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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.