1. Can a Soldier take the same Gear boost multiple times, and do untyped effects provided by these boosts stack?
2. Do multiple applications of an effect generated by a gear boost, such as flash freeze, stack upon an opponent?
Soldier gear boosts do not provide language to explain whether:
The same boost can be taken more than once
Multiple duplicate un-typed boosts stack their bonuses
Mutliple applications of the same boost (such as flash freeze) stack on an opponent.
Most other similar abilities provide something along the lines of:
"If a character somehow has the same feat more than once, the benefits of these feats do not stack unless indicated otherwise"
Similar rules that follow this pattern (not stackable unless the text says otherwise), but all have that text in the rule itself:
Feats (p152)
Mechanic Tricks (p70)
Drone Mods (p75)
Operative Exploits (p93)
Stellar Revelation (p102)
When exceptions occur allowing you to take the item more than once, it generally does not stack, and you need to apply it to another item/resist/whatever.
Similar language is also omitted from boosts that provided a numerical effect on an opponent, like flash freeze:
"When you hit a creature with a weapon in the cryo category, that creature’s speeds are reduced by 10 feet for 1 round, to a minimum of 10 feet."
Leaving the ability ambiguous as to whether multiple applications in a full attack would stack or not.
Stacking vs not stacking is usually explicitly stated in the rule, but in this case, it is not. Since most similar rules don't allow the stacking by default, I'd expect many people to make the assumption that the lack of wording is an oversight, not an implication of exception to the norm.
However, RAW: until we get an FAQ request on the topic, people have some pretty good grounds for arguing that the bonuses (outside of stacking same typed insight bonuses) do actually stack.
I like the idea of this system, as I think that it supports an emphasis on gear, which I think many people looking at the soldier class will find appealing.
Most of the abilities are boosts to your weapons: which, at a glance, sounds reasonable. Weapons are important to a martial class focused on combat.
However:
a soldier gets 5 boosts by level 20, lets look at what options you have open.
Armor Gear Boosts:
Armored Advantage: can fit any build (unless it's something strange that doesnt use armor)
Weapon Gear Boosts:
Anchoring Arcana: weapon based action, requires magic weapon
Brutal Blast: Blast weapon bonus
Bullet Barrage: Projectile weapon bonus
Electric Arc: Shock weapon bonus
Flash Freeze: Cryo weapon bonus
Heavy Onslaught: Heavy Weapon bonus
Laser Accuracy: Laser Weapon bonus
Melee Striker: Melee weapon bonus
Plasma Immolation: Plasma weapon bonus
Powerful Explosive: Explode weapon bonus
Sonic Resonance: Sonic Weapon bonus
Non Weapon/Armor Equipment based Boosts:
None.
That's the whole list. There's not even a fire weapon specific option, which is interesting.
There is a total of 1 non-weapon gear boost, and, if you want to focus on 1 particular style of weapon, you can't use the majority of those weapon boosts.
Right now, most late-game builds will do one of three things:
1. Go the 'always prepared' route, and carry 4 different types of guns, each with a different boost.
2. Grab Armored advantage, one weapon boost, Maybe grabbing anchoring arcana. Consider the others to be wasted.
3. Try some shenanigans with combinining as many weapon boosts as possible, such as using an HFD Screamer with fusion: frost to use Brutal Blast, Sonic Resonance, Flash Freeze and Heavy Onslaught all together.
What is my point?
By level 20, gear boosts run out of steam, and out of options for many builds. We need more comprehensive options for armour and non-weapon gear, as well as possibly more weapon ones that stack/synergize with the existing weapon options.
I'm all for having the 'always prepared' soldier carrying ALL the guns to be a valid option, but right now Gear boosts feel like they are missing their own section.
Since we don't really have an equipment supplement yet: and much of the actual gear is probably still being developed, I understand why it's a bit light on the content, however I'm hoping that any PHB or Ultimate Equipment style supplements rectify this issue.
The Core rulebook has most of the PDF bookmarks override the default (user defined) zoom settings, and instead force "zoom to page level" on most pages.
This is difficult to read, as it makes text rather small.
This makes reading easier, as you can see text more clearly (due to it being a more regular size), however, ironically, this seems to only be applied to full image spreads: actual text pages require you to press CTRL-2 after using each bookmark, to bring it up to a readable size.
Basically: Neither Adobe Reader nor Adobe Acrobat users (due to permissions) can change the settings of these bookmarks (probably to keep the username ID/watermark intact, which is fine) however, since there's a readily available option to set them to inherit zoom, which is essentially "use default defined by user in their own settings", this would be much more preferable.
When you are reading a portrait PDF on a landscape screen, it's usually inappropriate to be viewing it at the "zoom to page level" which fits the entire page on your screen, and makes writing very tiny.
It's probably possible to fix at a file level, but that's really cumbersome, and beyond the scope of most users, who (I assume) would prefer their own default zoom to be applied - users can still set it to default to "zoom to page level" if that's their own personal preference.
Request:
When your designer (or whoever finalises the bookmarks in your PDFs) creates the bookmarks in Acrobat, please ask them to use "inherit zoom level" so that we can define our own, according to preference.
