Most GM's are, fairly, reasonable when it comes to early changes in characters. Usually, the goal in RPG's is to have fun and often times we don't get a lot of mileage out of some feats and abilities in Starfinder. (I'm looking at you Adaptive fighting.) I think a conversation with your GM would suffice to get you in to a place where you feel like your choices are more meaningful.
Magyar5, what are you smoking and are you planning to share with the rest of the class? Always. Sharing is caring man!
Guns’n’roses for the win Winner Winner!! Well done.
Another contextual misrepresentation would be; a spell caster who readied the teleport spell on his melee soldier ally with the trigger that 'an enemy begins to cast Y spell at ally Z' This could easily be considered a defensive action to move the target out of the path of the spell. However, the player doesn't tell you that he's teleporting the melee soldier adjacent to the spell caster. So the spell caster begins to cast his spell. The readied action triggers right before the event. So the soldier is teleported beside the spell caster who then begins to cast a spell, provoking an attack of opportunity. This is an indirect way of making a defensive action into an offensive action in conjunction with the readied action.
I am glad that you have the magical mirror which allows you to know the intent and motive of the developers. Personally, I don't have this mirror and hence the question for the developers. What I do have are the rules as written and the RAW are crystal clear that a spell can be interrupted. The spells casting time has no impact on it's susceptibility of being interrupted. The RAW do NOT state ANYWHERE that a spell with a casting time of a standard action is immune to being interrupted. People INFER that it's not possible because they are stuck with the mentality that an action is sacrosanct and stands inviolate and exclusive in it's capacity to occur simultaneously with any OTHER action. (Think of it this way.. there are people who say you can't fart and sneeze at the same time..). This is both a logical fallacy and a misinterpretation of the rules as written. Actions performed by different entities CAN happen simultaneously. I know this goes against how combat is structured but it's true nonetheless. It's rare in Starfinder for this to happen but it CAN happen. If this discussion were about the use of the Reaction action, we wouldn't be having it as the RAW are QUITE CLEAR that an offensive reaction takes place IMMEDIATELY after the triggering ACTION. (This does mean that an attack of opportunity occurs AFTER the standard action of casting a spell. This technically means an AoO can't interrupt a spell with a casting time of a standard action or less.) However, we aren't talking about Reactions.. we are specifically talking about the readied action. Which states that the timing is based on the EVENT that triggered it, not the action. So for both BNW and Nimor, you have ascribed intent instead of reading and applying the RAW. Hence you haven't demonstrated that a spell with a casting time of a standard action (or less) can't be interrupted. According to RAW, ANY spell can be interrupted. ANY. If you claim otherwise you are inferring intent instead of applying RAW. (Now.. putting on my GM hat. I don't disagree with your interpretation of intent. I don't LIKE the idea that spell casting can suffer such a crushing blow if readied actions continues to be allowed to interrupt spells with a standard action as a casting time. Like it or not, though, the RAW are pretty clear. However there is enough circumstantial evidence to infer that your understanding of the INTENT of the developers is correct, but unless they clarify, the RAW will remain to be correct. If you look at a reaction (CRB 248) it's wording on timing is eerily similar to a readied action but by changing the trigger from an action to an event has important implications on the timing of the triggered action).
Actually it does not. I am not declaring the 'start of an action'. I am declaring a triggering event. The CRB 331 explicitly talks about spell-casting requiring concentration and that it CAN be interrupted. There is nothing in the RAW that says a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action can't be interrupted. That's WHY this discussion exists and it's being asked for clarification. The fact that spell casting is the EXCEPTION as an action that can be interrupted (any other actions in the ENTIRE game have ANY entries about interrupting them?) lends more credibility to the idea that the INTENT is that a spell CAN be interrupted regardless of it's casting time.
