|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I hate having to write in the morning, and I especially never thought I'd use the Paizo forums, but this incredibly over the top scenario involving two of my favorite subclasses really, really annoyed me. I usually think Paizo does a good job balancing, but this was just incredibly ignorant.
For the uninformed, S&S Operative can no longer blind or entangle enemies, and Toxicologist inhibitor requires a saving throw whereas it once didn't.
For S&S Operative, **you had to have a very good build to make full use of this class.** Your Intelligence score had to be a top priority at all times. Racial bonuses were needed for consistency. Weapon feats due to the loss of Trick Attack damage were needed ASAP to acquire better weapons - they more or less required (Weapon) Proficiency, Weapon Focus, and Versatile Specialization at the first 3 levels to keep up with other characters. The average player not only did not use S&S Operative due to it being tucked away in COM, but the average person building it probably suffered from not optimizing it.
S&S Operative's main draw was the powerful debuffs you got in return for being behind on single target damage **even after all those feats you just invested for 3 levels.** (You were also behind on action economy versus Quick Trick - even now after the QT nerfs!) Blinded, in particular, was superior to regular Operative just flat footing, because it gave standard enemies a real chance at missing their attacks and forcing DMs to think on their feet with regards to spells. But it was by no means overpowering, being limited to single targets that you succeeded on a tough skill check against - a skill check that, by the way, had no innate class bonuses to the check as regular Operative often has for checks not revolving around your key ability score.
S&S still has the highly underrated Selective Explosions, but it now has to make hard choices between attack roll debuffs and AC debuffs, which is plain ridiculous given the inherent disadvantages they have versus normal Operatives. Even if Dirty Trick was the clear best choice on stunts, other stunts should've been brought up to its level rather than DT getting the nerf hammer. (Were I in Paizo's place, I would've looked at removing the save requirement on Athletics' Knock Down or adding debuff conditions to abilities like Bluff's Feinting Stunt.)
Now, as for Toxicology's inhibitor... this was basically an underrated option before the nerf, and now Toxicology is basically smoldering hot garbage. Previously, it was a situational imparter of the sickened condition. It's a decent debuff, but -2 to attack, saves, and damage isn't brutal; most enemies have big bonuses to all even when debuffed.
Toxicology, already, was not a favored option in builds for two reasons: firstly, due to the fact that players prefer forcing enemies to take damage at the rate of 150% with no save as per Genetics inhibitor, which actually IS currently and previously overpowered without a save; and secondly, due to the fact that Toxicologist's inhibitor has the Poison descriptor, which means that it can't affect constructs and undead until high level play where Powerful Biohacks could be taken as a theorem; this was a critical limitation given that both are a frequent enemy type in Starfinder.
Giving Toxicologist's inhibitor a save means that the overwhelming majority of enemies will succeed against it rather than fail against it - and it's for a simple -2 to attacks, saves, and damage. Meanwhile Genetics inhibitor is giving hard increases to damage with no save. Will anyone *ever* pick a different Biohacker subclass?
...To summarize, these nerfs were surprisingly out of touch, more befitting Wizards of the Coast than Paizo. Whoever did these nerfs did so because they thought that abilities that work different than other are bad; and that is just profoundly ignorant with respect to overall game and build balance. I would encourage Paizo to look at these nerfs seriously and consider retracting them.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It's good to know that people like this exist. Great job, devs!
The blind and entangle options were not balanced against other options within that one ability, let alone against other Stunt and Strike abilities.
Toxicology sickness inhibitor was not balanced against the -2 to will/fortitude inhibitors - a -2 to all saves, plus damage, plus attacks? Come on, man.
Genetics vulnerability is quite good but overrated. Not everyone will standardize on one damage type with their best weapons, the biohacker himself will have a very hard time benefiting from it, and honestly -2 AC with everyone using projectiles is doing to do more damage in a lot of scenarios, allowing you to invest your field of study elsewhere. Projectile damage is just that much higher than most energy damage.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think you could make the arguments without being personally insulting towards people. You can insult and disagree with a change or ability without going after a person.
