ninjaelk's page

ninjaelk wrote:

The issue I have, is if you have a Rhythm Mystic in the party, the status bonuses from Anthem and Get 'Em don't stack. At that point, Anthem is the far more dependable buff of the two, forcing the Envoy to do something other than Get 'Em. That's where things start to fall apart because all these other directives seem to be designed as fallback options, not primary options..

I also very much had that worry, especially in SFS where you don't know either the other players nor their characters.

But it seems to be working out ok. Twice now I've played at tables with both a Rhythm Mystic and an Envoy and both times the Envoy player seemed quite happy that Rhythm was also a thing. They were still getting their own +4 to damage for a single action (essentially) and could do other things.

In a campaign with the same characters I'd very definitely have a session 0 discussion with both players to make sure both were happy with it. But the overlap isn't as bad as I thought it would be.

I think I was a bit overstating things when I said that's where things "fall apart". I think the envoy contributes fine at a table with a rhythm mystic, it's just that his kit starts to become rather clunky and the design overall feels less cohesive. Get 'Em is a perfectly usable action even if you're not providing the buffs (which speaks to how strong it is when it does), and the other directives are still situationally very viable as usual. It just feels inefficient, there's a lot of overlap, and stuff that just isn't working together smoothly. I don't think it needs a strict buff necessarily, I think the power level and the amount the class can contribute even with a rhythm mystic present is fine, it just feels like it needs a bit of rearranging.

If anything I think that Get 'Em *without* a rhythm mystic might be too strong, and the class could benefit from that power being redistributed more evenly through the rest of its kit.

To me the class seems to be designed around Get 'Em buffing your party while doing reasonable damage on its own. Mathematically that's really strong, even if it's not particularly flashy. It also makes a lot of these other directives make more sense if they're designed mostly to be a situational option you use *sometimes*.

Like the forced swap on Ready Arms! makes a lot more sense if it's a fallback option. If you just take that restriction away from the ability it becomes kind of insane. You and your whole party get an optional weapon swap, then you can make an Area Fire or Auto-Fire attack (which normally takes 2 actions on its own), and THEN your ally gets a react strike on top of all that? The only thing bringing it back down to earth is that it forces you to use your own react to swap, and that you have to have another weapon on you to swap to. I'm not a fan of that design but again, it makes sense if it's viewed through the lens of assuming the Envoy is just using Get 'Em most turns and occasionally might pull out a flamethrower and torch a group of enemies.

The issue I have, is if you have a Rhythm Mystic in the party, the status bonuses from Anthem and Get 'Em don't stack. At that point, Anthem is the far more dependable buff of the two, forcing the Envoy to do something other than Get 'Em. That's where things start to fall apart because all these other directives seem to be designed as fallback options, not primary options.

All that being said, I also have no idea what is going on with Dance Partner. Do we have any clarification on what "threaten" means in the context of sf2e? Because they use similar wording on the Soldier's Overwatch "You concentrate fire on a specific target operating within
your weapon’s threat range." I think most people are assuming it means "melee reach" because of previous editions and the way certain other games work, but if it means your weapon's first range increment it makes tremendously more sense.

Another odd artifact of being literal about needing game mechanics to say they "hit" is Force Barrage literally says that each shard "automatically hits", and I feel like it's a tough sell RAW to try to argue that a spell that creates multiple automatic hits doesn't count as hitting. RAI I think that the interpretation of "an attack roll that hits ac" is a hit is plausible.

The other weird wrinkle about the ability is the trigger doesn't specify a time window. It doesn't say they must hit the target twice on their turn, just that they have to end their turn after hitting the target twice... ever. Which seems to imply that if they hit the target twice, you kill steal, then next turn they hit the target a third and fourth time it wouldn't trigger kill steal.

The trigger for the Operative level 2 class feat Kill Steal is "An ally ends their turn after hitting a creature two or more times or critically hitting a creature." The problem is 'hit' doesn't seem to be defined.

It seems fairly clear that anything that includes an attack roll against AC, including spell attacks, should count as a hit if you succeed.

However, Area Attacks and Auto-Fire attacks seem a bit murky. They specifically say "You attempt to hit each creature..." and "Creatures that critically fail this save are subject to effects that occur on a critical hit with this weapon".

It seems that Kill Steal is an effect that occurs when a weapon critically hits so that seems like it should work.

However, if the target simply fails their save is that a hit? If so, why? Is it just because of the descriptive text that says "You attempt to hit each creature"?

If that's the case, it seems to stand to reason that even a successful save (but not a critical success) should count as a hit. Because if the reason it counts as a hit is that it specifically says you're attempting to hit each creature, if you deal any damage at all that should logically count as a hit. I don't see how you can deal any damage, even half damage, without landing a hit.

It seems like other general non-attack spells aren't intended to count as hits. I'm assuming that a failed (or successful) save against Electric Arc wouldn't count as a hit, and a critically failed save wouldn't count as a critical hit. However, my only basis for that is mostly just that they don't specifically say they're "trying to hit" the way Area Attack or Auto-Fire does.