If the bookmark structure is applied via plugin (due to watermarks), please modify the plugin accordingly.
Thanks :)
PS: I should state that other than that, I love the attention to detail applied to the bookmarks section: the zoom level is literally my only gripe with the PDFs, so great job :)
22 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
The feat Blind Fight only explicitly states that it allows:
1. rerolls vs concealment
2. invisible attackers get no advantages related to hitting you in melee (you don't lose dex to AC, nor grant them +2 to hit)
Since it explicitly states 'invisible' and not 'you cannot see them for whatever reason', a RAW reading can then assume that the feat does not deny those bonuses (but still rerolls concealment) if you are blinded, or fighting in darkness ('effectively blinded').
A quick reading of the rules will automatically assume that inability to see someone equals invisibility to you, but the RAI and RAW are at odds.
Does the feat negate the advantages due to being unable to be seen, or only if the attacker is specifically under the effects of invisibility?
If you think this is an ambiguous rule, where RAI and RAW are contradictory, or at least misleading: please click that little old FAQ button at the top of this post :)
During Combat The rogue uses Spring Attack and Lightning Stance to reach opponents, and uses his rapier of puncturing to make sneak attacks.
By RAW I could see people not allowing these feats to interact (wind stance would interact fine, just not lightning). But I could also see people allowing the feats to stack, due to the move -> attack -> move nature of spring attack, as well as providing some usage for a feat that seems a bit lackluster.
If a character uses Circling Mongoose to attack a character with Combat Reflexes, does the Mongoose Full round action provoke once total, or once per 5ft move?
I'm inclined to say one total, due to the 'provoke once per move' thing: considering its one action, however since the move is split up by attack actions, this complicates things.
The implementation of the Net weapon, and its interactions with the Net Adept line of feats contains a lot of convoluted rules, and redundant abilities: this makes the RAI hard to understand, and the RAW hard to implement.
This is further complicated by errata that have made certain parts of the feat line redundant as well.
This is a request to get the net weapon, snag net weapon, and net adept line of feats errata'd and FAQ'd into a place that allows easy use in game, without having to troll forums, write flow-charts or argue endlessly with your GM/players.
Most of these feats were released with Ultimate Combat (August 2011), and since then there have been a number of threads asking for clarification.
Responses from the community have ranged from: "RAI is clear", to "RAI is unclear" all the way down to "RAW is so unclear that we can't run it at our table"
Here is a list of threads on the topic:
Spoiler:
2011
All Tangled up This thread contains Beldhyr's write-up
Net default handed-ness, without reading the feat line seems to indicate a 1-handed exotic weapon, the feat line is the only thing contradicting this
It is unclear whether snag nets qualify for net adept line feats
It is unclear whether snag nets are a separate proficiency from regular nets
Net Adept line feats provide abilities that are available to characters already, such as tripping with your net (you can trip with any melee weapon)
Net and Trident provides some abilities that are superseded by Net Adept abilities, despite Net Adept being a pre-requisite for Net and Trident
Net Maneuvering/Trickery feats do not mention whether or not they provoke, action-type used, or attack type replaced in several locations.
Valid actions for non-entangled net, already-entangled net, and whether you can use a normal offhand net attack an entangled target with the net you have it inside are very muddy.
10 ft reach and adjacent threatening are not spelled out
The best (fair and clear) input I have found on the topic so far was Beldhyr's explanation and suggested rewrite (2011) of the feats, located here:
Since this is clearly a source of confusion from a RAW perspective, I think it's about time we got a FAQ on the issue.
If you are interested in this at all, or have read the feats/discussion and realised that the RAW is convoluted to the point of being banned at some tables: please press the FAQ button on this post, and help people bring these feats into their games.
Quick question for those who have run the whalebone pilk fight:
massive spoiler for the fight, so if you arent a DM - go no further!
Spoiler:
The encounter says that the PCs can reach pilk after killing the brine zombies, but every 6 rounds, more spawn.
Does this mean pilk does not fight until the initial zombies are dead: and that the 6 round timer does not start until the first wave dies?
I'm buffing the zombies/pilk with advanced templates and max hp, due to my group size/makeup: I'm also inclined to simply have pilk harpoon first round, then get stuck in, but I'd like to hear from anyone who's run the encounter before?
Did the fight last more than 5 rounds for you? As written, pilk looks nasty enough, if he doesnt get killed within 4 rounds: but if he doesnt fight until his minions die, his health pool doesnt seem to have much room for delaying a barbarian from ending the encounter in short order.
Also: i'm planning to just use the zombies slams, instead of the rusty cutlasses, as they arent proficient with them, and the cutlass damage is less anyway...
I started a subscription with order #3536240, and then selected ship as soon as possible, which swapped the order to #3536399, however my account sidecart is still showing it as sitting in 'next subscription shipment' with the option to click 'ship as soon as possible'.
I'm new to this whole sidecart business, is this normal functionality?
Was trying to fast track the PDF copy so that i can get to reading it.