One thing your analysis is missing is that stunt and strike isn't just taken by operatives. Its also taken by classes dipping operatives. Giving the soldier an at will blind at the cost of a dip is just way too good. Giving anyone at will blind is just too good.
Xenocrat wrote: It's good to know that people like this exist. Great job, devs!
The blind and entangle options were not balanced against other options within that one ability, let alone against other Stunt and Strike abilities.
What is the appeal of S&S if it is not doing major debuffs to offset the high build investment, lack of subclass buffs to skill check rate, and low damage after the fact? You have to look at this not only from a strict balancing perspective, but an option appeal perspective. When you understand that Dirty Trick isn't balanced against Trick Attack without major debuffs, the need for buffs to the other Stunts - as I stated in my post - becomes clear as the alternative.
Quote: Toxicology sickness inhibitor was not balanced against the -2 to will/fortitude inhibitors - a -2 to all saves, plus damage, plus attacks? Come on, man. Even if you want to ignore how powerful imparting vulnerability to an enemy with no save is, Pharmacology gives an automatic debuff on a success with an additional debuff on a failure. And they are good debuffs on a failed save, actually - they seriously limit speed, which can often be better than simple -2's! But the save offset the power level properly.
Quote: Genetics vulnerability is quite good but overrated. Not everyone will standardize on one damage type with their best weapons In the context of the weapon draw rules in SF, where you can simply draw weapons as part of your move action in many cases (and also Trick Attack and S&S in recent errata,) it is extremely easy for party members to optimize around this inhibitor in practice.
Quote: the biohacker himself will have a very hard time benefiting from it Not the point; see above.
Quote: Projectile damage is just that much higher than most energy damage.
In the context of what build? Can you provide examples?
Quote: One thing your analysis is missing is that stunt and strike isn't just taken by operatives. Its also taken by classes dipping operatives. Giving the soldier an at will blind at the cost of a dip is just way too good. Giving anyone at will blind is just too good. It is a rare soldier that invests in Intelligence in this game when they are bound to str / dex / con / wis so tightly. I would be inclined to reward a player for their build knowledge, especially since racial modifiers are so key to getting Stunts off.
But aside from that fact, it is balanced with Expertise Attack from Envoy imparting Shaken on a similar skill check basis (which can be combined with Cruel weapon fusions for an effective -4 to hit and saves and -2 to damage) while **also providing a damage buff.** S&S Operative was not exceptional in providing a solid 1 level dip.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Shaken is a -2 to things monsters are already good at. Most monsters have enough hit not to notice, or to switch from full attacks to one attack. It's a 10% reduction in effectiveness.
Since blind already induces flat footed why would you ever do flat footed?
Blind is functionally useless for the round. Its near 90% reduction in effectiveness.
Its not just a 50% miss chance, a +2 to be hit. You need to pick what square you want to attack to even have a chance of hitting someone. your whole party can just not be attacked by hitting and moving away.
Blinded with NO save? Works against any creature without blindsight?
Your sense of balance is WAY off if you think that should be allowed.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
While I would personally have rebalanced the dirty trick stunt by allowing the conditions to be cleared in the same way as a dirty trick combat maneuver, instead, the idea that reducing the effectiveness of that stunt wasn't called for really doesn't hold up. I've got a character that uses it, and I've ended up needing to consciously not always use blind as the best condition that it offers to keep things interesting.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Shaken is a -2 to things monsters are already good at. Most monsters have enough hit not to notice, or to switch from full attacks to one attack. It's a 10% reduction in effectiveness. ...and, with Cruel weapon fusions, that becomes 20-25%. On attacks AND damage - including saves, which opens foes up to allied spellcasters and other debuffs.
Quote: Since blind already induces flat footed why would you ever do flat footed? It's a superior option because of the build resources you need to actually get it off. That is exactly what a debuff provided by Stunts should provide. They should be better than anything Trick Attack is doing.
Quote: Blinded with NO save? Works against any creature without blindsight?
Your sense of balance is WAY off if you think that should be allowed.
Blindsight isn't terribly uncommon in a game with aliens that have unique senses. And it's against one foe on a successful skill check.
