| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi there,
as far as I can see there still hasn't been any official reply on just how this spell is supposed to work, even though it's clearly one of the best named technomancer spells out there!
The "encumbered" and "overburdened" conditions can't be easily (or at all) applied to NPCs, so how do I apply the effects of this spell?
Specifically, what do "strength- and dexterity- based checks" encompass? Do they include melee and ranged attacks? How do I resolve the AC penalty when NPCs do not follow PCs rules on calculating AC?
Can we please have a F.A.Q. on all of this? Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree, "how to apply encumbered/overburdened apply to NPCs" is in need of a FAQ. Click the button, folks!
Would love an answer to this. I briefly had this spell on my technomancer in SFS but found that the difference in GM interpretation often made the spell do almost nothing.
Agree, "how to apply encumbered/overburdened apply to NPCs" is in need of a FAQ. Click the button, folks!
Curious what, specifically, is causing the confusion.
All of your speeds are reduced by 10 feet, your maximum Dexterity bonus to your Armor Class is reduced to +2, and you take a –5 penalty to Strength- and Dexterity-based checks (or you take your armor’s armor check penalty, whichever is worse).
So all of the NPC's speeds are reduced by 10 feet. Sounds simple enough.
Your maximum Dexterity bonus to Armor Class is reduced to +2. Hmm... That one might be tricky because NPC's don't calculate their AC based on individual bonuses. That might take some GM adjudication to decide how much of their total AC is caused by Dex.
Apply a -5 penalty to Strength and Dexterity based checks. Since it mentions your armor check penalty to be used instead if it is higher, I am thinking that this only applies to skill checks. Not attack rolls. Though I could see that being a point of confusion and contention. In either case, this should be easy enough to do for an NPC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ'd
It's always best to work for clarity when covering lower leveled options, usually new players find this kind of clarification invaluable.
Starfinder Lead Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ updated——thanks for the question and the FAQ clicks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I... honestly kind of hate this answer, in that being overburdened having no effect on avoiding attacks seems like a big enough glitch in the rules to be something to fix instead of something to confirm, but I do appreciate having an answer.
I... honestly kind of hate this answer, in that being overburdened having no effect on avoiding attacks seems like a big enough glitch in the rules to be something to fix instead of something to confirm, but I do appreciate having an answer.
It has no effect on no dex heavy armor PCs and having no armor has no effect on the AC of NPCs, so it's not really something they could solve without just changing the condition entirely.
I found slipping "skill" in there to modify the actual language of "strength/dex checks" more interesting and slightly annoying. The entangled condition effects both "dex skill checks" and "dex checks," so "dex checks" necessarily involve something other than just dex skill checks, and that should be the same for encumbered until they rewrite the conditions themselves to clean this up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has no effect on no dex heavy armor PCs and having no armor has no effect on the AC of NPCs, so it's not really something they could solve without just changing the condition entirely.
True, but no DEX heavy armor PCs seem to be so rare as to be nearly hypothetical, in my experience.
An answer via errata, changing the condition, rather than FAQ was exactly what I was hoping might happen, so that you don't end up with NPCs having immunity to an aspect of the condition that a PC who is narratibely similar would suffer, solely due to NPC status, instead of due to any in-universe difference.
Could someone quote/ give the gist of the faq here? I've been getting quig fixing something for a day and a half now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do the encumbered and overburdened conditions affect NPCs (such as when imposed by the directed denial of strength attack spell?
NPCs with the encumbered or overburdened conditions have their speeds reduced, take a –5 penalty to Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks, and ignore the reduction to maximum Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (an NPC's Armor Class is not calculated the same way as a player character's).
The key here is the word "skill" - the spell doesn't impose a -5 to hit on NPCs, nor does it give them a -5 to reflex saves, which would probably be far, far too powerful a debuff.
How do the encumbered and overburdened conditions affect NPCs (such as when imposed by the directed denial of strength attack spell?
NPCs with the encumbered or overburdened conditions have their speeds reduced, take a –5 penalty to Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks, and ignore the reduction to maximum Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (an NPC's Armor Class is not calculated the same way as a player character's).
The key here is the word "skill" - the spell doesn't impose a -5 to hit on NPCs, nor does it give them a -5 to reflex saves, which would probably be far, far too powerful a debuff.
For everyone but you the AC thing is key - no one else treats attack and Reflex saves as dex checks, including PCs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could someone quote/ give the gist of the faq here? I've been getting quig fixing something for a day and a half now.
How do the encumbered and overburdened conditions affect NPCs (such as when imposed by the directed denial of strength attack spell)?
NPCs with the encumbered or overburdened conditions have their speeds reduced, take a –5 penalty to Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks, and ignore the reduction to maximum Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (an NPC's Armor Class is not calculated the same way as a player character's).
FWIW since they did that last big update on the FAQ, it's been broken for me. If I flush all cache/cookies for Paizo.com it works, but then the second I log into the site again, back to Quig a-fixin'. I've just been viewing the FAQ in Incognito Mode as a workaround.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW since they did that last big update on the FAQ, it's been broken for me. If I flush all cache/cookies for Paizo.com it works, but then the second I log into the site again, back to Quig a-fixin'. I've just been viewing the FAQ in Incognito Mode as a workaround.
You know its bad when the rule page is going "oh god not them again keep them out keep them out!!!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ updated——thanks for the question and the FAQ clicks!
Thank you for the FAQ!
Personally, given the resolution, I think I am going to house-rule the spell so that it simply gives the Fatigued condition (or Exhausted if already Fatigued) instead. However, the effects end with the duration of the spell, not requiring rest afterwards.
I believe this places the spell in a nice spot, given that we have "fatigue" as a cantrip for mystics, and then only "waves of fatigue" for mystics at high level. This gives technomancers the chance of doing that as an AoE but with much shorter effect duration. Might be a bit powerful maybe. If that's the case I could add "if exhausted they can spend a full action each round to lessen the effect to fatigued" or smth like that.