I don't see why not since it replaces Strength with one of them.
Your weapon normally adds Str and Cha to the damage, with Orbit you replace your Str with Cha, so still 2 stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, because the solar/lunar weapon disappears as soon as it leaves your hand. Nothing about Weapon Orbit changes that, it’s for normal melee weapons used by Solarians who don’t have a weapon manifestation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does here where it doesn’t provide a duration.
Generally stacking a stat twice is either the same kind of bonus, or a bonus from the same source so it won't work.
The way I see it is that you only have one charisma modifier(bonus) and an effect that adds your charisma bonus to something isn't actually giving a bonus. Rather, it's altering how the bonus is used. In this case, weapon orbit and soulfire are doing similar things. The difference is that weapon orbit includes penalties while soulfire is only if it is a bonus.
there were many, many arguments for why your charisma bonus and your charisma bonus were somehow, for some reason, not the same source.
They are the same source. A bonus is just what you call a modifier when it's positive. Your positive charisma modifier and charisma bonus are still the same thing. Its the number on your sheet next to "Cha"
Ability Bonus
When your ability modifier is positive, it can be referred to as an ability bonus. If an ability says to add your ability bonus, it means to add your ability modifier, but only if that modifier is not a negative number.
Running that through your statement with an F(x) and you get
The difference is that weapon orbit includes your charisma modifier while soulfire is your charisma modifier.
Which means there's no difference. You are absolutely stacking your charisma bonus with your charisma bonus. It's a fundamental limiter on the game that you can't stack the same bonus multiple times: there are too many ways to get bonuses.
Which means there's no difference. You are absolutely stacking your charisma bonus with your charisma bonus. It's a fundamental limiter on the game that you can't stack the same bonus multiple times: there are too many ways to get bonuses.
Technically, the bonuses from abilities are not typed. No where will you see the standard typing format of (source) bonus used in conjunction with ability modifiers as you would with typed bonuses, which is, arguably, the reason you can, in specific situations, use more than one ability bonus for a class effect or ability. So on that basis, I would argue that you can apply Cha twice for this ability. Further, from a game balance perspective, most solarians that take this ability are likely to be melee optomized anyway, as such, their Str is going to be very close to, if not the same as, their Cha. For such solarians, this means their bonus would be about the same as for their normal melee attack, and disallowing the substitution would put them at a functional penalty.
Damn, I think I have to disagree with you here E-Div... I initially considered it as you could add the Cha bonus from Fusion, and then replace your Str with Cha, however, your comment got me reading the Bonuses and Penalties section of the CRB (Page 266) and it that, unless stated otherwise, bonuses don't stack, we all agree on that. The first bonus to then be described is 'Ability bonus' and since the Fusion and the Orbit do not specifically state they can stack, then I believe they would not.
What type of bonus is a bonus from an ability? If it is not explicitly stated, by the rules on that page, the bonus is untyped. By your reasoning, the Soulfire fusion would not work as it's rules state it should, as the only 'type' of bonus would be ability bonus.
Let's look at this from a different view; let us say that bonuses from abilities are then of the type ability bonus. Therefore, the rule for the Soulfire fusion would be a case of specific trumps general, as the entire point of the fusion is to allow the adding of a second ability bonus.
Either way, the bigger issue here is that, as someone that hasn't played a solarian, I hadn't realized that the soulfire fusion can only be applied to a solarian weapon, which can't be thrown, unless you have a GM who is rather generous with the usage of the Thrown weapon fusion.
What type of bonus is a bonus from an ability?
Ability bonus. That was functionally how it worked in pathfinder, they went ahead and made it explicit in starfinder.
When multiple bonuses apply to the same value, different types of bonuses all apply, but in most cases bonuses of the same type do not add together (or “stack” with each other), unless a source specifies otherwise
The following describe the most common forms of bonuses, what they represent, and the kinds of things to which they apply.
Ability Bonus
When your ability modifier is positive, it can be referred to as an ability bonus. If an ability says to add your ability bonus, it means to add your ability modifier, but only if that modifier is not a negative number.
The no here could not be more explicit.
