Nitrobrude's page

*big snip*

As another similar ability, how would you rule on Reactive Strike - can it be used with Area Fire weapons? Why or why not?

Ummm...you mean the reaction that very clearly states, "Make a MELEE Strike"? No, outside of being used as an improvised melee weapon, a ranged weapon cannot be used to make a melee strike, area or not. Just like a character couldn't Kick someone as their Ranged Strike for Overwatch...

Look. Paizo wrote a trigger and a result. The trigger is met so the result happens. End of line. Same reason you can use an Area Weapon with Intimidating Shot, in which you can fire a ranged area weapon (not via Area-Fire) for the effect...because the trigger was met.

No.

You can use your Constitution modifier instead of your Charisma modifier on Intimidation checks to Coerce or Demoralize [...]

Intimidating Taunt is neither a check to Coerce nor a check to Demoralize.

Fearsome Bulwark would however apply to say, Frightening Display which states explicitly that it is an, "Intimidation check to Demoralize."

If not, is this some kind of oversight? The feat seems fairly mediocre otherwise.

Oversight? Maybe. Mediocre? No? Just a bad choice for a soldier that dumped Cha.

They have an override.

Huh? No.

They don't.

Nothing in those abilities explicitly mentions overriding the area trait limitation. They say to "make a Strike." It's obvious that they are MEANT to work with area weapons but by RAW, if Overwatch doesn't, then neither does Primary Target or Punishing Salvo. A trigger is met, the attack takes place. Pretty clear.

The closest is Punishing Salvo saying that it doesn't count as another area attack. Something Primary Target lacks by the way.

So as usual, confusion is caused by Paizo not being able to write even remotely sensibly. *shrug*

Specific trumps general. I see no reason why C shouldn't be allowed to work with an Area weapon if A and B are. Blame Paizo's wording but it's pretty clear to me. The trade off for all of these bonus Strikes is you only damage a single target but expend the same amount of ammunition as your normal Area-Fire.

A) Primary Target (Free Action): "Before you make an area attack with a weapon[...]you can make a ranged Strike as a free action with the same weapon[...]"

B) Punishing Salvo (Action):
Requirements: Your last action this turn was an Area Fire attack
”You make a follow-up Strike against your primary Target using the same weapon[...]This doesn't make a new area attack[...]”

C) Overwatch (Reaction):
Trigger: A suppressed creature within your weapon's first range increment makes a ranged attack or leaves a square during a move action it's using.
”[...]Make a ranged Strike against the triggering creature[...]”

*snip*

I personally don't see any problem other than I just don't like "Do You Know Who I Work For?" in general. Bad title, poor wording. For the combo...

• Target/s must be within 6 squares.
• Target/s must be visible to envoy.
• Target/s must be able to hear envoy or see envoy with Intimidating Glare.
• Targets must "know" of AbadarCorp, and IMHO actually care (but that's not RAW).

Especially with the amount of range and 3D movement in SF2e, this seems like a non-issue and that a level 17th Envoy has better things to do with their turn and reactions. The combo CAN be a really powerful opening when surrounded in melee but then it quickly loses steam, especially if enemies spread out. At least as far as I see it.

*snip*

But what if they start turn there then proceed to stand in it and do full attacks?

It's a game, not reality and the rules are clear on that. They take damage at the start of their turn. The penalty for not moving out is more damage at the start of their next turn. Full stop. Don't know what more to tell you.

You don't have to agree, but as they say...thems the rules.

I side with your GM in at least the face that simply taking actions doesn't cause extra damage.

I'm assuming 1e as this isn't in the 2e space. Technically? Nothing says creatures take damage for entering or standing in a wall of fire. Only when "passing through." Which of course is ridiculous, but *shrug*

If you are talking 2e...
"Any creature that crosses the wall or is occupying the wall's area at the start of its turn takes 4d6 fire damage."
...it's even clearer, but still has the issue of GMs could have different views of what "crossing," entails.

I'd side with your GM. If a creature starts their turn in a Wall of Fire they should be dealt damage is if passing through...not every time they take a move action unless you mean they start their turn in fire, leave, and come back. In which case I agree that they should receive damage in both instances.

