Moon Pendant

The Penecontemporaneous One's page

97 posts. Alias of CanisDirus.


1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Thank ye kindly!

Ventnor wrote:
Asethe wrote:
Waldham wrote:
Is it possible to use sticky poison with chain reaction ?
No. Chain Reaction's damage isn't from the bullet, it's from circumstantial, happenstance, or environmental effects. A poisoned bullet that doesn't hit anyone doesn't poison them.
Well, technically you can use special ammunition with the Chain Reaction activity. It’s just that the effects of that special ammunition only affect the first person attacked, since everyone else is hurt via Rube Goldberg madness rather than other gunshots.

Has anybody discovered whether or not Multiple Attack Penalties apply (or don't?) to the chain reaction after the first roll?

I assume that they do, but the language of this feat is just different enough from other similar things elsewhere that I wanted to check (since I have a player asking about it).

Thanks in advance if anybody has a line on this!

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
Ixal wrote:
The Penecontemporaneous One wrote:
Posting here since there is no Devastation Ark adventure path forum - let's say we're running this for a group that hasn't done one of the "assumed" APs prior to this one. Is there a recommended starting amount of credits for 13th level characters (other than the wealth by level table)?
The subforum is open by the way.
Yes, thank you for mentioning that The Penecontemporaneous One, I saw your post and asked for it to be made.

At long last, this posting handle lives up to its geological* origin. Thank ye kindly! :)

Penecontemporaneous is when "something" (like a fold or other geologic forces) act on a rock/stratum at the same time as the rocks are forming, so the forum being created at roughly the same time as my comment is just a bit dorky and perfect. Thank you again! :)

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was surprised to find this not having been asked anywhere on the rules forum before.

Hideaway Limb wrote:
This type of augmentation is for Small and Medium creatures only. Hideaway limbs for creatures larger than Medium typically cost more but can hold items of greater size or bulk.

Does anybody know if the designers have stated any place what the cost is for large+ creatures, or what limitations these augmentations have for such characters?

Thanks in advance!

Posting here since there is no Devastation Ark adventure path forum - let's say we're running this for a group that hasn't done one of the "assumed" APs prior to this one. Is there a recommended starting amount of credits for 13th level characters (other than the wealth by level table)?

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

Blake's Tiger wrote:

I believe the language is no "slotting" boons, which is a process that doesn't occur any longer. Things like wayfinders and ancestries obtained from boons were never slotted to begin with, so the playtest wayfinder--maybe all playtest boons that don't raise you past level 1--and ancestries ought to be OK.

But I'm going off memory.

The particular issue that you hit upon is that there is no language in the current guide or in any of the published bounties that says "no boons" - even though a bunch of people (myself included) remember that being mentioned at one point.

There is language detailing no free consumables / no downtime, though, so whether or not this is on-purpose is unknown at the present time.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

Nefreet wrote:
Yeah I think having an up-to-date clarification in the current Guide would be helpful.

Seconded. Currently, there is no language in any of the published bounties or the guide saying that boons are not allowed, for instance. Another GM pointed out to me that some characters require boons in order to be played, depending on what language is (or may be) used in this regard.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Well-researched and spelled out threads like this make me sad that we can't flag things as FAQ requests here, for some reason.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

And there is still confusion regarding Battle Medicine as relates to number of hands required to use healer's tools in conjunction with this feat.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dubious Scholar wrote:
A very careful reading of the CRB can lead to the intended interpretation though, since Learn a Spell also uses the word access. But it's a poor word choice because of the other meaning associated with it, even if it's grammatically correct.

Pirate Rob and a few others have said similar, and this is a solid point worth repeating. As long as Paizo's games use certain keywords as the cornerstones of rules, I hope that their writing and style guides evolve so that writers try to avoid using those words colloquially elsewhere (or maybe create some sort of internal convention that keywords like access are capitalized when used like this).