This is quite fun. Do you really want to hang your hat on this stand? To say that it was written by fallible people doesn't support your interpretation. It simply means that since they ARE fallible, then the posts by Owen could be just as fallible and the RAW are correct. And yes, spell casting IS the specific example. It SPECIFICALLY talks about your concentration while casting being interuptable and the spell caster losing the spell. No other action in the game has such specific wording. That makes spell casting the exception and hence the request for a ruling. All that being said, spell casting in this game isn't great. Spell casters have, probably, the hardest time in the game for resolving conflict. And the RAW (without exercising the hubris necessary to interpret for the developers) stand with some confusion to them. As written it makes spell casting even rougher if a spell with a casting time of a standard action could be interrupted. However the issue isn't the intent. It's the specific wording. Honestly I am prepared to accept the ruling either way simply because it would close a gap in the rules. If the developers ruled that a readied offensive action can't interrupt a spell with a standard action as it's cast time, that's fine. If the ruling is that the CRB as written stands, then I'm fine with that as well. Lastly I will go over the wording of the Concentration and Interrupted Spells so there isn't any confusion about RAW and RAI. To cast a spell u must concentrate. The LENGTH OF TIME you must concentrate to cast a spell is specified in the Casting Time entry in the spells description. (By saying length of time this denotes that the spell has a beginning, casting, and ending event associated with the spell. There are no exclusions to this series of events based on casting time). Your foes can interrupt your spell-casting in a few ways, as described below. (It doesn't exclude any spells with any specific casting time from the qualifying statement that you can be interrupted). It then outlines attacks of opportunities.
You are MOST at risk of taking damage while casting when (A) a spell's casting time is 1 round or longer, (B) you have provoked an attack of opportunity, or (C) a foe readied an action to attack you when you BEGIN TO CAST. However if you are taking ongoing damage from an (effect) your spells are not interrupted. (For the final time. There is absolutely NO wording in the CRB which EXCLUDES spells with a standard action as a casting time from being uninterruptible. That is simply a RAI interpretation.) And one more time for the sake of completeness, the wording on the readied action as an offensive action says. "If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, it takes place IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIGGERING EVENT." (Immediately means instantly in this case. Not after the foe or player has completed the standard action and the spell has been cast.) Cmon Starfinder developers. Put this one to bed. P.S. I actually hope the developers make an exclusion of spells with a standard action or reaction action cast time being able to be interrupted. Spell casting is already painful enough as it is. That's my inner GM speaking. Not my inner Rules Lawyer speaking.
Could we get an official ruling on if a player can interrupt an enemies spell casting by using a readied action? The CRB pg 331 implies that this is possible, however previous posts by designers have given pause to the RAW. (Though I must state that those posts are prior to the official release of the CRB and may have been part of development). Can you interrupt an enemies spell casting with a readied action and if you can, would you please provide examples of the readied action vs spell casting and vs other actions (ie.. use of the automatic property, blast property, etc.) giving both offensive and defensive examples? Thanks in advance!
I don't consider them dueling opinions. Having read the entirety of the post from the link you sent, it's a stretch to say that Owen's post was 'broader than that.' First of all the posts main focus is on the Vanguard questions and clarifications. This means that while reading the post Owen is attempting to gain feedback and information about player interaction with this new test class. Not to clarify rules. The post then goes in to a nice series of questions and responses about the Vanguard's entropic strike. Ascalaphus then asks about operative weapons using the Dex bonus as opposed to the Str bonus for Combat Maneuvers. Owen gives a response.. and that's it. There's no more discussion about this until much later down the road when BigNorseWolf re-opened the question. Owen never followed up or elaborated. It's also important to note that Owen explicitly states the "combat maneuvers attack roll" in his post. At no time does he ever state that you can substitute a combat maneuver for a melee attack of any other action. So when you say "broader" I am not sure what you mean. If you mean the post dealt with questions about the Vanguard and covered a broader range of questions, then yes it did. If you meant that the single post Owen made about combat maneuvers being melee attacks have a broader implication... well.. that's an untenable position to take. You would have to know what Owen was thinking when he made the post and that's a tough assumption to make.
