Nimor Starseeker's page

Starfinder Charter Superscriber. 264 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ravien999 wrote:

Came across this discussion again last night.

There's both precedence in both directions.
1. The Stellar mode section says "some of your revelations are X aligned and become more powerful while attuned." This leads you to believe that if a power has "while attuned or fully attuned" that it is referring to that specific mode, but...
2. Looking at the revelations, only a few explicitly state a specific attunement - most just say "while attuned or fully attuned" but we have the precedence set by Black Hole/Supernova and other zeniths that it will explicitly call out which attunement when you must be attuned to a specific mode.

So its really a question of which it is meant to be, and there's evidence in both realms to argue for it. If its meant to be left up to GM interpretation, that'd be a nice callout :)

Some powers say you have to be in either photon or gravity mode, others don’t. You just have to read the power to make sure you which it is. Both options are valid depending on the power.

Some powers will work even without being attuned at all. For example Flare. When you become attuned, it becomes better.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

For plasma sheath, I rule that:

if you are in photon mode, it lasts until you leave photon mode. You also get 1/2 lv damage.

If you are in graviton mode it lasts for 1 round. You also get 1/2 lv damage.

If you are unattuned, it lasts 1 round and you do NOT get 1/2 lv damage.

That’s all according to the rules, unless I missed something.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Maybe this was a typo, and should have said something along the lines of: Until the end of you next turn...
It would make a lot more sense..


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I got the Pathfinder Ultimate Psionics guide about 3 years ago and I really like the book. We have been using it in the Rise of the Rune Lords AP. I look forward to when the Starfinder one comes out. Whenever that will be.. the creator keeps getting hit with personal life stuff and now with Corona, well... not much you can do


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
GeneticDrift wrote:
Nimor Starseeker wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:
The computer interface helps melee. It can turn on your jet pack or haste circuit.
This is a great catch - getting the full benefit of the haste circuit going on you first turn is an excellent boon!
Well the end of your first turn assuming you activate it with combat banter as a free action before your turn. Still, it helps.

You would activate it as a free action, so you can use you full-action on your first turn. I don’t see why you would get the benefit at the end of your first turn. Please explain.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
GeneticDrift wrote:
The computer interface helps melee. It can turn on your jet pack or haste circuit.

This is a great catch - getting the full benefit of the haste circuit going on you first turn is an excellent boon!


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If the weapon does not have sufficient ammunition, or charges, it cannot be fired.

However, this is a game, and depending on how your Game master calls it, he or she is might impose a penalty if you only have part of the ammunition/charges needed. For example: half damage.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

As a game master / StarLord, I would rule like this:

Creatures of equal size or less than the power armor, use the given size of the power armor. Creatures using power armors larger than themselves has never been a problem.

Creatures larger than the power armor, must have the armor size increased to fit them. Large creatures must have minimum large armors. I treat this the same way a kasathan would have to have his armor adjusted for four arms.

This is the most efficient way if dealing with this, without any troubles.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I would say that for power weapons you pay triple the cost and the weapon stays powered for 1 min and you gain the extra damage for 1 attack.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Judging by the text from the biohack description from the COM page 42:

Does a biohacher using a caustoject to deliver a biohack inflict damage with the attack?

-You have to damage the target in order for the biohack to take effect. If you do not damage the target, the biohack cannot be delivered and is expended.

As for the caustoject, COM page 123, if the syringe is used instead, and you do not damage the target, the biohack would be have no effect if the material in the syringe did no damage to the target.
If the contents of the syringe do damage the target, then you can deliver the biohack.

So..
It’s a biohack you don’t have to worry about.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You renew the grapple check with a combat maneuver grapple check at you have to hit a KAC +2, because the target has the grappled condition that gives them a -2 AC penalty.
If the target is pinned, you would have to hit KAC +0 to maintain the grapple because the pinned condition gives a -4 penalty to AC, or a KAC +9 to
Maintain the pinned condition.

I think that if you choose to attack first, you are not maintaining the grapple, so you have to hit the KAC +4 again, but if you maintain you have a better chance at succeeding.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In our games we play that PA ignores the movement hampering effects from difficult terrain.

We play that haste doesn’t increase speed by 30, but still lets you move and full attack.

We play that slow doesn’t doesn’t halve movement but still makes you staggered.

This is not a problem so far. Does anyone else do this?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Haste circuit is only for light and heavy armor, not power armor. CRB 206.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Miley "Cueball" Norveg wrote:
Now I can come in like a wrecking ball....