If it is not explicitly stated, by the rules on that page, the bonus is untyped. By your reasoning, the Soulfire fusion would not work as it's rules state it should, as the only 'type' of bonus would be ability bonus.
Even if it wasn't an explicitly listed ability bonus, and it is, it would be from the same source. It's the same number right next to your charisma and you're trying to double dip on it.
What type of bonus is a bonus from an ability?When multiple bonuses apply to the same value, different types of bonuses all apply, but in most cases bonuses of the same type do not add together (or “stack” with each other), unless a source specifies otherwise
Ability bonus. That was functionally how it worked in pathfinder, they went ahead and made it explicit in starfinder.
The following describe the most common forms of bonuses, what they represent, and the kinds of things to which they apply.
Ability Bonus
When your ability modifier is positive, it can be referred to as an ability bonus. If an ability says to add your ability bonus, it means to add your ability modifier, but only if that modifier is not a negative number.The no here could not be more explicit.
If it is not explicitly stated, by the rules on that page, the bonus is untyped. By your reasoning, the Soulfire fusion would not work as it's rules state it should, as the only 'type' of bonus would be ability bonus.Even if it wasn't an explicitly listed ability bonus, and it is, it would be from the same source. It's the same number right next to your charisma and you're trying to double dip on it.
Fair. There still remains the point that specific trumps general, and if you could apply a Soulfire fusion to a normal melee weapon, the wording of that effect would take presidence. Unless a GM allows a higher tier version to be researched and developed, or a version of the Thrown fusion to work with solarian weapons, however, this is a moot point. (Mote point?)
There is no specific wording to trump general. Specific wording would be something along the lines of "or twice your charisma bonus if the weapon already uses your charisma bonus for damage".
The rule against stat stacking exists solely for when you're combining ability A with ability B. Ability A and ability B isn't a more specific circumstance than the stat stacking rules, it's exactly the circumstance the rule was written for.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hadn't realized that the soulfire fusion can only be applied to a solarian weapon, which can't be thrown, unless you have a GM who is rather generous with the usage of the Thrown weapon fusion.Doesn't have to be generous. Thrown weapon fusion can be added to a solarian weapon crystal. The fusion specifically allows your solar weapon to be thrown. There is no rule that says your solar weapon dissipates immediately upon leaving your hand.
Except on page 102 of the core rulebook:
Your solar weapon is automatically dismissed if it ever leaves your hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grenades are a bad example I think, since by design, they have a fuse and in the book it specifically states.
Grenades are thrown weapons that detonate in an explosive radius when they reach the target.
As for pulling the pin, The grenade explodes at the end of your current turn. is the wording for the feat.
Damage reduction automatically happens when you take damage, not seconds later.
Using your point, it also doesn't say it lingers for more then an instant when it leaves your hand.
Where does it say immediately? A grenade with the pin pulled will automatically blow up if the lever is released. That doesn't mean it would blow up before you got to throw it.
Where does it say after a few seconds? It doesn't explicitly say not A therefore A doesn't follow.
Automatically implies that it happens very quickly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's where specific starts to trump something not said. Thrown weapon fusion specifically says you can throw it. The rules don't say how long it takes to dissapate, but they do say you can throw your solar weapon and make an attack.
Uh, what rules say that? Can you quote them?
I've never put Thrown on a weapon crystal because I couldn't find anything that gave an exception to the weapon disappearing when it leaves your hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course it does.
No.
The standards of evidence is NOT something absolutely 100 percent directly contradicts you and you are right. As demonstrated that is simply not a tenable position to take because the rules rarely if ever hold any ruling up with that level of certainty. That would leave you with at LEAST two perfectly viable, contradictory solutions to every rules question.
However, there is a difference between an indeterminate amount of time and a set amount of time. The thrown fusion doesn't make the sentence false. Therefore it works with solar weapons
No.
The weapon shuts off automatically if it leaves your hand.
Throwing causes the weapon to leave your hand.
The weapon automatically shuts off.
The weapon is not on to deal damage when it hits.
That is there the preponderance of the evidence is. That is the more sensible and consistent rules conclussion.
.
Does something have to specifically call out solar weapon for it to alter how solar weapon works? No one questions weapon specialization working with solar weapon despite not actually being an advanced melee weapon.