I disagree Hiruma. Teamwork should be a force multiplier, however it shouldn't be required as optimization space. I don't particularly enjoy meta gaming. One of the most enjoyable aspects of playing a role-playing game is playing the role. When you build a team that is specifically designed on other characters on the team, you lose a fantastic aspect of the game. Individualization. Your character isn't your character any more. The character is part of a sum equation instead of a character. One of my favorite parts of gaming is the boundaries of differences within a party. For example, we have a player in our group, whose character WILL NOT LIE. At all. For ANY reason. Nor will they attempt to deceive anyone for ANYTHING. This character is far more suited for conversation and diplomacy in our group rather than my Vesk Soldier, however due to the way our GM designed the game and it's evolution (we have a Space tube channel that our Envoy uses for income of our exploits) my character is most often in the forefront doing the talking and let me tell you, it's led to some unforgettably spectacular failures. I've intentionally left my character's perception untrained and insist on taking the lead in almost ANY environment. He's a big stupid Vesk who loves his companions and he's played that way and there's a few running jokes about the mishaps and failures we have all had to endure due to his terrible attributes (he actually jumped out of a moving Starship to chase down an enemy ship as they were pulling back their docking umbilical) . Conversely we have had some of the most unforgettable and creative saves by players in our group to overcome these failures. (Brosni's Vesk brother saw him running by at full speed and without any hesitation followed right behind him, saving his ass.) One of my favorite book series is the Dragonlance Trilogy. Weis and Hickman ensure that each character in the series has some kind of major flaw which they need to overcome to become whole. I've never seen role-playing games as ones in which it's me vs the GM, but more of an opportunity to craft a narrative showing how my character, with all his flaws and problems, has overcome them. We recently hit level 10, and while other characters would have dumped points in to Str, Dex, Con, and Wis to optimize your character, I dumped mine in to Int, Cha, Str and Con. Demonstrating his growth as a character as opposed to optimization. My INT will never be anywhere near a Technomancer's Int as I started with an 8.. but Brosni has gotten much smarter during his 10 levels and far more likeable.. The hardest part of this particular gaming system is that since I take this approach, there will never be a time where I can use many of the skills I have chosen and expect a reliable return. I would LOVE to use Intimidate on a more consistent basis, but even with dumping a point in the skill every level, my skill sits at a whopping 14 at lvl 10. Demoralize looks like a really fun thing to attempt in combat, but with a DC of 30... for a lvl 10 creature.. there's no way I can use this skill and expect a reliable result. Wasting a standard action for a 20% chance of success is foolish as opposed to just attacking.. This is why I don't like this balancing method. You either play according to the designers wish (maxing your character without multi-classing), or you become far less effective which in turn reduces your enjoyment of the game.
I don't see anything in the section you cited that says those are "attributes of the spell" any more or less than any other part of the spell. I was using your definition provided earlier as a valid form of attribute inference. Notably, the following definition - 2. to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc., indicated: Those are all qualities of the thing (spell) indicated.
SPELL NAME
These are the attributes of a spell (see page 333). Only a single magic hack which alters these attributes can be applied to the spell. In your example you ask about some additional hacks: Energize Spell: This simply allows you to cast an additional spell and does not affect a spells attributes. You could use this in conjunction with another Magic Hack to alter the attributes of the spell this magic hack allows you to cast. Harmful Spell: This spell alters the effect of the spell (ie.. damage dealt). It falls in to the single magic hack use category. Selective Targeting: Alters the area of a spell. One Magic Hack applies. Debug Spell: This alters the damage of a spell. One magic hack applies. Eternal Spell: This spell alters the number of spells you can cast, not any of the spells attributes. You can cast a 1st level spell at will instead of X times a day. You could use a Magic Hack to alter this spells attributes when you cast it. Spell Shot: This spell alters the 'range' of the spell. One magic hack applies. Spell Grenade: This alters the target of the spell. One magic hack applies Does this answer your questions?
From all the research I have been able to do in to this system it looks very much like it's a closed system. It seems the developers created DC's based on the maximum achievable skills/spell DC's and then created a 50/50 chance for them to succeed. This is especially prevalent for spell casting. The maximum DC possible in the current rule system for a spell is 28. 10 + 9 + 6 + 3 = 28.
DC 20 Aliens have bad saves of +17 and good saves of +21. They will succeed against your spells just 45% if you maximize your class in every way. Most players do not... so it's safe to assume 50% save chance on the worst saves. For good saves it's a +21. Which means your spells will fail more than they will succeed. To me this is an interesting approach to game design. I don't agree with this particular design philosophy due to it creating a closed loop system. If you want to develop past these boundaries then you tend to throw the balance off for the system. Basically, you need to maximize your character to ensure even odds for most of your checks. Keep that in mind as you build and level your character.
It seems that some form of inference into the reality of how the weapon works is throwing this in to some kind of confusion. That shouldn't be the case. The rules clearly state that "If the result of a gunnery check for a tracking weapon is ever less than the target’s TL, the weapon’s projectile is destroyed and removed from play." This includes the initial gunnery check. We are supposing that you wouldn't fire a tracking weapon until you have target lock, however, that's just an assumption. You could fire the weapon, and attempt to "guide" it to the target. Either way, don't let the "realism" of how you imagine these gunnery systems working deter you from accepting the rules as written. The missile or torpedo is lost should you fail your gunnery check.
