| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
1) you actually impart vulnerability to an energy type on the creature (150% extra damage from one energy type)
2) that sentence is fluff with a very unfortunate word choice and all of the mechanics are in the next sentences.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biohacker iconic encounter story, written by a developer, treats it as energy vulnerability. And the pregen has the genetics field.
It would also otherwise be a really terrible ability. Replacing immunity with resistance 20 is a booby prize even at high levels, and the basic biohack inhibitor already reduces energy resistance.
There is no reason except paranoia combined with assumptions of developer incompetence to think it doesn’t grant vulnerability.
If you replace immunity with resistance with Genetics, you can then use a basic biohack to downgrade that immunity further.
So you hit someone twice using two different abilities to still be able to do horrifically sub optimal damage instead of using a different weapon.. why?
I'm all for trying to read an ability to be sensible and turning raw a few times to try to get there, but that takes it from roflcopter overpowered straight to a nerf dart without stopping anywhere in the middle. It's either by FAR the best ability or by far the worst one.
Looking at the other fields of study though, I am horrifically un impressed with what they do
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you replace immunity with resistance with Genetics, you can then use a basic biohack to downgrade that immunity further.
Only with Spark of Ingenuity on a studious biohacker or if your party has two biohackers. General rule is one biohack in effect per target per biohacker.
|
If you replace immunity with resistance with Genetics, you can then use a basic biohack to downgrade that immunity further.Only with Spark of Ingenuity on a studious biohacker or if your party has two biohackers. General rule is one biohack in effect per target per biohacker.
I see a restriction of one basic biohack per biohacker, what is stopping you from combining that with a field of study biohack?
They function as basic biohacks unless otherwise stated. The genetics booster duration is the only actual exception I noticed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
They function as basic biohacks unless otherwise stated. The genetics booster duration is the only actual exception I noticed.
That's an interesting finding, but I'm not sure that's intended;
Minor biohacks are otherwise used as and function as basic booster and basic inhibitor biohacks, and they count as such biohacks for the purposes of interactions with other abilities (such as spark of ingenuity).
Each field’s booster, inhibitor, and breakthrough ability follow the rules for basic biohacks unless specified otherwise.
If all three kinds of biohacks had been intended to be incompatible, why did they put the rule in Basic Inhibitor talking specifically about Basic Inhibitors, instead of the general rules for biohacks?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty wild that a Starfinder rule is poorly edited or explained! I’m sure they’ll FAQ it within the week.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bump.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't know anyone thought that it didn't impart vulnerability.
But one thing to clarify, is that vulnerability is 50% extra damage (or 150% total). The first post I think meant that as well, but said 150% extra damage which would mean multiplying your damage by 2.5 instead of multiplying by 1.5.
I don't imagine there are that many enemies that are immune/resistant to all energy types that it's probably just going to be easier to pull out a weapon with an energy type they don't resist or aren't immune too.
There's also the fusions that change half of your damage type to another.
It's not perfect, but going from 0% damage to 50% could be pretty meaningful.*
*This assume your weapon normally does only fire damage, and you fight a creature with fire immunity. Normally you would do no damage. Now you can do 50% by changing half the damage to lightning with a fusion. If you have a weapon that deals two energy types, and add a fusion you can actually completely replace the type that the creature is immune or resistant to. This actually get you to 100% damage effectiveness.
So, if you don't grant vulnerability, and all you do is reduce invulnerability to ER 20 or reduce resistant....well it's a really terribly ability at that point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Digging this one up, it's conclusively settled in AP 28 Flight of the Seekers (if the short fiction didn't settle it for you already).
So, there you have it. It gives a character vulnerability to (energy type). So go crazy, I guess.
I wouldn't rely on an AP as an authoritative rules source - I can think of three different AP books that were convinced that you can do a normal trick attack with a sniper rifle.
Though I agree that imparting vulnerability is the only mechanic that makes sense here.
I agree that we shouldn't rely on APs as a rules source clarification.
They got things wrong in PF1, and probably will in Starfinder and PF2.
Since the AP authors are often not the core writers for Paizo, and in fact some times are free lance authors who are hired to write sections of the AP.
Still, imparting vulnerability is the only redeeming part of the ability so I choose to believe that is what it does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the rule text literally says it...
When the accompanying fiction shows it working that way...
When the scenarios themselves show it working that way...
That pretty much settles it for me.
Until, you know, it gets errata'ed.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I agree that's how it should work. And how it makes sense that it works. And how I rule that it works.
But the way the sentence for it is structured is unusual, so some clarity would be nice, just as a confirmation.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If the current dedication to FAQs has some more legs in it, it would be nice to get this one spelled out clearly for the doubters. Presumably we'd be looking for a FAQ stating that it gives vulnerability "as the universal monster ability" or whatever you call it.
Here's another group on reddit confused about what vulnerability means for the genetic inhibitor and ruling it, IMO, the wrong way.
Starfinder Lead Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're changing this ability (see the new text here), as vulnerability per the UCR is a bit too strong, and otherwise the ability is a bit too weak.
Thanks for your patience; we know this has been a source of confusion for far too long.
So, useless for those taking small-level dips then. Well, good to at least have an answer.
It also gets rather toned down passed level 8 or so when weapon damage starts to kick up. I can't see ever using this over a -2 ac inhibitor , which is a +10% damage to the whole party effectively (unless i've got an all caster group or something)
I think both my sfs biohackers may be shopping for another field of study but....every major's terrible But I really do like the booster
Looking over the inhibitors they don't seem to have been made taking into account the opportunity cost of not putting the ac inhibitor on the victim.