Just throwing in my experience, I ran a 2e Soldier in a playtest, and while yeah he pretty much did the same thing every turn, it didn't feel that different from playing any other martial character.
My sniper gunslinger shoots, reloads, hides.
My flurry ranger hunts, runs up, and attacks a bunch.
My swashbuckler gains panache and uses a finisher.
They're all pretty much pre-determined what they're going to do before the fight begins, and maybe I'm a simple man, but that's what I like doing.
And I have to say, blasting away with a Stellar Cannon after the Graviton Solarian bunched up the enemies for him felt just really great.
I really feel like toxicologist Alchemists could use something like Quick Bomber, but for their poisons.
As it is, they'd probably want to get a rogue feat (Poison Weapon) to be able to draw a poison and apply it to their weapon in one action, which certainly feels like something they should be able to do with an Alchemist feat of their own.
The ability for them to create 'infinite' basic poisons is a lot less useful when you need the weapon you'd like to poison in hand along with needing to be in range/reach of the enemy you'd like to attack at the start of your turn to be able to use it at all. One action to make the 'Quick Vial', one action to apply it, and the last action to attack.
It's certainly better than Toxicology was before, absolutely, but when it's compared to being able to lob 3 'free' bombs a turn, it seems lack-luster.
While I think it's a bit silly for the GM to allow putting any runes on an alchemical bomb, I can't find anything that actually prohibits this.
Book details Alchemical Bombs as: "Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet." And, being Martial Weapons with the Thrown trait... should allow runes to be etched.
My assumption is that if you could and did put a +1 striking rune on a Lesser Alchemists Fire, it would more or less turn into a very slightly worse Moderate Alchemists Fire, by gaining +1 item bonus to attack and an extra die of damage to make it deal 2d8, but would still deal 1 persistent fire damage and 1 fire splash damage.
Presumably the runes that was on the bomb would then be destroyed along with the bomb if you threw it.
If you could put fundamental runes on it, presumably you could put property runes on it as well. Unfortunately Grievous doesn't even list "Bomb" so it wouldn't do anything, and Returning also likely wouldn't as the item is destroyed after the attack.
Shock and Corrosive would work though if the rest does, dealing some more damage from your extremely expensive bomb.
Suppose this is more of a Homebrew than general discussion, but I think you could run something like this if you wanted in a home game.
Unless my brain isn't thinking about it correctly, it should give you a slight advantage by giving a break on the MAP penalty for all these unarmed strikes, in exchange for giving up critical specialization and other things that would make it much less useful for "crit fishing".
Blurred Fist - Level 12 (?) Monk Feat
Whenever you perform a Melee Unarmed Strike attack, you may instead make two special Strikes upon the same target. These special Strikes inherit all special abilities of the original Melee Unarmed Strike, except only deal half of their usual damage, and if they are agile their MAP penalty is -3/-6.
If both attacks hit, combine their damage, and then add any other applicable on-hit effects. You add any precision damage only once, to the attack of your choice. Combine the damage from both Strikes and apply resistances and weaknesses only once. These special strikes count as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty.
These special strikes deal double damage upon a critical success, but gain no other critical special effects, such as critical specialization, nor do they activate any items or abilities that trigger upon a critical hit.
I'd always rule it as "If you're ahead or behind in AC compared to what the rules normally are/what characters are normally capable of, you're doing it wrong".
It's supposed to keep the math the same, while getting rid of "mandatory" magical items.
Your character is more powerful, but not too much more powerful, and allows for more options and flavoring if you want.
The hard action economy and stat stacking means it's impossible to be run-away powerful with it, but it definitely lets you have more options at your disposal.
If your players like feeling a little more powerful, go for it!
Leaning heavily towards "no" on this, but would like some confirmation.
If you are a Cleric with deadly simplicity, you have a 1d6 Jaws attack, and your deity's favored weapon is Jaws, does it go up to 1d8?
No seems most likely, as there's a special stipulation in Deadly simplicity about it only affecting unarmed attacks that are smaller than 1d6, otherwise you would need to be 'wielding your deity's favored weapon', which you can't do with your own face.
A player just wants to play a biter, and is looking for every advantage they can get!
It's bizarre to me that people buy up combat focused APs so much more. Combat is so easy to prep for, I usually add combat as filler if I think a session might go short.
Locations, NPCs, motives, plotlines, and backstory is what takes all the time.