Quote: I've got a character that uses it, and I've ended up needing to consciously not always use blind as the best condition that it offers to keep things interesting. Have you ever used Selective Explosions with a 30ft blast weapon? The choice on a good build is often between AOE and purely attacking one target, rather than the separate conditions. And again, as you level up, Cruel weapon fusions become available, and Shaken can really work wonders on creatures with alternative senses. Entangled is also really good on enemies that rely on melee attacks, as you can prevent their ability to attack you in the first place and even get -2s on them in the off-case that they aren't purely melee.
Quote:
I could, but this is basic understanding of the weapon balance. If you have this many opinions without grasping this I'm not sure you can be helped.
I'm not responding to this to convince you of anything, the analysis is poor enough that it's not worth my time given the low likelihood of success. I just don't want you polluting things for others, new to the system, who might read it and mistakenly think you have a point.
Well, although you argue disingenuously, that's not my intention, and I will continue to speak passionately about something I care about for a class I currently play. I think the quality of feedback I've provided is specific and detailed enough to be worth responding to.
Sean S. wrote:
...and, with Cruel weapon fusions, that becomes 20-25%. On attacks AND damage - including saves, which opens foes up to allied spellcasters and other debuffs.
Which is a VERY far cry from the 90% ineffectiveness from blind.
BlindSENSE is rather common. Blind sight not so much.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Xenocrat wrote: Genetics vulnerability is quite good but overrated. I tend to think so. Warning: side rant about errata ahead.
I've heard from at least 3 people I surmise should know that a nerf to the genetics inhibitor was intended to be in the recent errata, but wasn't for reasons unknown.
Which would be fine so long as (1) we can re-spec any nerfed feat or ability and (2) they actually errata'ed it.
I'm getting a bit frustrated with in the know GMs taking it on themselves to errata what Paizo has not - not so much with the GMs, but with Paizo apparently saying they're going to do so for almost a year now.. and not. If they do, okay. If they haven't, then the ability ought to be treated as written (including, yes, the NPC usage of that ability and fiction about the class) in Society play.
Make up your mind, Paizo. And then if you nerf it, just let us adjust to that. Pretty simple. No reason to complain.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MurderHobo#6226 wrote:
Make up your mind, Paizo. And then if you nerf it, just let us adjust to that. Pretty simple. No reason to complain.
I think there would be.
They had a playtest. There are 30ish? Playtest threads.
At least 3 of them mention the biohacker giving people vulnerability to an element and blowing them away.
One of the playtest subjects is the biohackers vulnerability.
One of their writers read the ability that way and had the biohacker do that in the story.
If the ability is read the other way the debuff stops doing anything at all for the biohacker after level 10.
If that wasn't enough to say "Huh.. I think we may need to change the wording on that a bit..." before printing, much less before now, then I don't know what would be.
Yeah, this sounds like rumormongering among some PFS GMs that is either unfounded or fueled by misunderstanding the opinion/wishes of one dev who can't carry a unanimous decision to modify it to something else. If it hasn't been changed yet I don't think it will be.
That might also be why we haven't received a clarification that "yes, we really mean it, vulnerability as the monster weakness" - because theirs a dev holdout who won't unanimously agree to that.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
This is such a weird discussion.
Like, the genetics biohacker pregen in SFS explicitly imparts vulnerability with the +50% damage and everything. The amount of mental gymnastics necessary to suggest that they didn't really mean for it to work that way is significantly more than I am comfortable with (and I do love my mental gymnastics).
It is very good, but coordinating your party to take advantage of it is a huge pain.
Dracomicron wrote: This is such a weird discussion.
Like, the genetics biohacker pregen in SFS explicitly imparts vulnerability with the +50% damage and everything. The amount of mental gymnastics necessary to suggest that they didn't really mean for it to work that way is significantly more than I am comfortable with (and I do love my mental gymnastics).
It is very good, but coordinating your party to take advantage of it is a huge pain.
Basically.
And, again, if Paizo wants to errata it, fine. But don't say it was supposed to be different and that it's going to be errata'ed for months... and then not.
MurderHobo#6226 wrote: Dracomicron wrote: This is such a weird discussion.
