ManShrimp's page

Hello team and the powers that be.

For reporting purposes, I have some difficulty handling reputation when a module awards reputation for multiple factions and when giving out reputation gains greater than 4 for completing an Adventure Path.

Typically, a module grants 2 reputation for completing all objectives. Faction tagged modules will grant 1 or more reputation in additional factions. Example #1-05 First Mandate, which grants 2 reputation, and 1 reputation for Acquisitives and 1 reputation for Second Seekers. Factions are selected via drop down, and only one faction can be selected at a time, so to facilitate reputation gains I report players multiple times on the same session. This reports as a conflict, with the session identifying itself as the conflicting session, but accomplishes the desired result of tracking reputation correctly.

When reporting an Adventure Path, full participation awards 5 reputation, but the upper limit is 4 when reporting. To get around this I report players twice, awarding 4 reputation in the first block and a single reputation in the second block. This also shows as a session conflict.

Thanks for all the hard work you do getting a site like this to work. Is this the intended way of handling reputation gains? Could this self-conflict error be removed if so?

Andrew Harasty wrote:

Mackanstein wrote:

Andrew Harasty wrote:

That would work if it wasn't for the fact that jump jets are not just a nonstandard form of movement, they also require activation via a move action.

Starfinder Core Rulebook wrote:

You can activate jump jets as part of a move action in order to fly during your movement.

Trick Attack requires a full action.

I would still argue it is RAW.

"Move your Speed" is a move action and is part of the full action trick attack.

Trick attack is a full action that contains the following actions:
* Move your Speed
* Make a skill check to trick
* single attack

Yes it would be nice to see this FAQ'ed but I suspect RAI is that you can use them.

A Full Action is a Full Action. It doesn't "contain" other types of actions, and you can't in many cases 'deconstruct' a Full Action into self-contained smaller Actions without house ruling or errata at this point.

In the other actions section, it describes 'Ready an Action' as follows:

"You can prepare to take an action when a certain trigger occurs by using a standard action. Decide on a standard, move, or swift action and a trigger. You can take the action you chose when the trigger happens."

If what you say is true, and actions can not contain or direct you to take further actions beyond the normal action economy, then Ready an Action as described in the rules can never be performed to conduct another action in the round while it explicitly directs you to do so. Nor could you treat any such actions as actions of any other type than 'standard action' because you expended a standard action rather than substituting it for another type.

I agree with Andrew's interpretation as more logically sound and consistent within the framework of other action rules as written.

ManShrimp said wrote:

Digging one's own heels in and adamantly refusing to amend a view makes that person contentious, not the issue being discussed.

If I am guilty of this you are just as much guilty of it as well. It's ok to have strongly held opinions that differ, when any subject hast strongly held opinions that are opposed the issue is in contention, hence contentious.

I was not critiquing you as a person, I was pointing out that blaming an argument for it's own intensity is a non sequitur.

I am familiar with shooting, in person, holding a rifle from the standing, kneeling, sitting and prone positions.

We are far off topic (soft cover from prone creatures), may I suggest creating a thread dedicated to the absence of the kneeling position in Starfinder as compared to Pathfinder?

...kneeling would be way more common in a setting where guns are the norm....

I am not sure where you are getting this idea. The kneeling position is extremely uncomfortable and unnatural. I pointed this out to you in a previous post.

And I think if you read through the thread you can see just how contention kneeling can be, a lot of people have different a strongly head opinions.

Digging one's own heels in and adamantly refusing to amend a view makes that person contentious, not the issue being discussed.

By your logic, we now must have conditions for every possible position a character could maintain, which would include standing, kneeling, squatting, lying, crawling, and crouching. We'd also have to document every possible sub-variation between them. Is the person in a full or partial crouch. Is the person lying prone or in the fetal position? Are they in a vertical kneel or a sitting kneel? Are they sitting on their knees, or in a chair, or on the ground with legs crossed, or uncrossed, or extended? Should we have a condition for someone standing with their arms folded, as well?

The line of reasoning you have followed falls apart quickly and turns combat into an encumbered mess of minutia. It is a step away from dynamic storytelling elements of a good game where a single round represents a large number of fluid movements.