Those rules are nested.
Your solar weapon functions as a one-handed kinetic advanced melee weapon with an item level equal to your solarian level, and you’re automatically proficient with it.
All one handed advanced melee weapons that don't have the operative special property add level to damage. That rule doesn't need the freedom to make stuff up, it's specifically stated to work like that. Nothing indicates otherwise. For being thrown, something DOES indicate otherwise.
Solar weapon functions as an advanced melee weapon. It should benefit from all things advanced melee weapon. Especially when there isn't a rule that prevents it and all the rules support it.
Your idea that there isn't a rule that prevents it is less than demonstrated.
Besides, what's more fun for the player? Increased character options that don't unbalance a game or arbitrary limitations that are not actually written in the book?
Thrown and reach are pretty much the only two advantages a melee soldier has over a melee solarion.
This is a reason to house rule. That is not a reason to conclude what a rule says unless you're picking between equally evidenced options. The weapon shutting off quickly and the weapon lasting long enough to be thrown are not equally evidenced.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bolded segment is the mistaken assumption. It doesn't say "when." It says "if it ever." The time frame is indeterminate. This leaves the door wide open for the thrown fusion to function as advertised.
I have doubts about wide open.
Any GM can rule that it's automatically dismissed when it leaves your hand and before it strikes a target.
Sure, you might convince a GM to rule that the automatic dismissal functions after hitting a target. At most a FAQ candidate, a sure thing no.
Especially for society play you should not assume you can get away with throwing solar weapons.
I for one, would rule that the weapon disappears automatically as soon as your mote leaves your hand (which it would do if it was thrown).
Also, I would consider the solarian class ability that causes your solar weapon to be dismissed to be the more specific rule to the thrown weapon property.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's where specific starts to trump something not said. Thrown weapon fusion specifically says you can throw it. The rules don't say how long it takes to dissapate, but they do say you can throw your solar weapon and make an attack.Uh, what rules say that? Can you quote them?Thrown fusion applies the thrown weapon property to your solar weapon. The thrown weapon property allows you to throw your weapon which is a standard action that lets you make an attack roll and a damage roll if you hit.
I've never put Thrown on a weapon crystal because I couldn't find anything that gave an exception to the weapon disappearing when it leaves your hand.The bolded segment is the mistaken assumption. It doesn't say "when." It says "if it ever." The time frame is indeterminate. This leaves the door wide open for the thrown fusion to function as advertised.
That doesn't specifically say that you can make a thrown attack on a solarian weapon. The only way that works is if you can somehow keep your hand on the weapon the whole time you're throwing it... which would more accurately be called a "reach attack."
The rules allow the combination to work by the literal meaning of the words used. The writer didn't use words or a statement like "immediately" or "when it leaves your hand."
Your solar weapon is automatically dismissed if it ever leaves your hand.
I am pretty sure the writer did use that statement, with 1 word difference.
One of the problems that seem to be a circle logic is the Solar weapon does not state it disappears immediately, however it also does not state it takes a few seconds before disappearing. So that argument has no real evidence to back it up in either case because it can be used on both sides.
In pretty much every situation where automatically has been used (My experience), such as 'the lights come on automatically when someone enters' they happen straight away.
There is no preponderance when the conclusion is based on an arbitrary assumption of limited scope. When you apply the full scope of application of the sentence it proves the assumption false.
Insulting the statements does nothing to refute them. The conclusion is not based on an assumption, the scope is not limited. The scope is all of the information we have on when a weapon shuts off.
The weapon shuts off automatically if it leaves your hand.
Throwing causes the weapon to leave your hand.
The weapon automatically shuts off.
The weapon is not on to deal damage when it hits.
Has a thrown weapon left your hand` Yes. So did the solarion weapon shut off? Yes. There simply is no "greater scope" for you to wave your hand at. You're pointing to nothing. `
Absolutely nothing you have quoted remotely suggests that the statement is false. All you can do is say that the statement is only 99% likely to be true and therefore isn't true. This is nothing but sophistry and polemics.
There is a reason everyone is telling you it doesn't work: it's because it doesn't work.