User name checks out : )


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What are some good examples of using the analyst envoy expertis? A player in my group wants this ability and I (Game Master / Starlord) want to make encounters where this can be used. I want to give the player opportunities to shine being this detective/investigator type. I just don’t know how to employ true/false negatives/positives into the adventure. Normally, I just tell the pc if they succeed or fail their sense motive rolls.

Does anyone have good examples of using false/true positives and false/true negatives in their campaigns?

From the CRB 64
Analyst (Ex; Sense Motive)
You have been taught to carefully consider your own assumptions, making it much less likely you assign false motives to other creatures. When using Sense Motive to detect deception or discern a secret message, as long as your expertise die roll result is not a 1, you dorn’t think a truthful statement contains deceptions or infer false information from a secret message even if you fail your check by 5 or more.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Good on you for sharing this, I intend to run this AP at some point. These details are good to know before starting.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Inspiring Oration and inspiring boost auto improve at lv 15 but can be chosen at lower levels.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Pantshandshake wrote:

Regarding force fields: You can’t just take the first sentence. Read the whole thing. Like this part: While a force field is active, you gain a number of temporary Hit Points depending on the force field’s power. All damage dealt to you is subtracted from the force field’s temporary Hit Points first.

You, the character, gain temporary hit points (not your items.) When damage is done to you, the character, it comes off of these first.

Regarding repairing items: The cost for fixing a damaged item is fair. The opportunity to do so may or may not arise, depending on party makeup, the adventure itself, downtime, etc. And again, if a PC’s very expensive armor is destroyed, then the GM needs to replace it via an item or equivalent cash, so why did we go through the trouble of making all these house rules?

Regarding Sunder, armor hp, and damage in general: The fact that there is a Sunder maneuver in the game, and the fact that armor has HP and hardness, are, at present, two entirely different sets of rules that do not interact. Consistently pointing out that Sunder is a thing and armor HP/hardness is a thing, and using that as ‘proof’ that you can sunder armor is kind of like telling me that ice cream is purple, and that’s why it has no bones. It doesn’t make any sense.

Additionally, while I don’t necessarily disagree with you that logically Sunder would work on armor, by the rules, it does not. So, I appreciate that you WANT it to work, but it doesn’t, and repeating ‘but it should!’ isn’t doing anything. If you want it to work in your game, its house rules, and I hope you can create a set of house rules that are fair and not broken.

We are literally at the crossroads where Logic and game mechanics are at odds!

For example, force fields cover you, your armor, your weapons and whatever you are holding but won’t take effect for any of those things except your PC. That’s the game mechanic but logically force fields should take damage for your armor, your weapon or whatever you are holding as well. I would argue that despite the rules not spelling it out, it is implied that force fields covering weapons would also work against sunder maneuvers against held weapons. By extension this should apply to your worn armor as well. However it’s not explicitly stated.

In all fairness, yes, I do want sunder maneuvers to work on armors, but I am not reasoning that on what I want, I am bringing up substance that indicates that it should work on armor as well.

-there is a lv 1 armor upgrade that increases hardness and HP of armor that almost serves no other purpose than a few rare fringe cases. It only makes sense to have this as a boost against sunder maneuvers. I challenge you to come up with a few other good reasons.

-armor just like weapons has hardness, hp and broken conditions. Why are weapons affected but allegedly not armor?

-even the armor hardness and hit points scale up vs weapon damage of equal level. You are not going to easily one-shot someone’s armor with a sunder maneuver and put them beyond the broken condition.
At lv1 the hardness is 7 and the hp is 18. So if you want to one shot break an armor or weapon you need to deal 16 points of damage in one go
At lv 20 the hardness is 45 and hp is 105. You need to deal over 100 dmg to break it with a asunder maneuver.

I can agree that the rules don’t explicitly state that sunder armor is a thing, but everything you need to do, is set up for it and ready. (Except the ulrikka fusion- that thing is powerfull!)

Hmm, maybe one of the developers are reading this and can answer:

Can you sunder armor?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
HammerJack wrote:

Just because the sunder maneuver doesn't target armor without a bit if houseruling doesn't mean that traps or environmental hazards can't damage armor, along with the wearer. There are a few cases of that in Paizo's published adventures.

Also, just because allowing sunder to target armor requires a house rule doesn't mean you can't/shouldn't use that houserule at your table, if your group would enjoy it. I would just warn that the biggest risk associated with that is that "Death from spacesuit breach" may become more common tHan you wanted. Obviously, this risk goes way down if your adventures are in environments with breathable atmospheres.

Thanks for this feedback : ) I always enjoy people at these forums replying with good feedback.