As I have already explained, kneeling does not impede future movement in real scenarios. It is difficult to use as a shooting position and ought not provide bonuses. A wall or obstacle half your height is all that is required to gain a full AC bonus for cover, so it can be assumed a character behind such cover intuitively alternates between kneeling and standing dynamically from round to round. Prone is a condition, a status which can be inflicted and which is persistent until something is done to end it. Kneeling falls into the full range of motions a player may take, and is effectively the same as standing. For special cases, such as when a player kneeling over something is attacked without a chance to switch to a more advantageous position, the 'Flat-footed' condition would be more appropriate.

So you are standing? Cause last I checked I couldn't run 30ft while kneeling....

Having one knee bent does not prevent a character from breaking into a run. Having both knees bent does not prevent a healthy individual from quickly moving into a sprinter's position and then breaking into a run. Kneeling is the most advantageous starting position for a sprinter, so why rule that it is an impediment to movement? Being knocked on your back or belly, however, completely prevents any movement until something to right them back onto their feet occurs.

Kneeling is effectively a standing position, and needs no special status of it's own. Neither should it provide any bonuses, as prone does, or if it did one can assume all standing persons drop to a kneeling position to fire before correcting themselves. Realistically, kneeling is the most difficult position to fire from, while prone is the most comfortable and easiest. I personally find the kneeling position extremely uncomfortable to maintain, and in field use a different sight and sling are used for rifles that will be frequently fired from the kneeling position.

If, for some reason, you wanted to play out a character with bad knees (such as my father, who tore the cartilage in both knees over many years), I would give them a special rule that states they must take an additional move action to stand up if kneeling, seated or prone. This effectively makes it would take two actions to stand up from prone, and a single move action to get up from a kneeling or sitting position. That would be a disability, though, and I'd imagine modern medicine or magic could easily repair such a condition in the Starfinder universe.

@ Ravingdork

From what I can tell a kneeling character would be considered prone according to the game.

"If you are lying on the ground, you are prone." The status description states "You are lying on the ground." That is how the rules are written, there is no room to conflate kneeling with the prone position.

The only requirement for soft cover is the existence of another creature between the attacker and the target. If the impeding creature were prone, more than half of the target would be visible making it partial cover.

However, this goes both ways. Since you are firing over your own team mate, your target also gets soft cover. It does not matter that the target is 100% visible from your vantage point, the only requirement was a creature between you. He is more than 50% visible, and perhaps even 100% visible, making it partial cover.

The prone character has the same penalty to attack as his bonus to AC. The character firing over his team mate is giving the same AC bonus to his targets that he is receiving. It is a net neutral game of exchanged bonus/penalties it seems fine in my opinion.

@quasiconundrum

The rules, as written, say the exact opposite of what you stated:

"Sometimes you attempt a skill check not to accomplish a task, but to thwart someone else’s task or action. This is called an opposed skill check. With an opposed skill check, one creature attempts a skill check to try accomplish some action or task, while another creature attempts its own skill check to determine the DC the first creature must meet or exceed to accomplish its goal."

When/How would the Android Flat Affect racial trait apply if an Android is attempting to use the bluff skill to lie?

Flat Affect:
Androids find emotions confusing and keep them bottled up. They take a –2 penalty to Sense Motive checks, but the DCs of Sense Motive checks attempted against them increase by 2.

Bluff(Lie):
...If the creature is suspicious or attending carefully to your lie (as per the detect deception task for Sense Motive), the check is opposed by the Sense Motive check of the creature you are lying to; otherwise, the DC of this check is equal to 10 + the creature’s total Sense Motive skill bonus.

Sense Motive(Detect Deception):
...Your Sense Motive check is opposed by that creature’s Bluff check.

According to the wording of both skills, the other is the opposition skill in an opposed check, so which one sets the DC of the other? Flat Affect only increases the DC to Sense Motive checks against the Android and does not apply a penalty. Would this mean that a suspicious listener has a harder time detecting an Android's falsehood?

If the determination on which skill sets the DC is that it is always the NPC roll, then this racial trait is a universal penalty to Androids players with no benefit. Meanwhile, all NPC Androids would be especially convincing liars.