Maybe it's weighted by GMs who are only really comfortable GMing combat...
I have two of my four players that mentally check out whenever we're not actively doing exploration or combat. Social interaction just doesn't interest them much within the game. The other two tend to enjoy it, so I make sure to include it, but I do tend to speed it along a bit faster than normal, because I'd rather not have a completely disengaged couple of people for 2 hours when the other two are unraveling mysteries and discovering clues as to where the party needs to go next.
I've talked to them about it, and they say they don't mind that the 'other stuff' is in there, but they're just not engaged. Even when I attempt to bring them into it, by having their character be the lynchpin in a particular plot point, I still can't really get much of anything out of them.
On the other hand, everyone is engaged when it's initiative rounds and they're punching bad guys in the face and collecting loot afterwards. So that's what we mostly tend to do.
I get the feeling a lot of people just aren't comfortable actually role playing, and really just want to play a video game with people rolling numbers instead of an RNG. That's why combat heavy things sell well.
persistent damage is a condition that you apply, not damage that is dealt
That made it click in my head. I was thinking of "Persistent Damage" as, well, "Damage" when I shouldn't be. It's not actually damage at all. No more than Confusion is damage. It just is likely going to deal damage as part of it's effect, but it is a Condition like any other.
looking for rules text stating that they are different mechanics?
This one really.
What makes Persistent Damage different than normal Damage when calculating how much someone takes from an ability?
What specifically is the source of the Persistent Damage? Is it the Strike that's applying it, or the Feat/Item/Ability that grants the bleed damage? If it's the feat/item/ability as the source, then there's no question they don't stack. But if it's the Strike, it seems they should combine.
I realize it's pedantic, and will shrug and move on if I can't nail it down, but it's still just something I'd like to solidify if possible.
No, none of that stacks and changes the calculation. Even if the abilities inflicting persistent damage are on the same Strike, the general rule that only the highest damage persistent of a given damage type applies still holds.
Quote:
Multiple Persistent Damage Conditions
You can be simultaneously affected by multiple persistent damage conditions so long as they have different damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount. The damage you take from persistent damage occurs all at once, so if something triggers when you take damage, it triggers only once; for example, if you're dying with several types of persistent damage, the persistent damage increases your dying condition only once.
Right.
My hangup with it, is if you look at other damaging effects (non persistent), they get added up if they're the same type before being applied to the target with the strike. Two sources adding fire damage to an attack, say a Flaming Rune, and an Elemental Fist Ki Strike, both of those fire damages get added together, then applied once to the target (so that weakness/resistance applies once).
Persistent damage is different in that an enemy can only be sufferings from one at a time of the same type, but I'm trying to see why exactly the bleeding effects wouldn't come all together before being applied, like that Fire Damage would be.
If a character has multiple sources that apply Persistent damage of the same type to a strike, how is it handled?
I'm leaning towards "no", but I need to reduce the doubt I have on it.
If one ability grants 1d6 Persistent Bleed, and another grants 2 Persistent Bleed, on the same strike, would these combine together into 1d6+2 Persistent Bleed before applying to the target?
I know if it was separate applications of Persistent damage applying, they wouldn't stack, as only the highest would apply. But if they're from the same strike, does that change the calculation at all?
"... You must still meet its other prerequisites to gain the feat."
Eldrich Trickter:
"...though you must meet its other prerequisites."
Part of the prerequisites for all dedications include: "Special: You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the xxx archetype."
I just wanna build a space colony and deal with what assuredly will come with it. Animal attacks, 'alien' invasion, the demonic hellspawn that accidentally teleported onto the planet, the corporation that's hell bent on stealing the planet's resources out from under you, spies that infiltrate and try to destabilize your colony in an attempt to unseat you from power, and of course the giant and evil creature(s) that happens to live inside the planet that you accidentally wake up.
My DM says that an AOO takes a single melee action, which is true. He proceeds to state that if I take my AOO then that signal attack uses up my attack action the next round. Now if I have multiple attacks next round I lose one of them to make this AOO the round before. I have always understood you get 1 free AOO a round unless you have combat reflexs or a similar feat or ability. Who is correct me or him?
Your GM didn't read the rules well at all if he came to that conclusion.
Attacks of Opportunity use your reaction for the round. Nothing else.
You get one reaction per round.
Your standard, move, and swift action are unaffected whether or not you used your reaction.