Broken armors have set penalties (1/2 AC and 2x skill penalty), but not environmental protections, so you are safe from the space suit breach until the armor is destroyed. CRB, 273. That in itself is not house ruling, but being able to sunder armor might be. I’m not entirely convinced sunder armor is beyond the rules. There might be some more information somewhere.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Pantshandshake wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying armor can't take damage or be broken. We're just saying that armor isn't a valid target for Sunder.

As far as force fields, they pretty specifically say they protect you, and not your items.

So, you'd have to house rule that Sunder works on armor, and that force fields work on carried items, not just the character.

Also keep in mind, this isn't Pathfinder. If you break my full plate, Its fairly trivial to get a new set if I can't fix it or get it fixed.

If you break my 30K power armor, and I can't fix it or get it fixed for basically free, then you need to either:
Replace the armor for the character
Ensure the character gets enough extra credits/loot to repair the armor
Ensure the character gets enough extra credits/loot to replace the armor (if it cannot be repaired.)

Otherwise you've 100% broken the WBL for that character, possibly for the remainder of its life.

In regards to Force Fields the rules book (to my surprise and probably yours too) actually says otherwise.

CRB 206, Force Fields: Once active, the device generates an invisible force field around you, including all your worn and carried items.

Fixing stuff, CRB 142, engineering allows you to fix items at a cost of 10 UPBs per item level if it’s broken, destroyed items are lost. The cost is negligible unless you have to replace a destroyed item. That’s fair isn’t it?

As for your first statement, I am having a hard time making sense of it, because why else would armor have hardness and hp and an upgrade option to increase its hardness and hp, if you cannot sunder it? There are items that improve your sundering abilities.

By looking at the CRB page 246 rules on Sunder don’t include armor, and that is kind of weird, because of the above statement. Anyway, rules ref below:
You deal damage to one object held in the target’s hand or accessible on its body. The object must be something that could be drawn easily by the target as a move action (see Draw or Sheathe a Weapon on page 247). The damage is reduced by an amount equal to the object’s hardness (see Smashing an Object page 409).

This description is confusing, since armor is not included, and I claim that logically you would be able to sunder armor too, since things are set up for it, but.. maybe I’m wrong, but then what the heck is the Tensile armor upgrade for?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Adamantium will only be useful against hardness less than 30 so level 13 items (5+2x13=31) are safe. That’s a long way from safe at lv 13!

With textile reinforcement it will be lv 8. Still, a little safer, but not much.

Obviously with the Ulrikka Duster fusion and penetration weapons I’m not sure anything is safe.

Force fields might play a role. Like, why wouldn’t they work against sundering attacks? Correct me if I’m wrong.

You can also say some enemies are not affected by this because they are aberrations or some or another monster that does not use armor. Some do and you need to get close to them to pull off the maneuver. You are in a sense sacrificing a damaging attack to give everyone better attacks afterwards if you can successfully do it in one attack. The benefit is of course easy attack rolls.

As a GM I might not allow the Ulrikka Duster. Apart from that this doesn’t have to be game breaking. It can be a valid choice.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It does seem to look ugly now. Would force fields counteract this you think?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Armors can get the broken condition. This surely implies that it takes damage.
CRB 273 If the item is armor, the bonuses it grants to AC are halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty to skill checks.
As for 1 hit destroy armor sunders, well, let’s see.

A lv 1 armor would have a hardness of 7 (5+2*lv1) and 18 hp (15+3*lv1). So you have to deal 16 points of sundering damage to break the armor in a single hit.
With the Tensile reinforcement the hardness would be 17 and hp would be 33.

A lv 5 armor would have a hardness of 15 and 30 hp. So 30 points of damage in a single sundering maneuver to break it.
With the tensile reinforcement the hardness would be 25 and hp be 45.

I don’t think that it is unreasonable with sundering working against these numbers. What do you think?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It wouldn’t be unreasonable that sunder works on armor too wouldn’t it? Pherhaps it was simply not stated clearly but the armor upgrade implies that it does?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There has to be others because it’s a lv 1 armor upgrade.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Pantshandshake wrote:
You can't actually sunder armor, though.

Then what is the purpose of the tensile armor upgrade?

CRB armor upgrades page 207
When calculating your armor’s hardness and Hit Points (see page 409), treat it as if its item level were 5 higher.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In all fairness you are choosing grappling bonuses above other bonuses that could have given you other well needed/useful bonuses. If you want to build a good grappler, you should be able to build a good grappler. For some enemies it will be very efficient, but not all. Some enemies will be radioactive and grappling them will fry your butt!
You GM could also adjust encounters with monsters that are challenging against grapplers yet still inclusive to the grapplers abilities if things start to feel to easy all the time.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Metaphysician wrote:
If the PCs haven't reached attack range yet, why did the enemies attack? They have surprise, that means they don't need to engage unless they feel like engaging.