What does this blatantly false strawman have to do with the original argument?
Picking random fallacies doesn't help your case either. Your argument was that "? Increased character options that don't unbalance a game " I'm questioning that statement, as solarions are already very powerful if not the top damage dealers for a good chunk of the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider the "functions as an advanced melee weapon" even more specific than that. I can throw an advanced melee weapon with the thrown property.
Consensus doesn't mean correct and it's easy enough to houserule that it dissapates immediately. The rules allow the combination to work by the literal meaning of the words used. The writer didn't use words or a statement like "immediately" or "when it leaves your hand."
And like I said you will find GMs that will rule it one way and GMs that will rule it the other. It isn't a houserule either way, it's a minor ambiguity.
The rules technically allow it by a generous reading. They also disallow it by a more strict reading.
So, I'm giving the advice not to assume every GM will allow it to work, because the rules are easily interpreted to disallow it. I am one of those GMs who thinks general rules like weapon properties are less specific than a class feature that gives you a weapon with caveats. So I'm one of the ones that disallows this to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Solarians can super have plenty of ranged options not using their free Glowstick of Massacre. They can spend the credits they don't spend on weapons on them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't say X therefore it is Y.
It doesn't say immediately therefore it is after a few seconds.
It doesn't say after a few seconds therefore it is immediately.
So it doesn't say immediately is a total non argument.
Saying automatically without a time limit implies (but doesn't outright say) that it happens immediately. I don't see anything remotely arguing the other way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the circular logic is the argument for it doesn't disappear instantly can also be used to argue it doesn't linger. You can keep going in a circle because your argument is also working against you. A to B and back again.
Your cooling effect and such for your point are flawed. The cooling effect begins immediately, the effect takes X time to happen. A light (Which it essentially is) is on, then off with the minimal of time between. Take a pan of the fire and the action of cooling immediately starts, but the action takes a duration. Lets use a song. I hit the play button, it immediately starts, the song lasts 3 min. The action is the song starting, there is the most minimal time between me hitting play and the song starting.
As for the comment of 'Majority/Minority' I believe its a reference to the current topic, as in 4 of the 5 people choose red, there for the majority chose red.
I have to question your comprehension if what I said seemed in any way like an insult when all I did was refute your statement.
There was absolutely no refutation. At all. There is no coherent argument at all starting from a known and proceeding rationally to conclusion. All you did was insult the idea, and now all you are doing is insulting me.
Tossing ad homs into the mix to demonstrate you're not using fallacies isn't helping your case.
There is no overlap here.
Spontaneously:
1 : done or said in a natural and often sudden way and without a lot of thought or planningYou are also not addressing the conditional if/then nature of the statement.
Your solar flare is automatically dismissed if it ever leaves your hand.
You try to throw the solar weapon.
Has it left your hand? Yes.
Then it is dismissed.
Even IF you ignore that, your ENTIRE argument boils down to not A therefore B. Which simply does not follow at all.
The Weapon doesn't say it is dismissed immediately (questionable)
Therefore the weapon MUST be dismissed over a long enough period of time to hit the target.
If you do not think the wording is clear enough then the resulting conclusion is "I don't know". Not -the answer i want because it gives me the mechanical advantage i want to use-. You cannot offer ANY positive argument for your position besides that the other position isn't proof positive.
Consensus of the majority does not equate to being correct. In fact, everyone in this post is a very small minority being vocal about our opinions. Claiming majority rule in this situation isn't very convincing.
If you're playing in a home game the only one that matters is the dm.
If you're playing in organized play you're stuck with the consensus. And you should try to figure out what that is before dabbling your toes in table variation.
Being insulted just because someone refutes your "preponderance" does not make you the target of an ad hominem.
there was no refutation. At all. You merely made disparaging remarks about what I said. Anyone can do that about anything. It doesn't provide evidence of anything. "I have to question your comprehension".. is absolutely aimed at me in order to undermine the arguments, which you seem incapable of doing through legitimate means.
refutations demonstrate a problem with an idea Case in point...
You conveniently left out the other meaning: "without apparent external cause or stimulus.
Holy cow no. That is not how words work.