Ebony "Take Em Alive" Feat says:

Quote:

Until the beginning of your next turn, you and your allies can add the nonlethal

trait to your attacks with weapons (without taking the normal penalty), and to your spells that deal damage and don’t have the death
or void
trait.

The two bolded "your" seem wrong. Shouldn't it be "their" or "their respective"?

Because your allies adding Nonlethal to only your Strike and Spells (but not their own) seems off.

No. "Your" is actually correct in this instance. Their would exclude you. Your excludes no one.

You and your allies = sets the subject to you and your allies, not just you alone.

Your attacks/spells = the attacks/spells of the collective you, the subject, not the singular you, the individual.

It might be more correct to replace both bolded instances of your with, "your respective attacks/spells" but it's not needed.

In my group we changed boost's text to be...

"...adds an additional damage die one step less than the weapon's listed damage die..."

...and found that helps a ton. There are still plenty of scenarios where a boost might be preferred, but still makes multiple attacks well worth it and doesn't step on class features as much. We didn't play around with cost or anything tbf, we just didn't care to.

Plasma Caster has the Art and Description of a "compact Pistol". Yet it is also a 2H Weapon. Those two don't seem to match.

And I can't really tell which direction that ambiguity should resolve into.

The stats are absolutely written by someone picturing a Bowcaster from Star Wars. The art and description is absolutely someone picturing the plasma pistol from Halo.

I'd imagine the easier fix for now is to make the stats match the boom pistol but a bit more expensive and Bulk L.

Side note...it's REALLY stupid that "Advanced Weapon" is both a proficiency group AND an unrelated weapon improvement level...Enhance Weapon making a weapon "advanced" caused so much confusion until a player noticed.

"Energy Damage in a Vacuum" variant rules a illogical, self-contradicting mess and need to be rewritten from scratch.

Apparently Lasers don't work in Vacuum, unless I literally push them into someones face. Because they deal ranged fire damage.

The same rule also say that apparently Spells don't work. But Magical Effects do, because magic breaks physics.
Magical Effects, like Spells?
So Spells don't work and do work at the same time. Or apparently a Dragons Firebreath works, but a Fireball doesn't?

While I agree and can apply the first sentence of your post to...honestly...all of 2e (PF included)... For better or worse, as mentioned, weapons don't have traits related to their energy damage. This is what leads to such nonsense as Flamethrowers work just fine underwater but an Atomic Blast spell wouldn't deal any fire damage. Instantly vaporized water from underwater detonations on Earth would like a word. *shrug*

Simple solution is for errata to remove the part about magical effects and upgrades being exempt if spells aren't supposed to work OR remove the bit about spells not working if magic is supposed to break the laws of physics (which still contradicts other entries like Aquatic Combat). The whole section (the whole book really ) already states GMs should just do what they want anyways so it really doesn't matter as long as Paizo corrects the contradiction one way or another.

Just spitballing some ways out of this.

Nothing to spitball. It just requires a 30 second errata. *shrug* I edited my PDF to remove the "Chemalyzer" bit and changed the bulk to L to be more in line with other two handed (one of worn) items. Quick and easy K.I.S.S. solution.

haha get disintegrated would give new meaning to rub some dirt on it and walk it off as you slowly pull your ash pile back together.

Instant PC mix, just add water. Lol

I would say it absolutely works. Nothing in the feat or trigger says it doesn't. Breath of Life has limitations, but being a spell it can also be used as long as you have slots, spell gems/chips/scrolls/wands/whatever. Fish From The Fall's Edge lacks limitations but is only once per day and half the range. It's a feat for a single class that does what another effect does but slightly better/different. That seems to be in line with Paizo's 2e design and I'd argue very much on purpose.

Plus...from what I hear, there are many more "everyone dies" instances so, giving them this one win might help offset future disappointment with bad luck just ending things.

That said...

For a game surrounding a trait system, I'm shocked it is utilized so poorly. How simple to have a trait like...True-Death...with something along the lines of... The death of creatures caused by effects with the True-Death trait cannot be prevented by any means.

Funnily enough Disintegrate doesn't even have the normal Death trait and nothing in the spell says that the creature dies...so strictly by RAW it doesn't die when reaching 0HP...the creature is simply blasted to fine powder but otherwise...Dying as normal? Obviously I would never actually play it that way. But with translation issues, non-native speakers, strict rule lawyers, etc I could see where arguments could be made.