I can see by your comments that I may have started combat to early, and should have had the monsters try to sneak all the way adjacent to the party before starting surprise rounds. That way would have been better for the combat (more of a challenge). The moved into range in the surprise round and took a heavy punishment for losing initiative during round 1. A good sneak would have let them attack during the surprise round.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In my case it was the Incident at Absalom Station AP. The party was exploring the space ship and walked into the room with the Akatas. The room was dark and the Akatas are stealthy and became aware of the party before the party noticed them. The Akatas got a surprise round but rolled low initiative and all of them acted second in round 1. I
Moved the Akatas next to the party so to force them to provoke OA when shooting but they simple took guarded steps back and shot at them. It felt a bit off, having a surprise round against the party but tactically at a disadvantage.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Garretmander wrote:
Nimor Starseeker wrote:

I think you have a fair analysis.

There is no partial charge action like there is in Pathfinder.

Within the rules, what would you think is the best action for the monsters?

I think I could have shortened my house rule suggestion down to:
I want the melee monsters to delay their actions during the surprise round until the very start of the 1st round so they can act first with a full set of actions.
The party will no longer be surprised (flat footed) and that might be a fair trade off.

I'd either delay so they have full actions, or build the monsters with more initiative.

That is practically what I am doing on the side of monsters. I looked up the rules for delaying actions, and it does unfortunetly no actually seem to allow it, because you have to act after another creature has taken its turn. That's why it has to be an odd house rule. I dont think its overpowered, but rather gives the edge you are supposed to have for getting the jump on the party.

ref: CRB 249

Delay If you aren’t sure what to do when it’s your turn, you can delay taking an action until other characters have taken their turns. You must declare that you are delaying before taking any actions on your turn (this does not require spending any of your actions). After any creature takes its turn in the initiative order, you can come out of delay and take your turn. This changes your initiative count to the current initiative count for the remainder of the combat. If you used a reaction on your previous turn and then chose to delay, you still regain your reaction at the beginning of your original turn, not when you take your delayed actions.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think you have a fair analysis.

There is no partial charge action like there is in Pathfinder.

Within the rules, what would you think is the best action for the monsters?

I think I could have shortened my house rule suggestion down to:
I want the melee monsters to delay their actions during the surprise round until the very start of the 1st round so they can act first with a full set of actions.
The party will no longer be surprised (flat footed) and that might be a fair trade off.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I don't normally suggest house rules but here goes:

The problem:
Monsters getting a surprise round, but all acting second in the initiative order.
This is worse than actually acting first in initiative order. At least when you act first in initiative, you have a full round worth of actions. In a surprise round, you should have an edge, but you actually might not get an edge if you act second in initiative.

Example:
A group of melee monsters gets the jump on the party, granting a surprise round. They are about 20-40 ft away from the group party. Some of them will be able to move up next the the group party, but they will not be able to attack. What happens next is that after everyone has rolled initiative, the monsters go second. So the entire group get their full actions (swift+move+standard) in round 1 before the group of monsters. The party takes a 5 ft guarded step back and shoot the monsters.

I thought that perhaps I made a bad choice for the melee monsters to move adjacent to the party, maybe they should have gone for cover or taken full defensive actions to boost their ACs.

The proposed solution:
I think if the monsters get the jump on the party, they should skip the surprise round, instead jump into round 1 acting first with a full round worth of actions, because acting first is more advantageous than acting in a surprise round but second in initiative during round 1.

So my house rule would be like this:
Monsters (not players) skip the surprise round and act first. This rule is only for the monsters, not group/party.
Depending on what initiatives were rolled, I would let the monsters get surprise and act first in round 1 if they rolled very well, but if they rolled poorly, skip the surprise round and simply act first in the surprise round, or else their surprise round is kind of a disadvantage.

So am I overthinking this?
Does anyone agree, or should I be taking other actions with my monsters against the party?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I thought the purpose of it was to be able to trick attack in a surprise round- as you have pointed out, it is a lot more! Thanks for sharing.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Do you think it over powered? Or did you generally mean, if the PCs are allowed to use the COM? I would like to hear your thoughts.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You can get the operative alternate feature: quick trick from the COM page 82. It lets you trick attack as a standard action. That way you can do trick attacks in the surprise round.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
The big problem with extra manifestation is you have to be fully attuned to have both. I suppose a switch hitter who wants only one option (probably weapon or flare) at a time could work, but it takes too long to get a second manifestation out in combat.

