attacks both cease to provoke any Attacks of Opportunity from movement.

It's pretty obvious that OpEx tree is meant for the same builds that take Spring Attack and Shot on the Run, but at the moment they appear to require burning a feat as well.

If this does enter into the FAQ, I'd also like to see them clarifying the Mobility requirement of Shot on the Run and Spring Attack.

At present, the Uncanny Mobility OpEx tree eventually entirely supplants the Mobility feat, but an Operative build with those OpEx's would have to also waste a feat pick on Mobility to qualify for Shot on the Run.

HammerJack just means Fire At Will allows you to select two weapons in different arcs, so the idea that a gunner has to select a weapon or arc doesn't hold water.

Turrets, and the arcs of weapons, are still important. If you have two ships to fore and aft, Fire at Will allows you to fire at both, despite being in different arcs. You can still only target them with the respective fore- and aft-arc weapons, or turrets.

As I said in my original post, I'm aware of the specific versus general override. But the intent of a specific rule doesn't trump the general wording just because it would make the specific rule more useable.

Debilitating Sniper specifically creates an exemption in the Trick Attack rules that adds sniper weapons to the list of allowable weapons, but it does not exempt sniper weapons from all the other restrictions Trick Attack has. Unwieldy is a separate restriction in Trick Attack.

Again, I'm talking Rules as Written. I think most people would assume that, since all current sniper weapons are unwieldy (and judging by the implied rationale for the unwieldy and sniper rules, likely all further canon sniper weapons will be as well) that the *intent* was to allow sniper weapons even if they were unwieldy. However, the text does not bear that out.

The real question remains as to whether you can actually snipe using an exploit called 'Debilitating Sniper', due to the fact that sniping requires a free move action and Trick Attack has dibs on your turn's move. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that any arguments based on Rules as Written have a much earlier stumbling block.

Trick attack specifically calls out unwieldy (I spelt it write that thyme!) weapons as being inappropriate for Trick Attack.

"You can’t use this ability with a weapon that has the unwieldy special property or that requires a full action to make a single attack." (p. 93)

Debilitating Sniper allows sniper weapons to be used with Trick Attack, but does not waive the unwieldy prohibition. As such, none of the current sniper rifles can be used to Trick Attack. This is Rules as Written, as it may be unwieldy is a property all sniper weapons are meant to have, and it may be implied to have been waived by Debilitating Sniper, but there you are.

I'm a bit confused about the text differences between Aware of Presence and Awareness of Location (both on page 260 of the Core book) with regard imprecise senses and blindsense.

The text for Aware of Presence seems to suggest succeeding at a Perception check with an imprecise sense makes you Aware of Presence, while succeeding a Perception check with blindsense makes you Aware of location.

The text for Awareness of Location, on the other hand, implies success at a Perception check to detect a hidden person with an imprecise sense makes you gives you Awareness of Location, whereas blindsense apparently doesn't require you to make a check.

These seem almost contradictory?

The difference between not being able to use the Exploit and losing it entirely is fairly significant. If we were to use Theheadkase's ruling, you essentially gain blindsense (darkvision and lowlight vision), which ceases to function as per the blindsense rules when those senses are removed. However, you can still qualify for Uncanny Senses, which is blindsight.

Metaphysician's ruling has the opposite problem: if you predicate on possessing the requisite senses, rather than the feats/exploits, then Advanced Darkvision Capacitors would qualify for Enhanced Senses, which in turn would qualify for Uncanny Senses, as long as you simply possess them. Removing the Capacitors would remove Enhanced Senses, which in turn would remove Uncanny Senses. But since you still possess them, you qualify whether they are turned on or off, and Darkvision Capacitors have an inbuilt drawback of having them turned on.

In the core rules there is no delayed fuse or timer, for PFS you cannot use something like that. You can use a detonator and code the grenades to that (at 1 minute per grenade).

If you want delay grenades, its reasonably doable using current equipment. Get a computer, a detonator, and a control module to control the detonator. Then just program the computer to remotely detonate the grenade after the period in time after you threw the grenade. You could even clip off the pin or use explosives instead of grenades so you'd be immune to Pull the Pin.

Its relatively cheap at 1st level.