This is the sort of thing that comes up when writing/editing technical or scientific papers all the time, but I only know of one person on Paizo's staff with experience in that venue. With how many different people contribute to the stories and rules that go into the games that we enjoy, this sort of thing will undoubtedly continue to happen, here and there.

Ascalaphus wrote:
The Penecontemporaneous One wrote:

That said, the new changes nullifies all that. I'm honestly not sure whether I like it or not - I GM'd a high-level SFS scenario* not too long ago where the whole party (minus one) had jet packs or force soles, and their rather dangerous enemies had no way of flying nor ranged attacks. If it wasn't for that one character being unable to fly, that very scary encounter would have been hand-waved. Full-attacking while hovering might have even precluded the need to hand-wave things because at that point the encounter could have turned into a literal shooting gallery.

** spoiler omitted **[/spoiler]

about that particular scenario...

** spoiler omitted **

I ran that one several times - the instance with the jetpacks...

was when they had taken so many 10 minute rests that the structure had been elevated/drained of water to the point where they were no longer submerged.

Dracomicron wrote:
Yes, but even with perfect maneuverability you still needed to take a move action (swift if you make a check) to maintain flight. Still can't full attack.

I was addressing your statement that drones "couldn't even shoot if they wanted to remain aloft and the mechanic didn't grant them an action." I'm in total agreement with you on full-attacking.

That said, the new changes nullifies all that. I'm honestly not sure whether I like it or not - I GM'd a high-level SFS scenario* not too long ago where the whole party (minus one) had jet packs or force soles, and their rather dangerous enemies had no way of flying nor ranged attacks. If it wasn't for that one character being unable to fly, that very scary encounter would have been hand-waved. Full-attacking while hovering might have even precluded the need to hand-wave things because at that point the encounter could have turned into a literal shooting gallery.

#2-18: Forbidden Tides, minor spoilers follow:
Mummified creatures with tons of hp but no way to fly and no ranged attacks. The party's technomancer had no flight capability and almost died since the other 5 PCs were flying above to avoid getting hit. They ended up taking turns landing to draw/kite the enemies away from their caster.

Dracomicron wrote:
It's still a considerable investment. 5 ranks in Acrobatics or Perfect Maneuverability? Lack of actionless hovering was messing with hover drones, who couldn't even shoot if they wanted to remain aloft and the mechanic didn't grant them an action. And forget full attacking unless you land. I don't think drone full attacks are going to burn down the sky...

Until the relatively recent FAQ page came online, it was hard-ish to find, but they fixed this one some time ago:

2018 FAQ wrote:
A drone that takes the flight system mod twice gains perfect maneuverability. This allows hover drones to hover.

I see missiles still don't all have the explode property, weapon specialization is still written two different ways (p.59 vs p.163), and "consumable weapons" isn't ever formally* defined.

That's a shame :(

The common-sense interpretation is that a "consumable weapon" is a weapon whose damage is determined by the ammunition and not the weapon, such as grenades, missiles, and certain types of arrows...but since the book only uses the term "consumable weapons" once (p.59) in conjunction with the rules for the weapon specialization class ability, GMs can simply disagree with this and cause headaches at the table.

Was this ever answered?

In the meantime, changing the campaign title to "R3d" seems to have returned things to normal. Thanks to both of you for the insight!

Hah, that's kind of neat, to be honest. Thank you for the link! :)

Out of curiosity, does anybody happen to know if there is any significance to all of the text in an online campaign / pbp being red versus normal? To try and verify that it was the site and not my computer/firefox, I made sure to check the game with multiple browsers/devices, and they all appear the same.

Thanks in advance!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another local GM suggested an interesting (and possibly elegant) idea: 10 + the target's own KAC, since they're being restrained inside their own armor, after a fashion.

I do like Pantshandshake's idea about the DC being linked to the save DC, but I can't figure out how to get there using the grapple rules as they exist currently.

If/when I use this spell, I may just warn the GM in advance and show them this thread and let them take their pick:

- 10 + Caster's KAC
- 10 + Target's KAC
- 20 + 1.5 Caster's CR (unlikely)
- 10 + Spell DC ?
- Just Spell DC ?

