'Core Rule Book, p. 196' wrote: "Most suits of armor consist of a helmet, gloves, boots, and a bodysuit that offers head-to-toe protection. Unless otherwise specified, the boots include a functionality that can anchor your feet to a solid surface in a zero-gravity environment, allowing you to orient yourself or return to normal footing when needed" (p. 196). Does this effect forced movement attempts such as bull rush or trip? Do the boots provide immunity to these effects?
Further, if the boots operate in zero-g, what logically is preventing them from working when gravity exists? Obviously this would be a departure from RAW, but I'd like RAW to be defensible.
I would say they have no impact on forced movement, because they don't say they do.
As far as using them when there is gravity, I don't see why you couldn't. Though, since gravity is already there, I can't see how the boots would actually do anything.
Just saw this:
Starfinder Core Rule Book, p. 402 wrote: If a creature runs into another creature during its movement, both creatures must each attempt a DC 20 Acrobatics or Athletics check to avoid gaining the off-kilter condition. A creature anchored to a solid object (such as by the boot clamps available with most armor) receives a +4 bonus to this check. Seems like the attacker should need to beat the defender's KAC + 8 + 4 if they're anchored to the floor. At least for Trip. The rules don't discuss how bull rush or collisions effect momentum or positioning in zero-gravity.
The rules do state this:
Starfinder Core Rule Book, p. 402 wrote: If a creature is adjacent to or in the same square as an object (including a wall, floor, or ceiling) or another creature[/b] one size category smaller than itself or larger, it can take a move action to push off that object or creature, moving at half its land speed in a direction of its choosing (as appropriate); [/b]if that object or creature is movable[/b], it begins moving in the opposite direction at that same speed. The verb 'anchor' in the boots' description would suggest the wearer is much more difficult to move. How much more difficult, if at all, is I guess up to the GM?
Pantshandshake wrote: I would say they have no impact on forced movement, because they don't say they do. The boots say they anchor the wearer to the ground. The verb anchor means movement is prevented, or at least limited. The rules definitely imply there is an impact on movement, forced or otherwise.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
They help keep you from being off-kilter. That's about it.
That would explain why the combat maneuvers are so hard...
Ravingdork wrote: They help keep you from being off-kilter. That's about it. Nailed it.
It also doesn't say what sort of action is required to anchor yourself with the boot clamps. Nor does it say what action is required to de-anchor yourself.
If it were a standard action, people would spend a round moving to a good position and anchoring.
If it were a move action, people would often stay where they were, anchor, and then cast a spell or attack.
If it were a swift action, then people would usually be anchored, unless they moved from one anchored position to another.
I recently ran a large zero-g combat encounter vs. ghouls, and ruled that it was a standard action to anchor/de-anchor. That seemed to work well.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I'm inclined to say it is a part of movement. You move, and wherever you stop, you are considered anchored, provided there is a surface to anchor to (and that you want to be anchored). Seems like the easiest way to handle it.
Ravingdork wrote: I'm inclined to say it is a part of movement. You move, and wherever you stop, you are considered anchored, provided there is a surface to anchor to (and that you want to be anchored). Seems like the easiest way to handle it. That's probably what was intended. They probably want armored people, e.g. PCs, to be able to walk around on surfaces in zero-g-- climb walls, walk on ceilings, etc. and always have that +4 bonus vs. becoming off-kilter.
S. J. Digriz wrote: Ravingdork wrote: I'm inclined to say it is a part of movement. You move, and wherever you stop, you are considered anchored, provided there is a surface to anchor to (and that you want to be anchored). Seems like the easiest way to handle it. That's probably what was intended. They probably want armored people, e.g. PCs, to be able to walk around on surfaces in zero-g-- climb walls, walk on ceilings, etc. and always have that +4 bonus vs. becoming off-kilter.
I don't think the boots were intended to allow you to walk on any solid surface. That's quite powerful since it largely negates the impact of zero-gravity.
I am leaning towards a free action to toggle the anchor function, but limited to twice per round. This prevents "walking" on a solid surface, but allows a character to use a move action to push off one solid surface as a move action and, a couple turns later, anchor to another solid surface as a free action, assuming they made their Acrobatic/Athletics DC 20 check. If they fail that check, then the character must spend a move action to right themselves first, followed by a free action to anchor.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yeah, I don't think you can walk while anchored. Just anchor yourself in between move actions (that are made to float in zero-g).
If you want to walk, grab a pair of magboots.
Question 1: What makes anyone think that zero-gravity is supposed to have a massive impact? Basic features of all armor also make hostile environments minimally dangerous. I could make a very plausible case that zero-gravity, like other environmental conditions, is supposed to be a source of theme and opportunities, rather than a harsh obstacle for PCs.
Question 2: How, exactly, does being able to stably walk on any surface as a floor negate the impact of zero-g? You, and your foes, can still choose any surface to walk on, radically altering the geometry of battle. You still have the option of leaping off in any direction, as a method of mobility. And you still have the possibility of being sent flying, because you aren't guaranteed to stay on your feet.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