As it reads, I supposed so. But I don't think that's the intent. I think the intent is that if you use your flash shield generator to create another one, the materials from the old flash shield are consumed. Not that it consumes an opponents flash shield. It also doesn't make sense in the context of the game. Imagine you are in a large infantry battle with enemies who are armed with these devices. Does it make sense that you could only have 1 flash shield among all those combatants every 100 feet? The idea that your friend pulls up a flash shield and your opponent responds by creating one nearby just to negate your allies shield is kinda comical. That being said. Per the items' wording it doesn't explicitly state that it has to be a shield generated by your generator. See what your GM says, but remember, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you start doing it, don't be surprised when you GM starts doing the same in turn.
I think we are being to literal with an abstract concept. In our world, guns fire single rounds or bursts of single rounds. They have components brought together which constitute a round. In Pathfinder, what if there was "generic" ammunition that was somehow able to be tailored to the weapon once it's loaded. Instead of thinking of a magazine loaded with X rounds.. think of a magazine loaded with X material. And your gun, kinetic, fires a bullet so big it needs more of X material to create and use as round. In this manner you could use ammunition from a shotgun in a pistol as long as you can change the magazine with this "material". Same for energy weapons. Anyways, it's how I tend to think of this games ability to swap and keep rounds interchangeable.
P.S. Don't listen to the movies. Nobody wins in a headbut.
You are correct Belafon on all accounts. Thank you for catching my slip up on seals. Much appreciated.
I will attempt to answer as many questions as I can but I am sure I recently read a post on this topic. Please bear with me as some of your terminology isn't accurate and I will strive to correct it as gently as possible because when reading rules, terminology matters quite a bit. Each suit lists how much “Unarmed” damage it can deal. This is not unarmed damage. This is kinetic damage (of a type listed by the power suit; piercing, slashing, bludgeoning) the suit deals when you make an unarmed melee attack. This is an important distinction. They type of attack and the type of damage will be used to determine answers to your other questions. Does this Unarmed attach count as Archaic and Non-Lethal?No, to both questions. In the Weapon Special properties it gives guidelines as to what constitutes an Archaic weapon. A power suit is not made of primitive materials. As far as nonlethal damage goes I can see where this could be confusing based on the reading of Unarmed strikes on page 190. However, it's important to note that the rules for power armor SPECIFICALLY state that it is an unarmed MELEE attack. Not an Unarmed Strike. Thus this attack does not do nonlethal damage. Also, can you take attacks of opportunity with this attack, or do you need the Improved Unarmed Strike feat to do so. Yes. Because this is an unarmed melee attack and not an unarmed strike you do not require the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, do you use its damage dice if it is better? No, see the above answer. Remember, Power Armor is quite different than heavy or light armor. Think of it this way. Iron Man has powered armor. It's what allows him to punch through walls. Without it, could Tony Stark punch through a wall? No.. The damage from this armor comes from the fact that it's powered. Finally, can you use fusions (and seals) to modify the attack made by the power armor? I don't see why not. The power armor itself is considered a weapon for the purpose of these unarmed melee attacks. There is no official ruling, however I don't see that this would be a problem as it would ONLY allow the fusions to affect the unarmed melee attacks. Remember that all restrictions would apply for these fusions. For example, a blasting fusion would not be allowed as it applies only to ranged weapons.
I have done some research and calculations based on the information in the rule set and online, and have discovered that there is a series of skill checks that scale in difficulty in such a way as to make them impractical at higher levels. I will outline the skills and how I came to these conclusions. As a disclaimer, Paizo has addressed some of these for Starship Combat however this has not been done for the general role playing rules. The skills and associated checks are as follows:
These skills begin to scale to a point where it becomes unfeasible to expect success as a result. I define a reasonable chance of success as a 50% chance to succeed. I have a set of numbers below demonstrating this line. There are a few things to remember for these numbers.
Challenge Rating
Class Skill (no ability bonus) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Class Skill (ability score + 3) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
These are a bit hard to read due to the formatting, however the numbers should be accurate. It's easy to gauge the effect of feats and items which increase a skill. Every point increases the chance of success by 5%. By levels 7-10 things begin to fall off as keeping any sense of pace requires investment in feats and gear which specifically target the associated skill or ability score. Once you factor in the variety of skills and associated abilities making these checks at higher levels become improbable. Unfortunately this makes some of the skills offered very unattractive. A good example is Intimidate.
By level 6 this skill begins to fall off from a standard chance of success and requires the player devote resources in either character choice or itemization to keep it relevant. To maintain even a 50% chance of success post lvl 6 you must find a way to increase Charisma to 18, an item to increase the skill itself, or an ability from an ally can increase your success chance. I hope that Paizo will take a closer look at some of these skill checks and their difficulties and consider reviewing them. Many of the skills that these checks are associated with are defined by these checks. Thank you for your time |
