Santobon's page

For those wondering, I did some more digging. RAW they would be able to do any actions with the attack trait. So shove, trip, grapple and etc. However, by the same token, if any actions with the attack trait were successful on the illusory creature. It will end the spell.

This is because per the rules for the spells state. ”The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real, but it cannot otherwise directly affect the physical world… If the image is hit by an attack or fails a save, the spell ends…If the illusory creature hits with a Strike…” (RE PC1 337)”

Along with what I found in the Paizo FAQ, Core Rule book Errata . “Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time… An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty… An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game… Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.”

How might the illusion be effected if the caster wasn't expecting it to fall or get wet?

If not effected by water/enviroment. I would picture something like this.

IMO

As GM you need to take an special care with illusions because PF2 is pretty lenient with them. Depending of how the caster changes an illusion it can become pretty OP and you may want to limit it a bit. Due illusion are player's fiat you need to use your GM's fiat in order to balance them if they are exploiting it too much.

I can assure you I am. When I make a ruling, I understand the pc’s and npc’s must adhere to it. For my players when I make a ruling I like to give an explanation as to why, so they see my thought process. And well, trying to cover the ‘blind spots’ for this spell. My notes are getting pretty long.

Which, I get it. It’s an illusion, not a minion. Illusions are pretty open ended. While I do want them to use it. I wouldn’t want it to be abused: “Say can I make an invisible illusory creature to attack enemies? That way they get the benefits of being invisible.”

That’s a hard “no” for me. Not that my players are that big of min/maxers. But hey if it was allowed I'd understand why they'd spam that.

Not that I’m going to change anything now. I will die on a hill that Illusory Creature should at least have the uncommon trait. Just because of how open ended and ripe for abuse.

As for the gravity?
The gravity I am leaving it to my players to decide, as that I have no strong feelings for. Once it’s decided I will enforce it consistently.

As for appearing wet? Some evidence can be found in Illusory Object. ”The object appears to animate naturally, but it doesn't make sounds or generate smells. For example, water would appear to pour down an illusory waterfall, but it would be silent.”

Keeping in mind for the rules with Illusions.
“If a creature engages with an illusion in a way that would prove it's not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can't ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. Disbelieving a visual illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, which might block vision enough to leave the other side concealed.”

Added together, if an Illusory Creature was in water. The water would react around it appropriately. Bobbing up and down, ripples and small waves. However, if an enemy came close by. They would be liable to notice: No feeling or hearing any waves hitting the illusion. Which wouldn’t be enough to disbelieve it. But enough for them to try and figure out what it is, aka seek to disbelieve.

It had never occurred to me that spreading swarm might apply weapon specialization damage. I don't think it does, but I suppose it's perhaps somewhat ambiguous.

The feat says:

Weapon Specialization wrote:

You gain specialization in that weapon type, which means you add your character level to damage with the selected weapon type...

The issue is when you do damage "with" the weapon type. Are you doing the damage "with" the weapon, or with the ability called Spreading Swarm, which just happens to borrow its damage calculation from your weapon dice? I think the latter, but I could see it going the other way.

The same would apply to the Arc critical weapon effect, which provides a separate dice damage from the normal damage. Is the Arc damaging you "with" the weapon, or with the critical effect conceptually separate from the weapon itself?

A very reliable canon of interpreation with Paizo rules is: which of these options sucks relative to the other one? That is almost always the correct answer.

Exactly, I’ll probably rule that it doesn’t factor in weapon specialization. That it takes the weapon die alone, I would account if the weapon was boosted since that is adding a damage die to it.

Plus, it doesn’t specify you can use weapon specialization. Where with other Nanocyte abilities like: Esoteric Edge, Swarm Strike and Heavy Weapon Edge specifically state you can.

Yeah, you’re right. A few players characters died, and their new PC’s are ones no has played before. So of course they come to me with questions. So I have been doing a crash course on learning how: Vanguards and Nanocytes work with less then 4 days

All good points.

I completely forgot about the Four States of Awareness. I'll probably do what you guys recommended. Let it be a free action, aka banter, for them to point the enemy out. The thing would still have total concealment. But at least they have a chance to hit the thing.