Like, the genetics biohacker pregen in SFS explicitly imparts vulnerability with the +50% damage and everything. The amount of mental gymnastics necessary to suggest that they didn't really mean for it to work that way is significantly more than I am comfortable with (and I do love my mental gymnastics).
It is very good, but coordinating your party to take advantage of it is a huge pain.
Basically.
And, again, if Paizo wants to errata it, fine. But don't say it was supposed to be different and that it's going to be errata'ed for months... and then not. When did paizo ever say the vulnerability part would get errata'd?
Garretmander wrote: MurderHobo#6226 wrote:
And, again, if Paizo wants to errata it, fine. But don't say it was supposed to be different and that it's going to be errata'ed for months... and then not.
When did paizo ever say the vulnerability part would get errata'd? "I've heard from at least 3 people I surmise should know that a nerf to the genetics inhibitor was intended to be in the recent errata, but wasn't for reasons unknown."
Based on his alias history I'm guessing this is SFS leadership rumormongering about alleged discussions with people at Paizo, not his direct discussions with Paizo employees. Several SFS people are given NDA access to stuff early to help screen it for balance or other concerns before inclusion in SFS and presumably have a constant conversational pipeline to the Paizo SFS people about balance issues, if not the development team.
Dracomicron wrote: Like, the genetics biohacker pregen in SFS explicitly imparts vulnerability with the +50% damage and everything. The amount of mental gymnastics necessary to suggest that they didn't really mean for it to work that way is significantly more than I am comfortable with (and I do love my mental gymnastics). The exact text on Barsala is copy-pasted from COM. It does not say "+50% damage" anywhere.
Instead, the text specifies that immunity becomes ER 20 and normal ER is decreased by 10 (minimum 0). That's it. It uses the phrase "imparts vulnerability" before defining the ability, sure, but the description does not mention "+50% damage".
Going further: "vulnerability" seems to be undefined in Starfinder -- except in the Universal Creature Rules (in the Alien Archives). There, though, it is defined as a special ability. Something that would only be inherent to the creature unless the text in Biohacker Genetics specifically said "acts as the ___ special ability", right?
It may be an unfortunate word choice to say "imparts vulnerability" if they didn't mean the +50% damage. Perhaps "increases susceptibility" or something would be better.
But it doesn't explicitly say +50% damage on the pregen or in the class description.
For another example using "vulnerable to" simply to mean "no longer invulnerable to", see the Witchwarper's paradigm shift Shifting Immunity (14th Level) COM p 65. It gives an example of making something normally immune to fire immune to cold instead for weapons, saying that it is unharmed swimming in lava now "vulnerable to fire weapons & spells."
For another -- different -- meaning, see CRB p 409, where objects that are vulnerable to certain type of damage take double damage (+100%) and may ignore hardness, not +50% damage.
Not saying the original interpretation for biohacker genetics is way off base per se; just that it's not nearly as explicit as some folks are making it seem.
Petronius wrote:
But it doesn't explicitly say +50% damage on the pregen or in the class description. Well, Since she can't do 20 points of damage what would be the point of imparting vulnerability under any other definition?
But yeah I'm just seeing Baraslai's name swapped in for the biohacker on the pregen sheets too.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Petronius wrote:
But it doesn't explicitly say +50% damage on the pregen or in the class description. Well, Since she can't do 20 points of damage what would be the point of imparting vulnerability under any other definition?
But yeah I'm just seeing Baraslai's name swapped in for the biohacker on the pregen sheets too. Part of the point is that there *is* no definition in Starfinder at all, outside a special ability.
I don't follow on the 20 points bit. The only place it says 20 is that energy immunity becomes energy resistance 20 under the biohacker skill (which is a copy-paste from the class description and so not Barsala-specific).
Petronius wrote:
I don't follow on the 20 points bit. The only place it says 20 is that energy immunity becomes energy resistance 20 under the biohacker skill (which is a copy-paste from the class description and so not Barsala-specific).
If your laser pistol does 10 points of damage, there's no point in reducing fire immunity to fire resistance 20. The resistance is functionally the same to you. Too damn high!