The Enhanced Senses operative exploit is designed to be the second tier of the Nightvision - Enhanced Senses - Uncanny Senses array of exploits. Each subsequent exploit requires the previous exploit to qualify.

However, the Enhanced Senses exploit offers an alternative method of qualifying for it: possessing both Dark Vision and Low-Light Vision. Obviously any character who had these would find the Nightvision exploit useless, so this makes sense.

It seems fairly clear that possessing these abilities racially should allow a character to qualify. Androids currently are the only race that can take this route (and I believe the iconic Operative is an android). However, the text does not specify the nature of the source.

Can the character qualify for Enhanced Senses with cybernetics? Advanced Darkvision Capacitors provide both darkvision and low-light vision.

What about the Adaptive Biochains version of Advanced Darkvision Capacitors? Adaptive Biochains creates organic bodyparts that function like cybernetics, so this would essentially like being given the racial characteristics...except that they might be removed for another eye upgrade.

If non-biochains cybernetics do qualify, what about a Vesk (with racial low-light vision) wearing armor with infra-red sensors?

If any of these range of semi-permanent alternatives allow the character to qualify, what happens to Enhanced senses when the technology in question is removed? The text regrettably says you require darkvision and low-light vision to "learn this exploit", so the blindsense should remain, but common sense would imply you lose blindsense until those other senses are returned to you!

However, before you claim "Rules as Written", you should know that Chapter 8's Senses section includes the following text:

"Creatures with blindsense or blindsight typically perceive using a specific sense mechanism, indicated in parentheses after blindsense or blindsight in the creature’s statistics. If this sense somehow becomes unusable, the creature loses access entirely to its blindsense or blindsight."

Which makes sense, until you realize other applications of blindsense specify the underlying sense in this form: blindsense (other sense). Enhanced Senses has no such specification.

To make things even more complicated, Uncanny Senses requires Enhanced Senses to qualify for. However, it doesn't require low-light vision or darkvision. Even if your Enhanced Senses ceased to function because you lost your low-light vision or darkvision, you would you still have the exploit itself. Do you lose Uncanny Senses? Before you answer, you should know that despite the chain of exploits requiring you to in some way have acquired darkvision at some point, Uncanny Senses states:

"If you have darkvision, its range increases by 30 feet". :O

And lastly, what if you have a permanent, or semi-permanent sense, that must be turned on to use? Advanced Darkvision provides both darkvision and low-light vision, but when darkvision is active, it emits lasers that can be seen by advanced optics, and might give the character away. When a character possess Advanced Darkvision, but has elected to turn the lasers off, do you still have Enhanced Senses?

I agree with Rook1138.

The text is fairly consistent with the mention of durations, as he said, and all of the conditions that are applied for one round are conditions that are expected to have expiry durations, whereas the bleed condition generally doesn't as it requires the target deal with it themselves.

The bleed condition with a one-round duration would be fairly meaningless as well: the target cannot act in time to prevent the first application of bleed damage, and it would expire before there was a second application, which means none of the bleed rules would ever be applied. It would be tantamount to a one-time damage bonus.

The FAQ has explained that the base Trick Attack causes the target to be flat-footed only for the one attack the Trick Attack allows. This allows the attack to be made when the target is flat footed, which generally understood to benefit the attack by lowering the target's AC by two. However, the flat-footed condition also prevents reaction actions.

1) If a Trick Attack is performed with a ranged weapon while in a threatened square of the target, does the flat-footed condition prevent the Attack of Opportunity? The Core rules specify the skill roll is made 'just before' the attack, so this seems to suggest it does prevent the AoO, but the FAQ explains they are flat-footed 'only against the single attack roll', so this is unclear.

2) The trick attack is one full action, which includes movement, the skill roll to cause the flat-footed condition, and the attack itself. If the Operative is in a threatened square and successfully Trick Attacks the target threatening that square, then moves out of the square using the Shot On The Run or Spring Attack feats, does the flat-footed condition prevent the Attack of Opportunity this move provokes? The Core rule book seems to suggest it does, while the FAQ wording might mean it doesn't.

1. Because a giant metropolis has more options available, and so you have an easier time finding merchants who will give you the time of day, bend rules, have inventory they will sell to a non-standard customer, etc?