We see it happening here with a "you die" effect yet nothing saying it can't be prevented by strict RAW which opens up the argument of RAI.

To be honest, Paizo doesn't word things very clearly no matter what your native language is.

But yes, you would manifest all three, or more, with a single action.

Now that we are getting quite a few sessions under our belts across a couple different tables, my primary group is finding quite a few things. These are the biggest ones I'm not seeing discussed or mentioned yet.

Compact Trait
Wording needs to be changed from...

"You can Raise a Shield with your compact shield as long as you have that hand free or are holding, but not wielding, a light object in that hand."

...to...

"You can Raise a Shield with your compact shield as long as you have that hand free or are holding, but not wielding, an object of negligible or light bulk in that hand."

...otherwise as written a character cannot take the Raise a Shield action with a Compact shield when holding a datapad, cred stick, etc because they are not "light."

Field Scientist's Toolkit
A chemalyzer is Bulk L and provides a +1 bonus to skill checks to ID unknown drug, medicinal, poison, or other chemical substances.

A Field Scientist's Toolkit contains a chemalyzer and more yet is only Bulk - and provides no such bonus.

Seems like it should have at least Bulk L and at least mention the bonus of the chemalyzer if not outright include it in addition to its own bonuses. We went 5 or 6 sessions not knowing of the chemalyzer included in the kit providing separate bonuses to checks that honestly, would have been SUPER helpful to have had in our campaign. As far as we noticed it's the only "kit" to contain items with bonuses separate from what the kit provides so we read glossed over it the same way we did "sterile bandages" in the medkit.

Phase Shield
It's described as "...often worn strapped to a limb or belt that projects a hard light barrier when deployed." But due to having the Compact trait when deployed it still requires an active hand to use. Should this not have the Installed trait instead of Retractable or the belt portion of text removed?

Hefty +X Trait
This seems to have been copy pasted with the same issue that PF2e never fixed. There needs to be clarification on if the shield with this trait needs to be raised or not to benefit from Standard Cover.

As written a shield with hefty appears to provide standard cover to its wielder, and only its wielder, at all times. This also means that its wielder, and only its wielder, can Take Cover to increase the cover to Greater. The only benefit then of Raise a Shield being that the circumstance bonus to AC would not be affected by abilities that reduce/remove cover such as an Operative's Aim ability and that you would then allow other creatures to benefit from Standard/Greater Cover.

This also means the base +3 will never really come into play. A single action to Take Cover (+4 AC, Reflex, and Stealth) vs a single action (two actions if Strength less than +X) to Raise a Shield (+3 AC, and +2 Reflex and Stealth).

If intended, "...even when not raised," being added to the end of the text would go a long way.

If not intended, "...when raised," should be added.

With how little damage, how small a range, and how expensive grenades are, I let my players not only reload them as Reload 2, but also ignore the stupid "grenades are destroyed when unloaded" bit AND just have grenades be either "launcher ready" or normal. I would say that usage stayed exactly the same but usability and utility both went way up. Other than that, and the fact that our suspension of disbelief can go a bit further, there are no noticeable changes.

While on it, we also play with a "Strike DC" that's 10+Strike Modifier instead of Class DC for Area-fire and Auto-fire attacks. We love it.

...

Whoa, we can probably pump the breaks a bit. It seems pretty obvious to me that they were comparing heritage to heritage and mistakenly viewed Networked Android as simply being exactly like Artificial Scion Android but better.

Even if so, "hey this choice is clearly always better, am I missing something," is a totally valid discussion to be had I feel.

*snip*

Here's the thing. Many of us have careers. It's totally reasonable to want a complete and useable tactical experience with right out of the box whether YOU personally think otherwise. If you think there is a more useful conversation to be had, you are welcome to start one. I won't be joining. ✌️

Maybe there's some confusion? They both are functionally similar by allowing you to bypass needing a Hacker's Toolkit in one way or another and both apply their bypass to Combat Hack and Digital Diversion but otherwise...

Artificial Scion Android:
• Gain Trained in Computers.
• +1 Bonus if Expert and item level 3+ used.

