1)The AC you have to hit would be your ally's EAC.
2)It's not unwieldy, so yes.
3)Yes you can pull them up. If they are pulled up 10'+ and can't fly they would use the usual rules for falling, including fall damage, falling prone, acrobatics checks to mitigate falls, etc. If it's high enough for them to take falling damage, that would be an 'area of obvious danger' and give them the second save.
1/ No auto-hit, regular AC (EAC ? I presume ?), arguably flat-footed short of a very strict GM.
2/ Sure. It's not unwieldy. A high level operative could move someone up to 4 times, even.
3/ I'd say it's possible, but the target would the same second save they'd get whenever you try to push/pull them in a dangerous spot.
Because there's indeed a second save for that, as per Gravitation.
An ally could just ignore it if you were trying to get them someplace they do want to go.
Edit : too slow.
Do we suppose it's the target's ability to identify an area as 'obviously dangerous' that prompts the second save? For example, if the target was blind, would they not get the second save for being shoved into a pit (or what have you?)
That's what I would do. It doesn't spell it out, but it should be up to the GM whether danger is obvious or not. If you aren't aware of a trap do you get a second save to avoid movement? If you do, shooting a high reflex character forward 10' at a time sounds like a great replacement to the summoned monster for trap checking.
Thx for the fast reply...
Would you say since the target is not trying to dodge the ''attack'' he can chose to forgo is Dex bonus?
Also, any way to not afflict the Knock Down effect on an Allie an I would crit?
1)Not according to RAW, most GMs I know would allow an ally to forgo dex bonus as a reaction or be flat footed or something, but RAW no.
2)Nope, if you crit they're knocked prone.
1)Yes, the GM might say no if it's too large. It's up to them what constitutes too large. It's also up to them if it provides cover of any kind.
2)An unattended object wouldn't get a reflex save. It's AC would be 11 at the highest, 0 at the lowest, see pg. 409 in the core rulebook.
3)Restrictions on target/weight/etc. are all up to your GM, I don't think any GM will let you pull whole starship.
Using a graviton pistol for a disarm maneuver is something a GM may choose to allow in their game, and how they handle it may vary. It is not something that is covered by the rules that exist.
I would not expect to need to hit less than KAC+8, since, that's the difficulty of using a sunder maneuver to target a weapon with any other weapon.
And if you target an unconscious ally, he is helpless (but you get a -4 because he is prone). That's a good way to get an unconscious ally out of harm's way.
2)An unattended object wouldn't get a reflex save. It's AC would be 11 at the highest, 0 at the lowest, see pg. 409 in the core rulebook.
Wouldn't it be 3 + size mod? Base 10 - 5 - 2 = 3
Size mods can be as much as -8 to +8. That would make the total possible AC range of an unattended, stationary object -5 to 11.
I'm fairly certain -AC is one of those things you just ignore and assume 0, but sure.
I'm fairly certain -AC is one of those things you just ignore and assume 0, but sure.
A 1st-level character with 0 BAB and a penalty to their ability score could easily get less than 0 (I've had checks come up to less than 0 a number of times during my roleplaying career), so it's definitely possible for AC values to be less than 0 as well.
It's definitely a corner case in any event.
1)The AC you have to hit would be your ally's EAC.
On the first question (as a GM I'd allow) it's an auto hit if it's an ally that knows your tactics well and the shooter yells to the ally something to tip them off like "Don't resist!". Being a combat situation, I'd still require an attack roll because a natural 1 always fails.
If you haven't pre-arranged this tactic, then I'd say you have to hit the normal EAC.
That seems like it would lack parity with biohacker buffs, healing darts and the like only targeting allies as if they were flat-footed. While COM playtest material is certainly not final, it's the best precedent I've seen regarding ranged attacks on willing allies.
1)The AC you have to hit would be your ally's EAC.
On the first question (as a GM I'd allow) it's an auto hit if it's an ally that knows your tactics well and the shooter yells to the ally something to tip them off like "Don't resist!". Being a combat situation, I'd still require an attack roll because a natural 1 always fails.
If you haven't pre-arranged this tactic, then I'd say you have to hit the normal EAC.
Not by strict Rules no you can't prearrange the tactic and autohit. Even if the ally readies an action to try and catch the shot, they'd have to roll vs. EAC. GM rulings and allowances are different. See: biohacker ranged buff debate threads.
There's then the bottom line that armor is a dumb piece of gear and doesn't care to differentiate between friend and foe : it stops everything. In an AC system, where armor determines whether you get hit or not, there's a limit to how much you being okay with getting hit actually helps.
It was one of the issues with the shield projectors, it appeared again with the biohacker playtest (and every "friendly" weapon, really) ... It's not exactly solved yet, but flat-footed is the closest we have.
The CharOps Manual will probably give a more definitive answer, but I'd use that until then.