2. Because different characters have different reputations, different affiliations, different licenses, different contacts? Though the only way that would happen in the same party is if somehow different PCs are different levels.

Alright, let's test your abstraction with a realistic scenario. I'll talk about computers, even though I'm not sure if it's official that their level is twice their tier. I assume that'll be FAQ'd later.

I'm 2nd level, my friend is 4th. We need computers for an urgent mission. In a large town, we go shopping together. She gets a tier 3, I must make do with a tier 2. Why?

Bearing that reason in mind, during the mission I find a small arm. I don't use small arms, my friend wants it. She trades for the tier 3 computer. Am I now a criminal? Am I carrying contraband? What if I found it on a corpse?

Bearing those reasons in mind, I break my tier 2, and need to buy a new one fast. I'm in a small town. I show the shopkeep my tier 2 and ask for that model. They have tier 2s in stock, because my friend is with me. Why won't they sell me a replacement? Have I just admitted to a crime? Is my legal status in a Quantum state, depending on the size of town I'm in?

Nothing of this makes any sense. It adds nothing to the game, and touches all sorts of areas of roleplay that both come up often, and should not have In Character meddling. It has to be a rule for game balance, not a real gameworld obstruction.

It's an abstraction is several factors including licenses, black market connections, bribes, permits, aviailibilty, military or law enforcement rank, gang membership and so on.

Basically it's a simplified system to make gameplay easier without going into too much detail. If as a GM, you desire more detail and a more realistic and less abstract system for your arms sellers, you are free to do so.

Sorry, but that's just not on. If it represents your literal right to buy said item, why does it change based on where you are buying something? If it's about availability, why can two characters in the same party go into the same town and come out with different lists of items? The combination doesn't make a right out of two wrongs, it makes it even more silly: at one point you're going to walk into a store, they're going to have the item in question because they'll sell it to your mate, but while you have every right to buy it you have to go into the big city and spend your money there instead.

Call a spade a spade: it's a game balance issue to deal with the possibility of characters finagling more money than they should have at a particular level. The main protection is the exponentially rising cost of items by level, and this is a pressure release valve if circumstances get too far from the norm. It doesn't make sense, but you aren't supposed to look at it.

Regarding your argument, Patryn, I'm of two minds. I don't think it is necessary to restate a rule if its implication in a specific case still matches the general case. So, for example, if Operative's Edge doesn't stack with Skill Focus, despite the fact that every 1st level Operative will start by assuming they do, the Starfinder writers didn't bother to mention it because the general rule is enforced automatically.

So if First Aid and Long Term Care theoretically could Take 20 in the general rules for Taking 20, but they wanted to preclude you from doing so, they'd have to mention it, but since Treat Deadly Wounds can be inferred not to function with the base rules, they didn't have to mention it.

But then, they mention you can't Take 20 on a Jump Check, which seems unnecessary to me, so I'm not sure. At any rate, appeals to the consistency of the authors are persuasive, but the rules would be VERY opaque if resorted to such mind-reading techniques.

EC Gamer Guy cut to the heart of the matter. But even if you disagree, I'm still fairly certain you cannot take 20.

While you can rule either way, the language that matters is the meaning of the words 'receive treatment'. If failing a roll means that you've wasted your daily (or twice daily) use of the skill, then it cannot qualify for taking 20. This is a negative effect, but even if you want to handwave and say that it isn't, Taking 20 explicitly requires you to make multiple attempts, which is incompatible with Treat Deadly Wounds if 'receive treatment' includes failed attempts.

HOWEVER, regardless of this, you still probably can't Take 20. Because despite how you interpret 'receive treatment', a successful use of Treat Deadly Wounds takes up a use. And there are *two* possible successful uses: a regular success, which heals the character's level in hitpoints, and a better success, which adds the healer's Intelligence as a bonus. A regular success would shut down further uses of the skill, which means you'd lose that intelligence bonus, so even if you interpret 'receive treatment' as a successful roll, there's still a negative effect that would preclude Taking 20.

Consider two cases:
1) You Treat Deadly Wounds in the regular manner, and succeed. But you didn't get the best result, so you'd like to try again, to add your intelligence. The Medicine rules prevent you.
2) You Treat Deadly Wounds in the Take 20 manner. Apparently, you keep trying 20 times, failing many times, as per the description of Taking 20. But when you do finally succeed, it is the best result, adding your intelligence.
How does this either make sense, or seem fair?