In the interest of fairness. I'll drop hints to the players that this enemy can become invisible. Early enough so they can get a level up, so maybe 3 to 4 sessions, before meeting the BBEG. That way, they have enough time to plan to do something.

Happy new year, so for the most part my arrangement with “Criminal” and the Bounty Hunter Worked well, up to a point.
I spoke with the criminal about the following points:
- Stressed they did not have to be a caught criminal, perhaps they willing rat on their former company. They still wanted to be a caught criminal who cut a deal with the Stewards

- I worked shopped the Criminals and Bounty Hunters backstories, both of which had no knowledge of each other’s.
o The Bounty Hunter: An escaped android on Akiton, enslaved by a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a company owned by the Aspis Consortium.
o And the Criminal, human soldier Guard, who as you guessed it; work as a guard for the same subsidiary that enslaved the bounty hunter. They were caught for some petty crime and instead offered up more information to the Stewards on his employment.
o Stewards grant the criminal immunity and put them in witness protection while the trial is still pending.
o All the while, the criminal got: his face changed vi va magic/technology, got his true name removed from his mind, and had a special chip implanted in his brain that would record and alert the Bounty Hunter of any crimes made. Whom would have to report them to the Bounty Hunters handler. A representative of the Stewards who handles Bounties.
o I was fairly liberal with how often the chip “alerted of criminal” activity. The only time the had the chip triggered was when the person rolled a Nat 1 and hit a friendly, the chip stating “Third 3rd degree Assault.” Other wise the criminal character played it off very well, acting as the voice of reason.
- To the Bounty Hunters knowledge: The criminal was just on parole
- Now, I know you might ask “Why on earth would you put a witness to the very corporation that enslaved the player who has to keep tabs on them?”
- A. For drama should the two ever find out,
- B. If you were to ever hide a stick, what better place than with a dog?

Unfortunately, the juicy drama of them of the two finding out would never see the light of day because the Criminal character died. He was playing his level 3 soldier in the spirit of Leroy Jenkins, thinking; having a 18 EAC and 20 KAC made him untouchable.

Interesting, never considered that, granted my knowledge on the US law system is limited to Law and Order, thank you for the ideas.

I'll keep the "Linky" in my back pocket and your mentorship/apprentice program gave me an idea. Who better to hunt criminals then a criminal, perhaps the Bounty Hunter is a mentor to the criminal testing/teaching him to join the profession. Or perhaps they work together as a tag-team.

Either way, I do agree limiting him to non-lethal weapons would be a step to far. I just want to make sure it makes sense narratively but not be too harmful to handicap someones fun.

Let me first say: I am still very new to Starfinder and both players came to me with this idea.

I am in the process of running my first starfinder game, all my players are new to it too. So, one person wants to be a Bounty Hunter, the other a Criminal, they both came up with the idea that the Bounty Hunter character would be "Parole officer" to the criminal.

Which I think it is a very interesting role/dynamic in a game. However, I am having a hard time wrapping my head around a few details:

- Depending on the crime, why give the criminal a dedicated parole officer instead of letting them serve their time? Maybe the judge/jail is showing leniency towards the criminal. Or said criminal has organized crime ties and was able to get out after they made some deals.

- Now even if he were let out, would the law/parole officer even allow the criminal to be looting treasure/bodies let alone have lethal weapons?

As of right now here are some ideas I had, which would handicap the criminal character, but it would make sense, to me, for in-game lore:

1. Assuming the Bounty Hunter PC does not witness it, the criminal PC can only have non-lethal weapons and not be able to loot bodies.

2. Perhaps the Criminal has a tiny bomb implanted in their head that is synced up to a Dead-man switch within the Bounty Hunter Character. Which would detonate if: The bounty hunter dies, or the Criminal is attempting to flee, and the Bounty Hunter detonates it.

3. Maybe the Criminal is under witness protection and the Bounty Hunter is actually his body guard. But then why would they allow him to go on adventures rather then hold him in a safe house?

What are your thoughts on this? I think it's an interesting story dynamic, but I don't know how that would work in the Star finder lore. I know it would handicap the Criminal character and give the Bounty Hunter character a lot of power (The BH person in question I trust to have this power based on past games) but I don’t want to unfairly treat the Criminal.