Networked Android:
• Shortwave communications with creatures with shortwave or tech constructs
• 30' distance for a some Computers skill uses.

One gives you skill training and a bonus later on. The other gives you range, but no training, and no bonus. Artificial Scion actually seems the far better option in the campaign I'm running now.

Regardless of trait, all ranged attacks have their range halved when made by or when targeting a creature that is underwater. All attacks that deal Bludgeoning or Slashing take a -2 penalty if they pass through water at all.

As with how being underwater affects weapons like say...a Skyfire Sword or Flame Thrower, you guess is as good as any as as per the example of Player Core 429, a Flaming Fangblade wouldn't be able to deal the Fire damage due to the Fire Trait of the module...a trait weapons with F damage or Flame weapon Group don't actually have AFAIK.

I feel like cinematic is the closest it's been, but has suffered from not giving players enough agency in the examples for me to want to use the system over just replacing the whole encounter with one or two skill rolls and just not having a system for starship combat in my games.

I really hope that whatever system they come to gives reasons to be doing different things each turn and have actual decisions get made.

Yeah.

I ran the Corpse Fleet encounter and almost immediately my players asked to do tasks not listed like targeting engines, taunting crew, hacking systems, etc.

I also don't get the hate on SF1e's Starship Combat, especially reading what came out after I quit running it. We're GMs really going, "oh you all explode now, game over." instead of disabling, surrendering, abandoning ship, etc? I think only once did I ever had a starship combat end in "TPK" and that was because it was a Halo: Reach style "survive until you can't" style finale mission to set up our next campaign.

Yeah...50-60% chance of A instead of B is exactly what a "barely weighted coin flip" is by definition...

*snip*

We're playing the same game, just with different expectations and points of view; neither is wrong.

I...ugh...You both seem to be completely ignoring what I'm actually saying. The topic is about tactical starship rules. Nova Rush is NOT that. Cinematic rules are NOT that.

End of line. Full stop. That's literally all there is to it.

I completely agree with you. I think the main difference between us is how much value we place on the flavour.

To me, flavour matters a lot. After all, Star Trek was "just" Wagon Train in space. Magnificent Seven is just Seven Samurai. Etc.

Whoa now, that's quite the negative assumption. I'm ALL about flavor. For me, it actually needs to be more than just flavor and set dressing. A cookie that tastes like cake is good, but some of us just want a good old ding dang slice of cake.

This thread is "man, I wish there was more fighting starships like Rogue Squadron," with you and Driftbourne saying, "What do you mean?! It absolutely feels just like you're in KoTOR!" Again, is it a bad one-shot? No. But it is very clearly a bad example of and absolutely NOT the "[actual] starship combat", many of us want and honestly expected.

If you tell people that an adventure is a great way to run heists, but the adventure is actually just the various complications that happened prior to the heist and some of the heist prep, while the heist itself is just a single abstracted roll... that isn't going to be seen an heist adventure to me and struggle to see how it'd work as a foundation for future heist adventures.

100% this. The conclusion was the worst part of Nova Rush even looking at it from a purely "I just want a dungeon crawl," lens. It's essentially a barely weighted coinflip between "You win!" and "You win! But, with a downside," that really isn't affected by the adventure choices prior.

Not sure if errata territory, but Vehicle rules in GM Core are absolute nonsense. Changing how heading works or allowing certain vehicles to bypass the "can only go forward" rule would go a long way.

Auto-Fire also needs some clarifications/corrections.

Are you talking about playing specifically Battle for Nova Rush? IF you are, then all I can say is different strokes for different folks.

Yes. Within relation to this topic, which is specifically "starship combat," and loosely how the SF2E "subsystems" kinda work. I'm not commenting on how fun the dungeon crawl is (which could quite frankly be a castle under siege with no difference other than flavor).

I'm a firm believer that people should enjoy what they enjoy and I'm genuinely happy you enjoy the game and adventure. WoTC needs more healthy competition. I'm also a firm believer that liking something doesn't make it good. *shrug*

When you play the scenario, you FEEL like you're on a starship in the middle of combat. You're frantically doing things to affect that combat

See, I'm with Milo. My group felt the opposite of what you are saying, at least mechanically speaking. Everyone had the same repetitive check/s and it was entirely up to us to be engaging beyond, "Okay roll...it was a success/failure so here's the effect...next roll please." Especially with how DCs are designed, no one felt able to leave the lane clearly designed for them.