There is a feat that lets you become fully attuned if you spend an RP. There may be other benefits depending on which revelations are chosen. Is it worth a feat? Well, I think you can make something strong out of this and by that stage in the game you will have more RP to spend, so..


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Joe Pasini wrote:
jim reynolds 283 wrote:
When overhealing to Stam with the Medic out of COM do you have to heal HP first before you are allowed to over heal?
Yep!

Im so glad you sorted this out for us. Thanks for getting back to us all in the forums : )


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I an really looking forward to trying this out. For those who missed it, you can download the Alexa App on your smartphone if you don’t have an Alexa at home. I’ve always wanted to try something like this. Let’s see where this takes us.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Dont forget you too add weapon specialization damage. As long as you are hitting 2 or more enemies, you will almost always deal more damage than single target weapons. And that is despite the fact that the weapon die is usually about half that of a single target weapon.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you trip someone, your team mates get a +4 bonus on their melee attacks against that target, which is a big bonus.

You might consider making yourself prone to get a bonus against ranged attacks For that matter.

Other combat maneuvers have their purposes, like or moving someone in a acid pit. You can find plenty of situations where their benefits are well worth the attempt.

Someone whom is tripped, have to use their move action to stand up, and melee attacking from prone gives penalties. Worth mentioning, standing up does not provoke OA. Someone whom is prone is not getting away from you as easily either.

Hope that helps a bit, there are plentiful of other possibilities.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

BNW- Thanks for the feedback! Ok, you are clear by the way things are written, that you can interpret both ways.
However, the latter interpretation seems so unreasonable, that I cannot fathom that being intentional. Here is an example of showing why:

Example: I have 2 soldiers A and B.

-Soldier A, is at full 9 HP and under the latter interpretation cannot receive the doctor’s treatment, because the clause is not present.

-Soldier B, is at 8 of 9 HP and can receive the doctors treatment because the conditions are met, so he will benefit any surplus healing.

Just a single hp separates these two soldiers from receiving the doctor’s treatment. Ask yourself, why should that be a condition? It is not abusive to the game mechanics. If it is, please show me how?
Furthermore I think that the intention of Doctors treatment is that you can heal on top of Stamina as wel. using items and magic when players want to avoid using RP or don’t have the RP or time to rest and heal up.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Here is what the test says, exactly:

Whenever you use equipment or one of your abilities
to restore Hit Points to a creature, any surplus healing beyond that required to restore the creature to its maximum Hit Points restores that many Stamina Points to the creature.

Ok, so the ability specifically says, that surplus healing goes into Stamina points. It does not actually say that the spill-over is contingent that there be hit points healed in order for the ability to work. Why should that be a thing?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

As a GM, sure, you can. This is how I rule: You can heal The target directly into stamina if the target is already full on HP.
You are reading to much into the ability, when you say it cannot. If not, you could get around it by injuring the target until he gets into HP and then heal him, So that the superfluous healing will spill over into stamina, but that would be ridiculous and makes little sense.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

When I GM, I generally rule that forced movement does not provoke opportunity attacks, unless specified by the ability/source. This avoids any shenanigans.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Just buy a bunch of bombard fusions, then you all will be plentiful of Grenades for each combat.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I GM this by rolling saves separately for each disease. Multiple diseases means multiple progression states - not a good place to be, because one disease might make saving throws for the second disease more difficult!


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Combat maneuver Grapple and Grab (EX)

Attempting a combat grapple maneuver is KAC +8 and +13 to pin.
I just found out that the Grab (EX) that monsters have is KAC +4 and 13 to pin
Ref. AA 155

I just thought it strange that monsters would still have to hit KAC +13 instead of 9 to pin, since Grab (EX) is already 4 less. Is this intentional or an error?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

Resolve as anything but a health management mechanic was a total flop for my group. We all actively avoid options with a Resolve cost unless it directly relates to HP or avoiding death.

That's another reason I'd love to get a PF2 addon for Starfinder conversion.

Me and my group enjoy Starfinder, however they did comment on how resolve is tied to both health and special ability source and would rather have had them separate. I, for one, like it how it is. Resolve is a valuable resource, use it wisely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

My 2 cents. I enjoy SF a lot and do not want a second edition. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, but I doubt it. I really like what I have now. I look forward to whats coming. Some updates to the FAQ/errata would be nice.

1 to 50 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>