Honestly I'm not sure what you're asking or what's confusing.
You add your character level to damage except:
- if it's a small arm, then add half level
- if it's an operative melee weapon, add half level
Are you saying your GM thinks you have to make some kind of choice when you get it?
I think your GM is over-reading things. There's no way to describe "small arms + operative melee" in a single term/group. And you don't want full level added to those weapons, because it would be unbalancing especially when someone starts dual-wielding so you need to moderate that effect. (I used to use darts in 2e. The weapon had crap damage but the bonuses stacked and my fire rate was huge. In other words I was exploiting what this is designed to prevent.)
He is not wrong, but the intent is fairly obvious.
Is your GM a programmer or someone who has to deal with logic and algorithms regularly ? That degree of attention to the and/or subtlety is a bit surprising.
This is reminiscent of the 1-1/2 "controversy". Maybe not the best way to write it, but ultimately more than explicit enough for most.
Bottom line is, small arms and operative weapons : add half your level, everything else : add your full level.
With the exception of grenades, who get nothing.
No need to overthink it.
|
You could rephrase the entire sentence to incorporate "except for," I suppose, but it certainly doesn't just replace "or."
As written it's perfectly clear. There might be better ways to phrase it, but they'd be wordier. Replacing the "or" with "and" would probably be slightly worse (you can't attack with a small arm and an operative melee weapon), but it would also be clear.
"...add your character level to damage with the selected weapon type, except for half your character level for small arms and operative melee weapons."
"except for half"? What does that mean? I don't think anybody would actually be confused by the intent there, but it's certainly not clear or correct writing.
"...unless the weapon is a small arm or operative melee weapon; if it is, add only half your character level." That might be better, but...
Even if there were a grammar error here, I'm not sure what the question in need of address would be. What's the confusion? What's the question?
Round down.
Core rulebook, page 59:
Each of your class features is detailed in the remainder of the
class description. If a class feature ever requires a calculation or
produces a numerical result that would include a fraction, always
round down unless otherwise stated. This follows the normal rule
for rounding (see page 243).
Core rulebook page 243:
Occasionally the rules might ask you to round a result or value.
Unless otherwise stated, always round down. For example, if you
are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3.
As for your bonuses, that seems right with one exception. Mechanics don't get proficiency in sniper weapons so they don't get the bonus feat for sniper weapons. If it's an ecocortex mechanic, they also get +4 for long arms.
As for advanced melee, you take the feat for advanced melee proficiency.
Does that mean an Operative Level 4 gets the following damage bonus
All Sniper Weapons +2
A level 4 Operative gets +4 to Sniper weapons. The specialization bonus is only halved for Operative melee weapons and small arms.
Another question is how does an Mechanic character get a proficiency say in Advanced Melee?
Take a feat.
Or be a Dwarf.
Or take a level in Soldier or Solarian.
Dammit. It says "operative" but somehow my mind went "mechanic".
Sorry
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dammit. It says "operative" but somehow my mind went "mechanic".
Sorry
Same answer.
Take a feat.
Or be a Dwarf.
Or take a level in Soldier or Solarian.
Note that proficiency does not make it compatible with Trick Attack, however.