Flarb the goblin solider has 18 dex, so a +4 modifier for dex.
With no armor worn, he has 14 EAC and KAC (10 base, +4 for dex).
Second Skin armor has a max dex of +5. Since Flarb's Dex is less than that, it provides no diminished to his dex bonus to armor, so wearing the Second Skin, he is at 15 EAC and 16 KAC (Since the armor is +1/+2, so EAC is 10 base + 4 dex + 1 armor, and KAC is 10 base + 4 dex, +2 armor).
If Flarb picks up a Riot shield, which has a max dex of +3, he now can only get +3 AC from his armor, since the +3 from the shield is worse than the +5 from his armor. With the shield, his EAC and KAC are 15 and 16. (EAC is 10 base + 3 from dex (max) + 1 from shield + 1 from armor, KAC is 10 base, +3 from dex (max), + 1 from shield, +2 from armor).
Now Flarb isn't very bright, so when he finds a Golemforged plating I and sees that the armor values on it are higher, he immediately puts it on, replacing the second skin, while still holding the shield. His new armor has a max dex bonus of only +0, which is worse than his shield, so he uses that now. His new EAC is 13, and his KAC is 16. (EAC is 10 base +0 dex +1 from shield +2 from armor, KAC is 10 base, +0 from dex, +1 from shield +5 from armor).
Flarb would be better off just wearing the second skin armor, but again, he's not very bright.
Armor temperature protections have been changed from protect only from temps between -20 and 140F, rather than the previous wording that protected against all temps.
I'm really curious how that meshes with the temperature of space. In the real world, the background microwaves left over from the big bang give our empty space a temperature of approximately -455F. Perhaps the Starfinder universe has a bit cozier temperature than our own but going from a few degrees above absolute zero to -20F is a colossal jump. It seems to go against the game design idea that you can freely go into space in your armor if it doesn't protect you from the cold of the vacuum. Unless the temperature of space is between -20F and 140F which seems like it would bring on even more issues.
Vacuums are such good insulators that one of the biggest issues with space travel is/would be heat dissipation. With basically no molecules to interact with out there in space, transferring heat and such through heat sinks is basically pointless. And physically expelling heated coolant is obviously wasteful.
So being in space wouldn't instantly turn you into a ball of ice, because all the energy/heat has nowhere to actually 'go' out there.
I know this is extreme, and not a real example but lets consider 500 single manned fighters vs a capital ship.
Even if the capital ship has the biggest shields you can buy, 600 points which is divided by 4 arcs (150 per arc) they can still bust through the standard shields and deal damage, likely substantial damage too.
Now, such a scenario should never really happen but it's technically possible.
However, if they reduce damage by 20 all those fighter's weapons will do nothing. And the capital ship will slowly kill them all.
I'd hope with those 500 fighters one or two of them would have some kind of shield penetrating weapons like buster cannons. And if enough of them were equipped would wear down that deflector shield quickly.
So from levels 1 to 8, you could be a squadron and the GM would provide the HQ.
But from levels 8+, you could have a squadron and the PCs are now able to design their own HQ (using the optional rules.)
This is likely to be my solution.
Make them an HQ ship and allow minor modifications based on what they want, but eventually give them the reigns of it once they actually have the BP to make something.
I was wandering how viable the HQ ship was going to be. I mean even at tier 7 you only get 45 BP. I feel this it too steep of a price. I do understand the reasoning. The problem is in out group we have 2-3 people (out of 5) that really want their own ship. By doing this this leaves the others in a useless ship in combat.
I feel you should get the base ship and the hangers needed for free. Maybe have the HQ be a science officer based ship. Where it’s primary function is to help scan enemy ships and coordinate them.
I haven’t stated one out so I don’t know if putting a weapon on HQ is doable. Something with some special property that could aid the starships.
You can have a couple of two-person ships. The main flight dude and then a support person to do those engineering checks and help out otherwise.
Unless one of their 'demands' are that they must be alone in there.
Deflector shields sound more fun in general. More exciting, dynamic.
Regular shields are just extra HP.
I've yet to actually playtest deflector shields, but I plan on having some NPC ships with them to fight against the players to see how useful they are.
I originally thought its tier is = to the APL, but then when I re-read it I must have mis-interpreted it, even thought I had it right the first time. I must have conflated the "Starship tier" and the "Squadron tier", so thank you for the correction.