Shutting off automatically being quickly, suddenly, and without further intervention are NOT mutually exclusive. Happening without further agency is a good way to speed things up.
Why MUST it mean without external stimulus but NOT suddenly?
It is rank polemics to suggest dishonesty on the part of someone using basic reading comprehension to understand the word in context so it makes sense. No word would have any meaning if it can't mean any of its synonyms because it MUST mean the other one.
Again, this is one of your arguments where switching the argument you use to exclude an option you like just as legitimately excludes the option you want.
"It can't mean definition A therefore it must mean definition B"
"It can't mean definition B therefore it must mean definition A"
Those are both equally valid (not very)
As much as you want to tie the meaning of automatically to the meaning of immediately, it doesn't happen.
Because.....?
Did it leave your hand? Yes. Was it automatically dismissed? Yes. Is this questionable? No. Word for word it satisfies the condition and the result.
But to no discernible intent. Is it supposed to automatically shut off immediately, in 2 seconds, 3 seconds, 1 minute, 1 hour or 24 hours?
Having the solar weapon shut off by itself in 24 hours would meet your definition. You could throw it, put it on a bayonette, or hand it to your party soldier and let them use it. As long as no one has to press abutton to shut it off it can shut off a week later and meet your definition.
But why would anyone bother to mention that in the context of a role playing game and then NOT mention the time frame? That doesn't make any sense. But if the intent is to keep you from throwing it, or handing it to someone else to use, or leaving it somewhere as a nightlight then the meaning makes perfect sense.
If the consensus said that specialization didn't work with solar weapon because it isn't actually a weapon, does it make it correct? Group play requires...
You have done nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to demonstrate that the idea is WRONG. The idea that it shuts off immediately makes the most sense, even if it isn't 100% evidenced. The options are not 100% known and must be wrong.
What you are arguing is that the idea is not PROVEN. And because it's not proven then it is false and the other idea must be true. You tried to do the same thing with definitions. I declare its not definition A, therefore it must be definition B, you are dishonest for disagreeing with me.
The arguments you have tried to use to do so have been so outlandish that it's hard to give your position any credence.
It does not work. If you do not absolutely know A with certainty the answer is not automatically therefore B. That argument works BETTER that its not B because A has the better evidence. It's a worse version of the false dilemma argument: at BEST "i don't know" is always an option.
If this hasn't convinced you there's a problem with your line of thought, you're going to have to figure it out for yourself over time. I won't be attempting it again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, time is relevant. But since the game states shooting a laser takes a standard action, they state how long it takes, which conveniently is the same duration to swing a sword. So how is that helping your case?
Except that discounts the fact that time is relative. Shooting a laser takes just as much time as swinging a sword. It also discounts the ability for rules to modify themselves. Feats modify existing rules all over the place, hence the "normal" tag. Fusions modify base weapons.
Adding new information which is irrelevant to the point doesn't invalidate the argument. Your argument was 'It doesn't say this specifically there for it does this.' also covers your it lasts long enough to be thrown argument. Making a point of something else does not invalidate my point.
You comment on rules changing with stuff is a valid point, separate from the 'it doesn't say' argument.However, nothing in the thrown special quality states it allows a Solar weapon to linger.
If the consensus said that specialization didn't work with solar weapon because it isn't actually a weapon, does it make it correct? Group play requires concessions and that is fine.
You gain Weapon Specialization as a bonus feat for each weapon type for which this class grants you proficiency. If you selected solar weapon as your solar manifestation, it gains the benefit of Weapon Specialization as if it were an advanced melee weapon.
I would agree, until my Solarian hits level 3 when I gain this little beauty which specifically states it does.
if I was a Level 5 Operative and took a level in Solarian, even with Versatile focus I would accept a general consensus rule that the Solar weapon doesn't gain specialisation, especially since Society play already alters what is and isn't accepted. Once my character reaches level 3 Solarian, then I gain an ability to specifically state it does benefit from it, so then it would.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My position is simple, the rule says I can throw a solar weapon so I can.
The counter position is also simple.
The rules say the solar weapon is automatically dismissed if it leaves your hand. You throw it and it disappears without hitting the target.