9 times out of 10 I'm the one GMing so at least it shouldn't come up, much! :P

Liking and FAQ'ing for the good argument and the RWBY reference.

I'm a full season behind...I need to catch up if I ever get a breather from GMing so many roll20 games...

Garretmander wrote:
While it might not make much sense, I'd say it's still 10+KAC.

The caster's KAC? I mean, with nothing else to go on, it makes just as much sense as the 20 + 1.5 the caster's CR (and a GM on the fly is more likely to accept that number, too).

Since this is from an AP and not a hardcover, I'm not super hopeful for an official FAQ/reply, but still...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

Dracomicron wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Honestly, the description for this season sounds like it will be exactly what we need at this point in time.

Considering the season's name, can we now all build super edgy characters?

Everyone's based off of hilariously grimdark 90's comics characters, with more armor pouches than Cable.

And yet, you might still have to enter into a negotiation with your GM to have (2000's technology) pistol-retention cords or single/double/triple-point rifle slings at the table with their interpretation on how a gear-clamp functions :P

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Ectoplasmic Snare wrote:
You launch a writhing tendril of ectoplasm to snare a creature. Make a ranged attack roll against your target’s EAC. If you hit, the target can attempt a Reflex save. On a successful save, the target is entangled for the duration. If the target fails, it is grappled and takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage each round it remains so. If the target escapes the grapple, it remains entangled for the duration. While the target remains grappled, you can move it up to 15 feet each time you concentrate on the spell. If the distance between you and the target ever exceeds the spell’s range, the snare disappears. This spell affects ethereal and incorporeal creatures.

Normally, the DC to escape a grapple is 10 + the grappler's KAC. Alternatively, when restrained by bindings/rope it becomes 20 + 1.5 the opponent's CR.

Any thoughts on how to calculate an escape DC from this spell if a target is hit and fails their initial saving throw? Without further guidance, the tendril of ectoplasm is sort of a "binding" and thus 20 + 1.5 the caster's CR, I guess (which seems a bit high to me in the middle of combat)?

Thanks in advance!

Great points and analysis, all. FAQ clicked.

(And regarding Ego Whip vs. Slice Reality, one of these is SFS legal and one isn't, which does matter to a good subset of people, too)

Came up at a recent game that this also affects the Laugh at Danger feat, which is a bit of a shame (I love that feat, but its usefulness greatly diminishes as PCs level up, and since Starfinder's retraining system is the most restrictive of all of Paizo's RPGs...).

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Now the other question becomes, how does this theorem interact with the double tap feat?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Casper wrote:
huh, so if i use a biohack it doesn't do acid damage?

No - using the caustoject normally does acid and injection. Biohacks work with any attack from an injection weapon, so you're good there.

However, this weapon has extra language saying that you can optionally choose to load syringes into it (i.e. serums or medicinals) which than deal 0 damage and only inject their substances into their targets. That's what the question here is asking, whether or not a biohack can be used from an injection weapon that deals 0 damage.

(The answer to this question will also carry over to 0 damage injection weapons like the wasp-sting family of sniper weapons, too, which is neat)

Using a caustoject's normal attack would function fine for a biohack, but against an acid-immune target, the syringe option for that weapon does becomes viable, as does the question. FAQ button clicked.

This ruling simultaneously answers related questions about Reflecting Armor and the Vampiric Charger, so that's at least three birds with one (magic?) stone!

Your timing is excellent. I was asked two of these by one of my players less than 24 hours ago. FAQ button clicked!

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
As Quidest points out, ghosts are the exception, and look over Undead entries. Pretty much all of them have an innate need to murder for some reason or another.

Except for one ghostly lady on Eox who does color commentary for the undead Howard Cosell (SFS #2-01).

Not to run counter to what Steve wrote, but I rather enjoyed reading the discussion, and am personally with Rysky on this one. I may have even seen the bit of Pharasman lore about harming the cycle of souls, and if I can track it down I'll try to link to it.