It feels like a QTE in a video game that goes on for longer than enjoyable.

In addition to Finoan's post...

A Barathu's base/ground Speed is unaffected by wind, while their Fly Speed is, and can be boosted to 20ft with Adaptable Limbs to also allow use of the Step Action which requires a Speed of 10ft or more. The feat also doesn't appear to remove the (Hover) part of the Speed as of now, which is extra nice.

Additionally, items like the Elite Hypopen, Augmentations like the Cardiac Accelerator, Spells such as Haste, and effects like the Critical Success of the Escape Action all grant you a bonus related to the Stride action but have no effect on nor interaction with the Fly action.

Personally, I don't like that last part at all, but thems the RAW.

The text seems pretty clear that it always maintains an altitude of 6" from the surface and that if you manage to get some air, such as if you "drive off a high surface," then you lose 20ft altitude per round until landing with no harm to it nor you.

I wish all vehicles were this clearly written. The Enercopter for example can't go sideways, up, or down despite being a sci-fi rotorcraft and somehow engineers in Starfinder forgot how reverse works as no vehicle is capable of backing up...

Or it's simply still in playtest and has obvious kinks and issues that need to be worked out.

Orrrrrr....both can be true. That said...

Does the new adventure not have a stat block referencing spells that not only don't exist, but may never exist? Do we not already have an Errata post not for content...but for the official Errata itself? Are there not things repeatedly pointed out in the Core Playtest that made it to launch anyways? Are there not wonky issues with Pathfinder 2e that people have been pushing for clarification that were just copy pasted into SF2e?

Sorry I'm not gonna hold my breath and pretend Paizo sees the "obvious kinks and issues," in regards to anything.

What happened to the Mechanic class in 2e?

It's in the Tech Class Playtest and...is meh at best and drone at least is absolutely unusable at a certain point because referenced types, feats, features, etc don't exist. Like a lot of SF2e (and even PF2e) I'm finding, it seems like it was written by multiple people that weren't allowed to talk to one another.

If I am on a business trip and the rule is "You can use your per diem for meals or spend your own money up to what is in your wallet at the time" that doesn't mean that my meal costs are limited to the lower of the two amounts.

It won't let me edit my post so I have to reply again but once home I realized I'm very confused. You completely misread my post you were replying to... or you are agreeing with me without realizing it...I never said you take the lower overall.

Idk what more to say though. People can rule however they want. Not my game. ‍♂️

*snip*

It doesn't do "nothing." A Mystic with Crafting can use Hammer (a normally martial weapon) as a Simple Weapon. But, if they want to apply their full simple weapons proficiency to apply they need to continue to up their crafting too. Pretty clear.

If I am on a business trip and the rule is "You can use your per diem for meals or spend your own money up to what is in your wallet at the time" that doesn't mean that my meal costs are limited to the lower of the two amounts.

"You can get reimbursed for any meal purchased with your own money up to your per diem rate." TIFIFY..

UP TO absolutely means a maximum is set. So...for the Hammer...you can use your SIMPLE WEAPON proficiency UP TO your CRAFTING PROFICIENCY. That is...your Simple is CAPPED by your Crafting. And that's only IF it's higher than your NORMAL (Martial) PROFICIENCY. With the hammer. Dang...

So I am going to argue that it is weird no matter which way you interpret it.

Argue away. ✌️

This is not worth it. I find it reasonable. Whatever.

You are welcome to feel that way and run it however you want. But it's not reasonable in any way shape or form that a helmet with it's own air supply doesn't also protect against smoke. Have a good one ✌️

...it isn't even filtering air, just passing it through, even if your helmet is on, ...

"...others can be closed with helmets and AIRTIGHT SEALS."

"...armor is designed to cycle down, refill its air supply, and FILTER in the surrounding environment."

We can agree or disagree with the mechanical change but wow can we please stop with the mental gymnastics to justify the in-universe logic? There is absolutely NO reason armor described as AIRTIGHT with its own AIR SUPPLY can't protect against smoke inhalation. Why can it refill its air supply with clean air while in a toxic environment but not supply the user with said clean air? It makes no sense.