This goes beyond Rules as Written and Rules as Intended. Because exceptionally high rolls heal more hitpoints, you wouldn't want players to be able to keep checking until you got the best result. Take 20 would become the default way to treat wounds, as it would make reaching the higher DC significantly easier. A regular roll would be a risky waste, which defeats the purpose of it being a skill roll in the first place.

I was just about to post this as a question. I'd really like to see a FAQ ruling on this. I'm not sure which post to flag though?

We'd need to know whether trick attack allows one to:
1) Use jump jets
2) Climb
3) Balance
4) Swim
5) Stealth
and
6) Jump

as each of these refers to part of a 'move action'. Should we flag OP, or one of the subsequent posts?

Actually, you bring up a good point. By the time you get Improved Uncanny Mobility, Mobility is entirely a wasted feat. It's not a different option with strengths and limitations, it is supplanted by a class feature.

The 'Shot on the Run' and 'Spring Attack' feats have baked-in synergy with an Operative's Trick Attack class feature. Basically, they improve the Trick Attack action in the way that they normally improve other classes base attack action. Both these feats have a Mobility feat requirement.

However, Operatives also have access to an Operative Exploit called Uncanny Mobility that is obviously a modification of the Mobility feat for Operative-specific uses. It's arguable whether it's better or worse than the Mobility feat, but its obviously designed to be specifically useful for things an Operative would want to do. It is also very redundant to the Mobility feat, as it completely negates one target's ability to get an Attack of Opportunity on you for moving out of its threatened squares, whereas Mobility would give you a bonus to avoid getting hit by that AoO.

My question is whether or not the Uncanny Mobility class feature should be an alternate qualifier for the Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats, seeing as Operatives probably would have less reason to have regular Mobility if they have Uncanny Mobility.

It seems possible that, considering the similarity in names, that it originally existed as an option and was removed. Or was that an oversight? Considering both those second-tier feats are Operative-friendly, so it must have been in the designers' minds.

I disagree, Xenocrat. UPBs are universal, in that you can use the same UPBs to create, say, the barrel of a gun, the core of a computer, or even the chemicals for a poison, but the rule on p. 235 that allows you to recover 10% of the cost of an item specifies that it has to be a similar item.

This implies that UPBs, once used, cannot be turned back into generic UPBs. Instead, you can use already-processed parts to save on generic UPBs, like reusing the barrel of a gun so you don't have to rebuild it. If you could recover the UPBs, you couldn't have the specification that it had to be similar.

I think the Patch action is a special case. Multiple engineers supply their successful rolls so they aren't necessarily helping each other, but each doing separate patch up jobs on a badly broken complex system. Patch isn't an exception for Aid Another, as they aren't actually using that option, it's an exception for the 'one instance of a crew action per round' rule.

Which is not to say that you can use Aid Another. I'd assume you could, since it's a skill roll like any other, but if Starship Combat rules are meant to be self-contained, I could see a GM ruling you can't.

Maybe this needs a FAQ answer?

I know you can't teleport to it if it is moving. My point is that the teleport spell has a failure chance, which puts you off course by a percentage of the travel distance, which is at a minimum several kilometers and at worst hundreds of kilometers away from the ship. Pretty much death unless you have a really good contingency plan.

Interplanetary teleport, on the other hand, has no miss chance, but seems to specifically require you to target positions on a planetary surface.

I don't think the stationary situation is a problem. There are natural geostationary orbits (too far away for regular teleport, but we're talking about Interplanetary Teleport) and I assume most starships have a 'parking mode' which puts you at something like satellite height (100-1000 km from the surface) and geostationary. Even if you were traveling down via shuttle, you won't want the main ship to be on the other side of the planet half the time, out of sight.

My problem is with the wording of Interplanetary Teleport, which is higher level than Teleport, but might not be able to target a spaceship.

I'm trying to figure out a way to teleport back to the party's ship. It doesn't seem like there's a safe way to do it, as Teleport (via a Tiara of Translocation or Teleport spell) always carries a risk of being off-target, which in all probability involves someone dying in the vacuum of space.