Helvellyn wrote:

In the introduction text for Fields of Study it states "Each field’s booster, inhibitor, and breakthrough ability follow the rules for basic biohacks unless specified otherwise".

So with the genetics inhibitor that is (3+key ability modifier) rounds.

I totally missed that. Thank ye kindly!

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Question is in the subject line.

For the Biohacker Genetics Field of Study, the Booster lists a 60 minute duration. But for the inhibitor:

Inhibitor: You deliver a DNA-twisting or material-altering chemical nanite compound into a creature’s body, imparting vulnerability to one type of energy (your choice). If the creature is immune to that energy type, this inhibitor temporarily removes that immunity and gives the creature resistance 20 to that type of energy. If the creature has resistance to that energy type, this effect instead reduces its resistance by 10 (minimum 0). This biohack does not remove a creature’s resistance or immunity to natural hazards or environments, only to damage from energy attacks, spells, and other abilities.

Table-experience suggests that the duration may not matter if this is used by a PC on a monster or enemy. However, for campaigns and longer adventures, knowing the duration could be important.

Thanks very much in advance!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1 - I could see different GMs ruling each way on that, even though I agree with you.

2 - I was remarking on the coolness that a Biohacker can use a caustoject's normal acid attack in conjunction with a biohack without having to enact the 0 damage syringe option (unless the target is immune to acid).

Here are two odd points that came up when I was discussing this topic with another GM the other day.

1 - Does the weapon target KAC when you load a syringe, or does it stay vs. EAC because the weapon's design is normally to target that?

2 -

Biohacks wrote:
You can deliver any biohack you create with any attack from an injection weapon.

This might be yet another example of poor word choice by Paizo, but that should mean that you don't need to fire a syringe from a Caustoject in order to biohack a target.

Caustoject wrote:
Caustojects create an injectable field that transforms ordinary matter into an acidic compound, disintegrating their targets from the inside.

The weapon (emphasis mine) doesn't lose the injection special property when you're not using a syringe. You just can't use it to fire serums or medicinals without syringes, so it should be good to go for biohackers...just so long as your target isn't immune to acid damage (or if they are, have a backup plan)!

Uchuujin wrote:
I think that is a weapon for proficiency, but not a weapon for runes. An odd corner case.

^ This

CRB p277 wrote:
A shield can be used as a martial weapon for attacks, using the statistics listed for a shield bash on Table 6–7: Melee Weapons (page 280). The shield bash is an option only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as weapons. A shield can’t have runes added to it. You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon. These can be found on Table 6–7. These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes.

Hope that helps!

Warpriests with martial weapon training are (as far as I can tell) the most straightforward way towards making a Hellknight Signifer in 2nd edition, depending on the choice of Order (requirements: proficiency with heavy armor and your order's favored weapon of the which several are martial).

The barbarian feat "No Escape" reads:

Stride up to your Speed, following the foe and keeping it in reach throughout its movement until it stops moving or you’ve moved your full Speed.

With the trigger:

A foe within reach attempts to move away from you.

Say an enemy is trying to flee from the barbarian and uses two actions to move, but the barbarian has a higher land speed. Would the barbarian with No Escape:

A) Only be able to pursue for enemy's the first (move) action, because this feat gives the barbarian the ability to "stride" once, or B) be able to pursue for multiple (move) actions by the enemy even beyond a single action (on the enemy's part) so long as the barbarian does not exceed the maximum limitations in the feat?

Thanks in advance!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I concur with BNW. Translated to an attempt at Captaining a sailing ship (via The Princess Bride) -

"Move the thing!" (2 second repeating video clip)

"And that other thing!" (2 second repeating video clip)

Is the Swift Block Caobochon (p. 569) really supposed to be activated as a free action with a defined trigger, or is that an error and should it instead be activated as a reaction?

Thanks in advance!

