| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a question regarding augmentations and playable races that don't possess the system they are installed into.
E.g. Khizar explicitly don't have eyes. Should they be able to benefit from augmentations that are installed into the eyes system?
Should there be made a distinction based on item description? E.g. Retinal Reflectors that are installed behind a retina (which eyeless creatures don't possess) vs Darkvision Capacitators?
Or could a Khizar, that has no mouth, get a Vocal Modulator to have the ability to speak?
(Since this might come up in a game I as a GM might also suggest/allow using the Darkvision spell on the Khizar in encounters were its blindsight (life) is holding it back.)
I'm GMing, so I'm aware that I can house rule it. And I probably will in favour of the players, since Starfinder assumes the possibility of some amazing body modifications.
But on the other hand I'd absolutely welcome clarifications and discussions.
Especially considering opening PFS to some of the weirder aliens down the line.
Personally, I would allow augmentations on creatures who don't have the appropriate parts, at least, until official word comes down.
Otherwise, many of the alien races have quite a few drawbacks (compared to standard races) that are simply not spelled out in their racial entry. I really don't think it was the developers' intent to have "ghost penalties" built into numerous races.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JUST GOT MY ARMORY!!!
In the opening section of the book it has this to say, which I think is pertinent to this discussion:
That seems pretty clear cut to me that a khizar can use eye augments or what have you.
JUST GOT MY ARMORY!!!
In the opening section of the book it has this to say, which I think is pertinent to this discussion:
That seems pretty clear cut to me that a khizar can use eye augments or what have you.
I wish they had chosen better examples. A gun and a pair of shoes isn't exactly an augment...
Shoes without feet though! Seems like a fine example to me.
Shoes without feet though! Seems like a fine example to me.
An alright example, but not perfect. Shoes without feet isn't feet without feet. You can put a shoe on a stump, or over your hand, but you would be hard pressed to convince people to call things in shoes feet.
Shoes without feet though! Seems like a fine example to me.An alright example, but not perfect. Shoes without feet isn't feet without feet. You can put a shoe on a stump, or over your hand, but you would be hard pressed to convince people to call things in shoes feet.
While I see your point its pretty clear throughout the books that the game was designed to be inclusive in the extreme rather than exclusive in regards to gear and augments. I think its pretty safe to assume at this point, unless specifically stated by a particular piece of equipment, that any piece of gear works with any race.
While I see your point its pretty clear throughout the books that the game was designed to be inclusive in the extreme rather than exclusive in regards to gear and augments. I think its pretty safe to assume at this point, unless specifically stated by a particular piece of equipment, that any piece of gear works with any race.Shoes without feet though! Seems like a fine example to me.An alright example, but not perfect. Shoes without feet isn't feet without feet. You can put a shoe on a stump, or over your hand, but you would be hard pressed to convince people to call things in shoes feet.
I agree, and I like the inclusive design.
There is a large difference though in saying "just because your character has no arms doesn't mean they can't use guns" and "your racial choice gives XYZ, at the cost of AB, which can be circumvented with 1000 credits".
If a racial trait were disfunctional enough that it had a severe impact on gameplay, then it would be a problem in need of addressing. As it stands racial weaknesses by a design standpoint exist to balance powerful traits. If you can easily bypass them, then they don't serve their design purpose and open the door to a "right way" to build them.
JUST GOT MY ARMORY!!!
In the opening section of the book it has this to say, which I think is pertinent to this discussion:
That seems pretty clear cut to me that a khizar can use eye augments or what have you.
Thank you, that is a pretty good confirmation of my suspicions how to handle this.
Not to mention that obtained 60 ft. vision is still pretty weak in a game with a lot of shootouts.
Many of the Core Rulebook armors are illustrated for two-armed humanoids.
Should we take that to mean that Kasatha are limited in the armor they can utilize?
Of course not! Gear is meant to be all inclusive, and easily adjusted to readily work with a great many alien races (I mean, think about the sheer number of manufacturers in the Pact Worlds, most of whom are not humans). Any manufacturer not making their products readily available to a myriad of races with extreme morphological differences likely went out of business ages ago.
Many of the Core Rulebook armors are illustrated for two-armed humanoids.
Should we take that to mean that Kasatha are limited in the armor they can utilize?
Of course not! Gear is meant to be all inclusive, and easily adjusted to readily work with a great many alien races (I mean, think about the sheer number of manufacturers in the Pact Worlds, most of whom are not humans). Any manufacturer not making their products readily available to a myriad of races with extreme morphological differences likely went out of business ages ago.
You're talking apples and oranges on that. A suit of armor you find can be custom tailored for four arms, or tentacles or whatever. You can get extra cybernetic arms as well.
Talking about giving eyes to something that specifies "they have no eyes or mouth" is very different. You can technically put Speed Suspension on a Barathu but it doesn't influence their fly speed (and only speed). There 0 can become 10, but nothing in their entry specifies they don't have legs. The Khazir, the major player in these debates, are explicitly given no eyes.