Still, level 6 before you can create even a functional ship at all with the current HQ rules without GM fiat.
I love the idea of a squadron, and having an HQ ship in order to facilitate them to fly around the Galaxy.
However the number cruncher is trying to figure out how lower level characters can even manage this without a lot of GM handwaving.
HQ Ships can be either a Heavy Freighter, or a Carrier. And the BP cost for them goes down to just 10%! Cool. Low level, lets assume Heavy Freighter then.
BP Cost: 4 for the frame.
So other expenses... well 4 person squadron needs 4x Shuttle Bays. That's fine since they also get the 10% cost, so they cost 1 BP each, total of 8 now.
Now lets get a power core in there! Needs one to do anything. Cheapest Core for a Large ship is the Core Arcus Ultra at 15 BP. Owch. 23 BP spend. Now, assuming we want the thing to move, add in the cheapest thrusters, so 4 BP on L4 thrusters, 4 BP, 27 total.
We probably want to also let it go into the drift, so the party can actually go on trips together, so a signal Basic is gonna cost 8 more BP (4 for size x 2 for basic), 35 BP total.
These last two are actually optional, but in theory you'd want to be able to see a little bit outside instead of just looking out the windows, so 1 BP for cut-rate sensors and 2 BP for basic shields to keep the rocks and bugs off those windows, rounds it out to 38 BP to build a HQ ship for 4 people that's bare minimum functional.
Problem is, that HQ ships only get 25% of normal BP. With 25% of the normal BP, this HQ ship needs to be Teir 6 in order to even get this stuff (155 BP x .25 = 38.75). And since the HQ ship is the same teir as the Squad ships, with a 4 person squad to have teir 6 ships you need an APL of 9.
tl:dr HQ ships are really impractical as written. It's good they're optional, as they're very useless for low level play.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong or missing something somewhere, because I'd love HQ ships to be practical.
So a 55% success rate and a 30% success rate regardless of any of your abilities?
Seems a little out of place when all the rest of the checks are using the associated skill based on your officer role. I'd assume these were accidents and left in unintentionally.
Looking at it all laid out like this, there really should be a way to meditate with your swarm for 24 hours or something in order to completely re-do your gear array. This is just a paperwork headache, especially when trying to make a nanocyte character that starts at any level besides 1.
I agree with this. They need a way to mitigate finding some gear that's 500 Cr more expensive, AND a way to add or change forms during an adventure and not just a level up.
One way to kill two birds with one stone would to let the nanocyte add whatever gear they eat to their list of forms (and forget an already known form).
Another would be the ability to vomit up eaten weapons...
I could definitely get behind a temporary holding cell the item is in while it's part of your gear array.
There is also the minor issue of only being to buy new forms when you level up and get a new one, or after 5th level when you can start swapping.
Destroying the squad machine gun nets you no immediate benefit and, if you later find a more valuable item, is completely wasted (along with your pocketful of UPBs). Party: "wait you begged for this thing; you're saying that you overwrote it two encounters later? We could have sold it. Toby cpuld have bought a grenade!"
What we're saying is that the whole investment mechanic adds a level of complexity to the class that quite frankly is not welcome to me, and I fear could lead to the class being unpopular at tables.
I will agree that the inflexibility of changing your Gear Arrays is a little disappointing. I'm not opposed to the idea of the Nanite investment, but you are 'stuck' with sub-optimal choices for quite a while.
If there was a way to 'rebuild' your Gear Arrays in total like you can re-build your drone as a mechanic, I feel like that would solve a lot of the issues.
Yes, I think it makes sense. There are already a few ways for classes to keep one foot off the loot treadmill, at least for a while. I'm not sure if one more is all good or all bad or even the same category.
A technomancer doesn't have to spend a dime on armor once they pick up junk armor and the cantrip (if they want..it falls off after level 9 I guess). A solarian or unarmed fighter or vanguard, as previously mentioned, is competent without investment. A qi adept doesn't need a gun.
And a nanocyte only gets to have one item at a time at high level, regardless, so they're not completely divorced from spending.
I guess that's why I'm curious about the intent. What's the problem that the class ability is trying to solve. Is it to be flexible (I'm not sure they succeed)? Is it to partially step off the loot train (definitely don't succeed IMO). Is it to be a loot sponge or another possible way to get value out of the bits of people your murderhobos leave behind (I don't think so?).