RAW, if you are in a vacuum and fly through a "smoke" cloud, you aren't protected. If you are underwater and someone releases poison in the water, your suit filters out the water and then I guess just releases gas to poison you. It makes no sense.

Paizo could have just as easily have used PF1e rules with zero issues and added in a clause like...
"In exceptionally hazardous environments, at GM's discretion, environmental protections only last 1hr/level (minimum 1hr)," or something balanced if needing PCs to face environmental hazards is such a priority. Or heck, just remove them entirely. 🤷‍♂️

Grenades are....interesting.

I'm sure there's a reason, but I don't understand why grenades weren't just given the Area (Burst) trait in the first place. Silliness of grenades interacting with abilities like the Soldier's Bombard fighting style aren't prevented due to said fighting style referencing "area attacks" and not the area trait.

Teeeeechnically by a strict reading of RAW, only Operatives and Envoys can get Critical Specialization with grenades since grenades are defined as "guns" due to being a ranged weapon with the tech trait. I would personally just include Grenades in any ability that references area attacks and be done with it.

Especially since the only two grenades with critical specializations, in the SF2ePC at least, are Incendiary Grenades and Electromag Grenades and the effects aren't amazing anyways.

So by my read of it, you never look at the Martial proficiency. It's a Martial weapon for purposes of feats and the like but it ALWAYS uses Simple or Skill for attacking.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree based on...

"...martial weapon as a simple weapon[...]up to your proficiency with the listed skill (if higher than your normal proficiency for this weapon)."

...emphasis mine. You get to treat a martial weapon with the professional trait as a Simple Weapon if and only IF your Simple Weapon Proficiency (capped by the Skill)y is higher than your normal proficiency for this weapon, which is Martial.

It's overly worded but the text is pretty clear IMHO.

"For purposes of proficiency, you treat this martial weapon as a simple weapon or this advanced weapon as a martial weapon, up to your proficiency with the listed skill (if higher than your normal proficiency for this weapon)."

You use the original proficiency or the calculated proficiency, whichever is higher. The calculated proficiency is the lower of the skill or new weapon proficiency.

So for Hammer...

Step 1: Compare Crafting Skill Proficiency to Simple Weapon Proficiency. Take the lower.

Step 2: Compare proficiency from step 1 to your Martial Weapon proficiency, use the higher for attacking with your hammer.

Character examples...

Character 1: Simple Weapons Expert, Martial Weapons Trained, no craft skill. Craft is lower than Simple. Martial is higher than Craft. Character uses their Martial proficiency of trained to attack with their Hammer.

Character 2: Simple Weapons Expert, Martial Weapons untrained, Craft Master. Simple is lower than Craft. Simple is higher than Martial. Character uses their Simple Proficiency of Expert to attack with their Hammer.

No, it's 8 PDF pages which when printed only takes 4 pieces of paper... That's right.

Luckily support agreed that it was absolutely wrong, refunded me, updated the information on the store, and is supposedly escalating this to determine how such bad information was presented in the first place. The physical folio advertises the same information on the website. $14.99 for a whopping 4 pieces of paper in a folder is asinine.

I have the 1e folio and going from 20 useful pages with information, charts, diagrams, and art down to 8 lackluster pages that are just ugly rectangular text boxes is...quite a concerning drop in care and quality.

I posted here hoping the PDF was bugged only to find out that nope, it's actually that bad. Very disappointed in Paizo right now.

Really disappointed and seeing if anyone has gotten the physical folio because I'm hoping the PDF is just missing half the pages in some big error and not Paizo being deceptive.

The description:
"This folio’s 16 character-defining pages include:

Expanded space for your hero's ability scores, feats, and class features
A diagram to help fill every item slot, including augmentations!
Room to chronicle your character's achievements, goals, and history.
Quick reference charts to character advancement.
Tons of space to track gear.
…and much, much more!"

The reality...
• Only 8 Pages... Mostly just normal character sheet info spread out a bit more to take up space.
• No diagrams for augmentations or equipment. Just plain text boxes.
• No quick reference charts other than the exact same Ancestry and General Feats text areas from the standard character sheet.
• There is an entire page to track gear, I'll give them that.
• …and not much more of anything else...