BigNorseWolf wrote: Petronius wrote:
I don't follow on the 20 points bit. The only place it says 20 is that energy immunity becomes energy resistance 20 under the biohacker skill (which is a copy-paste from the class description and so not Barsala-specific).
If your laser pistol does 10 points of damage, there's no point in reducing fire immunity to fire resistance 20. The resistance is functionally the same to you. Too damn high! Oh. But it applies to all weapon & spell damage, not just yours. (It just doesn't change resistance to environmental hazards.)
Petronius wrote:
Oh. But it applies to all weapon & spell damage, not just yours. (It just doesn't change resistance to environmental hazards.)
Even for a party its mathematically useless up till level.. what? 8ish?
Practically its useless. There's no reason to try to power through 20 points of resistance rather than switching tactics to a different element.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Petronius wrote:
Oh. But it applies to all weapon & spell damage, not just yours. (It just doesn't change resistance to environmental hazards.)
Even for a party its mathematically useless up till level.. what? 8ish?
Practically its useless. There's no reason to try to power through 20 points of resistance rather than switching tactics to a different element. What you're saying makes some sense -- but then again, without the 'immune becomes ER 20' bit, it would still have no impact. And in your example of 10 not being enough damage, 15 still isn't enough.
So tactically, yes, it might be silly at lower levels. I'm not sure that means anything for the vulnerability discussion, though.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Petronius wrote:
So tactically, yes, it might be silly at lower levels. I'm not sure that means anything for the vulnerability discussion, though.
When comparing differing interpretations one of the data points is the power level. Both "read this way does the ability do too much?" and "read this way does the ability do nothing or too little?" are evidence against an interpretation.
The main argument against vulnerability being vulnerability is its too good. My counter is that vulnerability being fluff text is then that the genetics inhibitor does nothing that the regular inhibitor doesn't. Something being a little too strong is more likely than something being completely busted.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Petronius wrote:
So tactically, yes, it might be silly at lower levels. I'm not sure that means anything for the vulnerability discussion, though.
When comparing differing interpretations one of the data points is the power level. Both "read this way does the ability do too much?" and "read this way does the ability do nothing or too little?" are evidence against an interpretation.
The main argument against vulnerability being vulnerability is its too good. My counter is that vulnerability being fluff text is then that the genetics inhibitor does nothing that the regular inhibitor doesn't. Something being a little too strong is more likely than something being completely busted. Ah, we're talking past each other slightly, I think. I don't really have an opinion on too strong/too weak here. It can help to take that larger context for sure, but I'm just stuck on folks reading in a term that does not appear to be defined (in Starfinder) & saying it says it right there (which it does not as far as I can tell, and definitely not explicitly like the rest of the ability).
If the weaker version is correct, Genetics would still give access to the ability to give -10 to ER at level 1 (if taken as the primary field) or level 7 (secondary field), rather than at level 9 (basic inhibitor). I don't know that I think 8 levels early access (potentially) to an extra -5 is *nothing*.
Maybe that isn't so powerful by itself. But it isn't by itself in any case. The Fields of Study are all a package deal, with a booster, an inhibitor, and a breakthrough. Perhaps that's where the balance lies.
I'm all good no matter how this one shakes out (if at all). I just get bothered when there's a claim (not by you) that something is obvious or spelled out when it isn't either.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It is defined in starfinder.
Inhibitor: You deliver a DNA-twisting or material-altering chemical nanite compound into a creature’s body, imparting vulnerability to one type of energy (your choice)
Vulnerability (Ex or Su)
Source Alien Archive 3 pg. 155, Alien Archive pg. 158, Alien Archive 2 pg. 154
The creature takes half again as much damage (+50%) when it takes damage of a specific type. Creatures with a vulnerability to an effect that doesn’t deal damage instead take a –4 penalty to saves against spells and effects that cause or use the listed vulnerability (such as enchantments). Some creatures might suffer additional effects, as noted in their stat blocks.
It just isn't defined in the biohacker... which isn't a surprise. I was putting together a guide/cheatsheet for the biohacker and ran out of tabs for all the rules it referenced (and discovered the wonderful world of medication mastery...)