Whilst I slightly understand that Starfinder focuses a lot towards a good ol' shootout, many guns have range increment 30, and the Khazir entry still says they identify light, and last I checked, lazers and flashes were just that. Most armor also seems to have glowing bits, so while they lack eyes, I don't see a lot of reason to penalize them in a world of bright lights.
PW 212
"the ability to perceive the presence or absence of light. Khizars have blindsense (vibration) and blindsight (life)"
With all these the only things khizars have to fear are undead floating with magic - until they start screaming and produce vibration.
And if they need more details, their party better pick up the slack and summarize what's going on. It's like having a Daredevil Groot in the team.
And where would you install the eyegments on a khizar? They barely have something that resembles a head... that would look creepy as hell.
Their blindsense still doesn't stop them from being flat-footed and enemies they shoot at having concealment (if unliving). That's a pretty heavy penalty.
I agree that them being called out top not have eyes is the important part here, and I'd still very much welcome any official-ish clarification on that.
The ability to perceive light levels could still be meant as pretty rudimental or slow. There are both animals and plants that can perceive light levels, but wouldn't be able to react to something like a flash. More like, slowly moving away from very dark/bright places.
Not to mention that presence/absence reads like a very absolute 0/1 point of information, opening up new debate. If it's already bright, what difference do armour glowy bits and guns make?
I don't think the where is particularly important, since that's more flavour as soon as its agreed as possible.
Their blindsense still doesn't stop them from being flat-footed and enemies they shoot at having concealment (if unliving). That's a pretty heavy penalty.
They aren't Flat-footed. They aren't suffering from the Blinded condition for not having eyes.
They have no eyes, but nothing actually says they don't have "normal vision" in game terms. No eyes is not a condition, and I don't think the designers intended to have a character that gives everything concealment. There is also the aspect of the blinded condition that creatures suffering from them long term ignore some or all of the penalties.
Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them. Creatures that become blinded but that have a precise sense (see page 260) other than vision still automatically fail all checks and activities relying on vision, but they suffer none of the other effects.
They can still hear, smell, and touch, and these senses can still give them the normal vision picture of that is around them like any other character.
However, you could read into their Dex-penalty as pushing them towards more melee-focused builds if that was their intent. Give them a shooting penalty already to divert from doing something super hard for them to do.
What we know the game does say, is explicitly they have no eyes, and the eye based cybernetics all either mention specific systems or full replacement, not adding like the cybernetic limb.
Their blindsense still doesn't stop them from being flat-footed and enemies they shoot at having concealment (if unliving). That's a pretty heavy penalty.
I think their blindsight makes up for penalties against undead and constructs - it's pretty powerful. Not to mention they are both abilities that can't be taken away or blocked.
There's nothing on light levels though, only presence or absence. I'd allow it to be used as a Detect Light of sorts, within line of "sight".
And besides all that, they can still hear, for what its worth mechanically.
They aren't Flat-footed. They aren't suffering from the Blinded condition for not having eyes.They have no eyes, but nothing actually says they don't have "normal vision" in game terms. No eyes is not a condition, and I don't think the designers intended to have a character that gives everything concealment. There is also the aspect of the blinded condition that creatures suffering from them long term ignore some or all of the penalties.
In cases where their blindsight is useless I'd disagree based on the rules for blindsense, which allow for locating an unseen creature, but explicitely don't negate flat-footed and concealment:
Blindsense negates the bonuses to Stealth checks that an unseen creature would otherwise receive, but unseen creatures still have total concealment against the attacks of creatures with blindsense, and creatures with blindsense are still flat-footed against the attacks of unseen creatures.
And for still being able to hear, touch, etc., those should be called out as a Blindsight, a precise sense useable instead of vision, then. Since Blindsight (sound) and (scent) both are called out by the rules as being "typical". As is Khizar only have (life).
EDIT: To clarify, I didn't base the penalties on the Khizar being blinded, but on dealing with an unseen creature if it's outside range or unliving.
EDIT: To clarify, I didn't base the penalties on the Khizar being blinded, but on dealing with an unseen creature if it's outside range or unliving.
Makes sense. I wouldn't read it the same way though. I don't see them as only having perception in their 30ft window. In their 30ft window their life and tremorsenses apply, outside of that they are aware enough to live life normally.
Specifically, it calls out "unseen". I think this is meaning way... You life sense through a wall, his covers apply. Or a more apt example would be invisibility. If a creature can tremorsense an invisible target, they still have no easier a time shooting them, they are simply aware they are there. This is supported going into Blindsight where a series of specific abilities are called out, otherwise the abilities are functionally the same.
As a GM, I would file having no eyes under the "doesn't effect gameplay" category. Simply because it's not a condition, and if you considered the conditions most closely resembling it they could adapt and recieve no penalty. I would not give them a penalty based on a positive ability as that, to me, would be silly. If it explicitly stated their /only/ sense was say tremorsense, as I believe it is for creatures with the ooze type, then I might consider it. But when fighting an ooze, is there anything saying those outside of their tremorsense get concealment?
(That last bit is an actual question, I do not know and do not have the time to look it up.)