I dunno. It's really hard to suggest 'this is a better way to get where you wanted to go' if I think you're driving to Canada and you're really heading for the south pole.
It does let them be flexible. They can have a Giant Ice Throwing Hand cannon worth 100,000 credits tossing out cold damage at long range. They can also have a 100,000 credit fire blast heavy weapon to deal with AoE packs. They can also have a 100,000 credit melee reach weapon to deal with enemies that get too close. And they can also have a handy 100,000 credit out-of-combat technological item to be used when enemies don't need their HP to be lowered. All with the same 100,000 credit investment.
For that kind of versatility, any other class would need to split funds between all of these different kinds of things. A Nanocyte can have many expensive items at the ready, albeit one at a time. (Though I agree that it would be nice if you could change out your Gear Array Minor/Major forms more often).
How far away you are from an object is just how far away you are from the closest point of that object. So it's just no more than 10 ft away from any active square of the cloud.
Yup, this nanite investment is beyond me. Why not use the cap to say "You can take THIS many ITEMS of those types"? Just say, "At level 1, you can have 2 Major Forms in any combination of weapons and cybernetics". So EITHER 2 weapons OR 2 cybernetics OR 1 weapon and 1 cybernetic. Why go through the whole UPB thingy, when you can simplify the process? I think this makes it simpler. Kind of the same way Prototype Mechanics can get a free weapon or armor so long as the mechanic is level 1 or the weapon/armor is 2 levels lower than your mechanic level.
I hope this makes sense, my brain is not with me today. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this class.
Maybe we all need to make sure we're on the same page.
Whenever you have an hour to spare as a Nanocyte, you can adjust your nanite investment. Lets say you have a Squad Machine Gun you looted off of someone that wronged you (or you wronged them, whatever). You can break that down, and your Nanite Investment is now 2060, the amount of credits that item is worth.
Now any time you pick a new Major or Minor form for your gear array, it can be anything with a cost of 2060 or less.
During that hour of munching on the Machine Gun, you could also take up to 206 UPBs from your pocket (which is 10% of the item's value), and add it into the Nanite Investment process, in order to make your Nanite investment 2266. Meaning any time you pick a new Major or Minor form, it must have a cost of 2266 or less.
Whenever you change your Nanite investment, you discard any other Nanite investment you might have had.
A definite issue with just adding and adding to your Nanite Investment is how the economy in SF is.
You can't just add UPBs or items to your investment at full value. Your Nanite investment will become gigantic, quickly. There would be no waste, no outleveling it, everything you put in will be good and usable forever, and you will become very 'wealthy' in how you can spend your excess credits outside of the nanite investment.
However on the flip side, it can't just be "you just add 10% of whatever you put in to keep increasing your Nanite investment". If you math it out even over a few levels, the Nanocyte become woefully behind in where they 'should be'. The Nanite investment would become pathetically low if you start at level 1 and pump every dime you're on average supposed to get as you level. So even if you got a ridiculous amount of items and stuff while leveling from levels 1 to 10, 200,000 worth of credits of bits and bobs we'll suppose (way more than you normally would), and every ounce of it went to your nanite investment, your Nanite investment would be 20,000. Which is well below the 66,000 estimated Wealth that a level 10 character should have (and you'd have no armor or other gear at all, since it all went into the investment).
This system as it is now strikes a balance between the two, without introducing some kind of unusual concept of 'selling' at item into your investment that's not full or 10% of the item's value. It's a little odd on its face, but personally I think it's still fair and makes it work pretty closely to how other characters would gain wealth.
You can theoretically reduce the amount of credits you have as a character by throwing your credsticks off a building too. Or buying a bunch of items you can't effectively use.
I see where they were going with it. It lets you take loot after a game session, and melt it down into a new maximum if needed. If you don't loot a good new basepoint for your nanite invenstment, you can just buy the item to melt down. Yes it 'wastes' your previous pool, but it's practically necessary since anyone else is 'losing' credits as they level, since they're outgrowing gear.
It's like how it is with any class, you can save up credits for the fancy new toy once you reach level x (like saving up for a new nanite investment every few levels), or you can constantly buy a new slightly better upgrade as you level (like trying to get a new investment every time you finish a sessionor level),but you'll be behind the character who is saving up.
"I thought I could do this already by using Nanite Surges without waiting x amount of rounds..."