It looks like they even went out of their way to say impart vulnerability rather than a less awkward make them vulnerable to which would be less clear. It looks like they tried to use the exact same word as the Universal monster rule.
You reduce the target’s resistance to one type of energy (your choice) by 5. At 9th level, you instead reduce it by 10. At 17th level, you instead reduce it by 15.
If the creature has resistance to that energy type, this effect instead reduces its resistance by 10 (minimum 0).
You take an extra 5 off IF the low level creature you're fighting has resist 10. At 10th the ability stops working entirely. What other biohacker ability is useless for half of the planned game?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Petronius wrote:
But it doesn't explicitly say +50% damage on the pregen or in the class description. Well, Since she can't do 20 points of damage what would be the point of imparting vulnerability under any other definition? If you transform an immunity to a resistance then suddenly you can use a Holy fusion for the last stretch.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: (and discovered the wonderful world of medication mastery...)
One of my suggestions from the playtest, you're welcome. Speaking of "too good," I sometimes wonder if people realize that this one theorem basically doubles their effective number of biohacks in terms of adding bonuses to shots. Also dishing out flat-footed and bonus nonlethal damage is nothing to sniff at.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ascalaphus wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Petronius wrote:
But it doesn't explicitly say +50% damage on the pregen or in the class description. Well, Since she can't do 20 points of damage what would be the point of imparting vulnerability under any other definition? If you transform an immunity to a resistance then suddenly you can use a Holy fusion for the last stretch. So you take up genetics only to fight evil outsiders and dragons? Thats beyond niche.
Dracomicron wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: (and discovered the wonderful world of medication mastery...)
One of my suggestions from the playtest, you're welcome. Speaking of "too good," I sometimes wonder if people realize that this one theorem basically doubles their effective number of biohacks in terms of adding bonuses to shots. Also dishing out flat-footed and bonus nonlethal damage is nothing to sniff at. And big reflex penalties if you're studious.
BigNorseWolf wrote: It is defined in starfinder.
Inhibitor: You deliver a DNA-twisting or material-altering chemical nanite compound into a creature’s body, imparting vulnerability to one type of energy (your choice)
Vulnerability (Ex or Su)
Source Alien Archive 3 pg. 155, Alien Archive pg. 158, Alien Archive 2 pg. 154
The creature takes half again as much damage (+50%) when it takes damage of a specific type. Creatures with a vulnerability to an effect that doesn’t deal damage instead take a –4 penalty to saves against spells and effects that cause or use the listed vulnerability (such as enchantments). Some creatures might suffer additional effects, as noted in their stat blocks.
It just isn't defined in the biohacker... which isn't a surprise. I was putting together a guide/cheatsheet for the biohacker and ran out of tabs for all the rules it referenced (and discovered the wonderful world of medication mastery...)
It looks like they even went out of their way to say impart vulnerability rather than a less awkward make them vulnerable to which would be less clear. It looks like they tried to use the exact same word as the Universal monster rule.
You reduce the target’s resistance to one type of energy (your choice) by 5. At 9th level, you instead reduce it by 10. At 17th level, you instead reduce it by 15.
If the creature has resistance to that energy type, this effect instead reduces its resistance by 10 (minimum 0).
You take an extra 5 off IF the low level creature you're fighting has resist 10. At 10th the ability stops working entirely. What other biohacker ability is useless for half of the planned game?
But a class feature is not a creature.
I mentioned the Universal Creature Rules. To be fully accurate, I could have said "in Starfinder, 'vulnerability' is only defined as a special ability of creatures, not for anything else" which is wordy but what I meant. I thought I was clear, my bad.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
What's your point? It's the creature that gains vulnerability, not the class feature.
I don't understand the mechanical importance that you're attaching to Vulnerability being a Universal Creature Rule.
HammerJack wrote: What's your point? It's the creature that gains vulnerability, not the class feature.
I don't understand the mechanical importance that you're attaching to Vulnerability being a Universal Creature Rule.