Interplanetary teleport is apparently safer (there's no risk of a mishap, though you end up somewhere random if you don't have a familiar place in mind) but the wording seems to imply you can strictly only target planetary surfaces.

Telepathic jaunt is safe, and actually can go between systems, but it wouldn't work in the standard situation: all the party members teleporting down, Star Trek style.

Is this an oversight, and the wording meant to include any familiar locations in-system, but only unseen areas on planet surfaces, or is that strictly off-limits?

And if so, is there any way of teleporting to your own ship safely? It seems like there should be, like, some kind of beacon you can put down to allow you to teleport back after you teleport to the surface, but I can't find anything in the rules.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the explosion isn't meant to happen unless you throw it. So before combat you can sabotage a gun, and either toss it in combat, or trick an enemy into using it somehow. And if the opportunity doesn't arise, you can just use it as a grenade.

And with a resolve point, in the middle of combat you can prep and throw it in one go? I'm not sure how to interpret the wording, but there's a heck of a lot of talk about 'someone' trying to use the weapon, and I don't see how anyone could, even you, if it exploded the moment you finished the action.

Oops, looks like there's already a thread for this. Please ignore this!

I don't mean to sound factious, but isn't most of this academic? Operatives actually can't trick-snipe, if we follow the rules as written.

I know specific rules trump general ones, but Debilitating Sniper only allows you to use weapons of the Sniper class. It doesn't lift the restriction on Trick Attack with Unweildy properties. So you have to find a Sniper weapon without Unweildy.

Of which there currently are none.

I'm fairly certain you can add a turret mount. The wording is very strange, but the gist of it is *I think* that 'turret' is simply a special arc to which mounts can be added.

Here's the weird sentence: "By spending 5 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount on a turret that has enough free space" (p. 305, second sentence, last paragraph of New Weapon Mounts). It sounds like they mean you can have two weapon mounts (and two weapons) on a single physical turret, but I think the implication is that 'a turret' refers to the arc, not an actual turret mount.

Take a look at the Transport's list of mounts (p. 295). It describes an arc, and then the weapons in that arc. There are two 'forward arc', and two 'turret'. I don't think we are supposed to assume those are on the same turret. Now look at Carrier, Battleship and Dreadnought (p. 296). They have lots of weapons listed in 'turret'. Are we to assume despite these ships size and crews, they have only one turret?

Furthermore, there are rules specifically designed for linking weapons (p. 301) and no suggestion that that's already happened in some of the ships, or that it is required if they are in the same arc, or within the same set of 'turret' parentheses'.

It seems pretty clear to me that, while the key sentence is oddly formed, that one isn't meant to infer that there is a special meaning to 'a turret' beyond the turret arc, and that you can add turret-mounted weapons to a ship without turrets as easily as you can add side arc mounts to a ship without side weapons.

Granted, in that specific instance it could make a difference. It's a bit odd they take great pains to give several examples of how the damage should be divided up, though, and in none of them would it make a difference.

Surely one of the rules must be a mistake?

Nonlethal damage seems to have changed significantly in Starfinder, but the rules are very short and open to interpretation.

If I'm reading the rules correctly (p. 252), the only time the difference between lethal and nonlethal occurs is when the total pushes you to 0 hp. If this is correct, doing 99 points of nonlethal damage to a 100 hp creature and then 1 of lethal kills it. However, doing the reverse order would not.

The reason I'm not sure if this is the case is because the falling damage rules (p. 400) appear to be the same as Pathfinder, and in them deliberately jumping turns the first 1d6 of damage to nonlethal...which would have no effect in the new rules! Even assuming we applied the nonlethal last, in contradiction to the text, unless that damage was the amount that killed the person, it would also have no effect.

Is Nonlethal no longer tracked separately from lethal damage? If so, the falling rules need to be corrected.

I don't know if it's intentional, but there is one advantage.

You are explicitly allowed to place some foot and leg augmentations on prosthetic legs (I think it may be the same with some hand augmentations). Speed Suspension and Climbing Suckers both mention this. So if you use Storage Prosthetic, you get to have the storage space, and one of those augmentations. Using just the hideaway limb means you've used up that leg/arm slot.