Also I second the questions about casting from higher level scrolls and whether scrolls need different formulae at different levels.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tangential question; will rules for Neutral Champions be in Gods and Magic?

Thanks tons - looking very much forward to this book, regardless!

The implication seems to be that it's Engineering, meaning that you would not ignore the Push label for Mystic Haze (or Eldritch Shot which is also a Push action).

Magic Officer Actions wrote:
These actions can be taken only during the engineering phase.

It would have been nice to have it spelled out more clearly, though.

Luis Loza wrote:
All of the deities showcased in the book will feature the basic information required to worship them and play a champion or cleric of their faith (edicts, anathemas, domains, favored weapon, and so on).

Out of curiosity, does this mean that rules for non-good champions* will be appearing in (or prior) to this release?

*he asketh about his favorite 2E class, hopefully?

Thanks in advance (and even if the answer is no, I'm still very much looking forward to this book)!

There is nothing incorrect in what you said.

However, since this forum is called "rules questions" and I have a question about these particular rules, I felt like asking in the hopes of someone seeing it who knows the answer.

Nyerkh wrote:

My issues are with this whole "consumable weapons" thing.

As in : What does That mean ?

If missiles are consumables, what else qualifies ?
Only one out of five missiles has the explode property, so that's irrelevant - but it brings the arrows into question.
They (can) define the damage, like the missiles, and are single use as well. How do they behave ? And if they behave differently, why?
What about the more "standard" options, like the phasing and explosive projectiles ?

We're only going to get more specialized ammunition as time goes, I'd like to know how to handle them.

I kind of hope for either :
- the removal of the "and other consumable weapons" bit from the rules text - and the addition of missiles to the feat's, (new future weapon types can add similar information in their own description),
- an explanation of what is and isn't a "consumable weapon".
- or hell, just make up a weapon property for it. "weapons with this property never add specialization damage". Built-in future proofing.

I stumbled across this thread out of the blue and found this to be a very good question, having not noticed the difference between only grenades being exempt from weapon specialization versus all "consumable weapons" - so I wanted to bump this thread in the hopes of getting more eyes on it.

(If that doesn't work, maybe we should consider starting a new thread for that question in and of itself?)

Now that the Starwright Archetype exists, we know that Inubrix as a special material for armor is intended, which in turn means the original question from Armory's release has now become relevant again, wondering what it does in the hands (body?) of a non-Starwright.'s been about a month.


Anybody hear anything new on this?

Just fishing for opinions (a truly dangerous catch) -

Create Darkness (Alien Archive) wrote:
As a standard action, the creature can create a 20-foot-radius area of darkness centered on itself, which negates the effects of all nonmagical light sources in that area. This darkness lasts for a number of minutes equal to the creature’s CR, and the creature can dismiss the effect as a standard action. The darkness doesn’t move with the creature. Unless otherwise noted, any magic source of light can increase the light level in the area as normal.

Emphasis mine.

Solar Manifestation (Su) wrote:
...You also choose whether your solar manifestation (in any form) either glows brightly with one color common to stars (including blue, red, white, or yellow) or is the perfect darkness of a black hole. A glowing solar manifestation, regardless of its form, sheds dim light in a 20-foot radius. You can shut off the light or darkness as a standard action in order to blend in or assist in stealth, but whenever you enter a stellar mode (see page 102), the glow or darkness returns immediately.

Emphasis also mine.

In a area under the effect of Create Darkness, would a glowing solar manifestation would increase the light level from dark to dim in a 20 foot radius, due to its supernatural source?

The SFS game where this occurred (#2-03) has already passed, and all present at the table agreed on a solution - I'm just curious to see if there are other opinions or things that we didn't take in to account.

Thanks in advance!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to pop in for a second to say thank you to the OP and most of the people commenting on this thread - it has been both educational and entertaining for someone still teaching himself the PF2E rules (since other people are asking him to teach them the PF2E rules...oy).

Thank you for the page reference.
The bedside manner, you can keep.

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>