The biohacker's class feature is where the word vulnerability is used. Since there's no condition/other general rule/other general definition of vulnerability, I'm just saying I think there's inherent ambiguity over whether it would carry into an area that is not assigning a permanent characteristic to a creature.
That is, imparting a condition is one thing -- temporary, for one. A UCR attached to a creature is permanent, and so at least arguably not the same thing.
Serious question: are there other examples of creatures temporarily gaining the effects of a UCR? I haven't given it much thought, but that would make a difference.
If they meant to reference the UCR, wouldn't it normally say something like 'this acts as the Universal Creature Rule' or something? And wouldn't it also be capitalized (as the UCR is)?
I'm still not saying it's definitely one way. I am saying people who claim it's definitely +50% damage are making several leaps that aren't nearly as ironclad as they claim, that's all.
(And at the end of the day, I don't think it would be worth fighting over at the table.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Petronius wrote:
Serious question: are there other examples of creatures temporarily gaining the effects of a UCR? I haven't given it much thought, but that would make a difference. Right in the biohacker actually. In genetics even, which I don't think is a coincidence.
Booster: You temporarily boost a living creature (one that does not have the unliving universal creature rule) to improve the acuity of its hearing, granting the subject the benefits of blindsense (sound) with a range of 60 feet.
Universal Creature rules.
Blindsense (Ex)
The creature has a specific imprecise nonvisual sense that operates effectively without vision. This specific sense is indicated in parentheses.
Format: Senses blindsense (vibration) 60 ft.
Guidelines: Blindsense usually has a range of 60 feet.
Quote: I'm still not saying it's definitely one way. I am saying people who claim it's definitely +50% damage are making several leaps that aren't nearly as ironclad as they claim, that's all. It's not a leap to say that vulnerability is vulnerability. There's only one of them in the game. That you can't reference another ability from another book is... just not a rule. At all.
I don't think its a coincidence that genetics is the one giving you other creatures abilities: its holywood gene splicing. You load someone up with bat DNA they can echolocate. You load someone up with red dragon DNA all of a sudden they don't like cold. There just aren't a lot of creature abilities that would be an inhibitor. Its either vulnerability or what.. light sensitivity?
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
If the genetics inhibitor can't grant vulnerability because it's only defined in the universal creature rules and it doesn't reference them, the genetics inhibitor also can't actually remove immunity, because that's also only defined in the alien archive universal creature rules and not referenced in COM.
While the CRB uses the word "immunity" 12 times, 9 times in reference to mechanics (rather than setting stuff), it is nowhere defined except in the UCRs.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It's not a leap to say that vulnerability is vulnerability. There's only one of them in the game. That you can't reference another ability from another book is... just not a rule. At all.
Thanks for the follow up. Definitely appreciate the further citations.
The quoted bit ('You can't reference another ability from another book') is not what I was getting at, though. I was trying to get to it not being automatically true that something defined in one specific and narrowly-focused place is defined everywhere. Not about the book being separate -- it makes no difference how many volumes the rules are printed in, I agree -- about the category of UCR being (potentially) separate.
Blindsense may be in the UCR, but it's not a good comparison to Vulnerability for this discussion: Blindsense is discussed at length outside the UCR (Core p 262) and so doesn't shed much light on whether something only explicitly defined as a property of creatures carries over.
[edited for clarity and tone]
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Xenocrat wrote: If the genetics inhibitor can't grant vulnerability because it's only defined in the universal creature rules and it doesn't reference them, the genetics inhibitor also can't actually remove immunity, because that's also only defined in the alien archive universal creature rules and not referenced in COM.
While the CRB uses the word "immunity" 12 times, 9 times in reference to mechanics (rather than setting stuff), it is nowhere defined except in the UCRs.
I think this is a compelling case.
We could even go a step further, noting that "immunity" in its everyday meaning would be 'cannot be affected by' the thing, even without a separate Starfinder definition. But then again, if they meant the Genetics ability to merely remove and replace immunity (without the +50% damage), "susceptible" would be a much better word choice than "vulnerable" for sure.
Thanks for the discussion. I'm definitely better informed than I was before.
Recent threads in Starfinder General Discussion
|