I'd assume it means you can reshape them without using an nanite surge every 1d4 rounds, which is a handy ability for sure. If it's not, I have no idea what the ability is supposed to do.
I dont like the idea you have to have class X for Y mechanic especially since multiple gens in healing is still mostly limited to clerics mystics and you may not have anyone who wants to play them or be in a place you can easily access them. Hence my asking for ways to heal it without one. Especially since in starfinder you cant have a wizard research a healing spell or give a druid access to healing spells.
That's what items are for. Fills in the gaps for what your party might be missing. Always good to carry around more serums of healing if you don't have a way to magically heal HP as a similar idea.
I believe the DR/ER applies and then the vulnerability.
DR/ER reduces the amount of damage before you take it, vulnerability increases the damage by 50% as you take it.
Alien Archive pg 158 wrote:
VULNERABILITY (EX OR SU)
The creature takes half again as much damage (+50%) when it takes damage of a specific type.
CRB pg 264 wrote:
Energy Resistance
A creature with resistance to energy has the ability to ignore some energy damage of a certain type (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic) per attack.
I think the key here is the phrase "when it takes damage", which is about as late in the calculation process as possible.
If all conditions ended that came from Debilitating Trick ended at the end of the operatives next turn, it would be a little odd when the enemy teleported back onto his feet after getting Knee Shotted.
So no, conditions are persistent unless otherwise noted, and the 'end of the operatives next turn' in the actual text of Debilitating shot is indeed just referring to Off-Target or Flat-Footed.
Priorities are ever a-shiftin' around here, but we'll do what we can to address as much as we can.
Also, we'll continue to look at what we can do to present this information in the most useful way!
Thanks, all, for your feedback.
I am enjoying this reactivity, after a long time of guessing and assumptions for how certain things are supposed to work, this is really a breath of fresh air.
Been reading the rules of Flyby and have gotten slightly confused.
Flyby
The ship moves as normal, but it can move through 1 hex occupied by an enemy starship without provoking a free attack (as described in Moving through Other Starships). During the following gunnery phase, you can select one arc of your starship’s weapons to fire at the enemy vessel as if the vessel were in close range (treat the range as 1 hex), against any quadrant of the enemy starship...you follow the normal rules for attacking...
BUT... If you fail this check,...the movement provokes a free attack from that starship..
So if I'm reading the rules correctly now. A successful Flyby just gives you a attack with any weapon on your starship with one weapon at a range of 1 Hex during the gunnery phase.
A failed Flyby attack gives the opposing starship a free attack.
Just want to get this clarified as every Starfinder game I've played and seen played Flyby was always a free attack for one of the starships.
The rules don't state anywhere about a free attack or anything, it states "If successful, something changes in your regularly scheduled Gunnery Phase".
In practice so far it's a "Pilot lost the initiative check this round so try this so you might actually get a good shot off" ability, in my experience. Because if you won the initiative check and you're not flying a spaceship version of a blob of molasses you should be able to position yourself well anyway for the gunnery phase.
Androids do make good Drone builders. Stats are excellently spread for a mechanic, and thematically it makes sense for an android to be able to communicate with the drone in a way that most others can't understand.
I mean, the rules say its a weapon. They literally call it an advanced melee weapon with an item level equal to your Vanguard level. So someone is going to use this to argue it.
I still say no, though.
Well how about that, I remembered it say "treat it like an advanced melee weapon....", but sure enough it straight up says it just is.
It's still a no, as there isn't an object to apply the fusion to, and I don't think sticking a fusion seal on your forehead counts.
Can Fusions or Fusion Seals be added directly to Entropic Strikes?
No.
An 'entropic strike' isn't a weapon itself. Think of it like an 'unarmed attack' with different properties. But you can use the Fusions or Fusion Seals that are attached to a weapon/shield that you use for an entropic strike.
Unless you think the idea of Ysoki barfing up cars...
CRB PG 54 wrote:
Ysoki can store up to 1 cubic foot of items weighing up to 1 bulk in total in their cheek pouches, and they can transfer a single object between hand and cheek as a swift action. A ysoki can disgorge the entire contents of his pouch onto the ground in his square as a move action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
I'm not sure how a car can be a 1 cubic foot big and weighing no more than 1 bulk, unless it's a Hot Wheels car. I am unaware of any previous errata on Cheek Pouches, or that it needed it.
