Not from the expired Alien Archive boon, no.
The 'problems' with one-shot boons is that we hoard them for that clutch moment (and then forget to use them) and they're so ultra specific that they never get used (+2 diplomacy with freed slaves in Absalom).
One shots need to be generic +1 to attack or +1 to save or +1 to X skill, not require an action, and, if you really want to drive their use, allowed to be applied after the success/failure is determined (because we're not thinking of our random stash of tiny bonuses during the narative when the GM springs a request for knowledge rolls on us, but when we see that 8 come up we remember and kick ourselves).
Those rules from the Inner Sea Magic book are not approved.
Sadly, the Stargazer PrC is also not approved, which is a bummer because it is awesome.
EDIT: I've always been curious to see how the sohai/empyreal/eldritch knight plays out.
EDIT2: An interesting archetype for familiar classes is the Rivethun Emissary from the Adventurer's Guide. It is optimal to enter as a Shaman, but it works for any spellcaster with a familiar.
Feeling waterlogged after going swimming today. I'm not up for doing a lot of detailed planning, but I am planning on playing a barbarian. I'm wondering if it'd be worthwhile to go for some non-lethal options, such as grappling, and if I need to grab an archetype for that, or just stick with the basic class.
A grappler specialist can be quite devastating against single opponents. With 7 of us, you can spend your actions keeping a thing locked down while we beat it up. Your rogue will also love you.
While I'm certain the basic Barbarian can do it just fine, consider the Bloodrager (I know, not a barbarian) archetype Bloody-Knuckled Rowdy (gains Improved Unarmed Strike for free and increases damage as Monk-3) or Blood Conduit (gains Improved Grapple free and can cast while grappling as a swift action without provoking) or the Barbarian archetype Brutal Pugalist.
I always have a hard time picking my feats for druids.
However, if you would like to do something a little different, this requires 2 feats from the Monster Hunter's Handbook:
1st: Creature Focus, which gives you a limited Favored Enemy (and counts as having it for feat qualification) vs. one creature type (and subtype if applicable) from the ranger list except Humanoid and Monstrous Humanoid.
2nd: Focused X Expertise where X = the creature type you took for Creature Focus. The benefits differ by creature type. There's always a generic "always on" benefit and a slightly more powerful benefit for the specific creature type.
I like Vermin for the DR vs. swarms. Ooze gives acid resistance. Outsider lets you ignore alignment based DR. Dragon gives you evasion vs. dragon breath weapons (or the Inquisitor's stalwart class feature if you already have evasion). Etc etc.
I've seen it and I think it is VERY cool! What a fascinating ability.
The opportunity to roleplay that ability is a large part of why I'm going Rivethun instead of Spirit Dancer. That and I think the Rivethun philosophy is a cool addition to the lore. It just fits the boon that I'll be using so well.
It is a girl, Ladile. Both mom and baby are doing swimmingly. I'm getting good at my one handed text typing. She's much more serene than my boy when he was born (or any moment since). :)
There are some very interesting slayer builds with and without archetypes. It's a very good mix of combat and skills. So too can be ranger.
So, while I wait for the other lady to deliver so my wife can start pushing...
The base Medium can change his role on a daily basis. He isn’t especially good at any one thing except as a Striker.
The Spirit Dancer/Riventhun increases the versatility by allowing the spirit to change on the fly but at the cost of duration. The 24 hour bonus of the base Medium becomes N rounds per day.
As for my role, I see him as a back-up Striker with the ability to whip out a skill or spell on the fly as needed. Riventhun would allow me to be a status condition healer. I would probably also max UMD.
Here's a list of scenarios that I have played but would definitely spend a replay to play:
There's more on that list than I have replays for, but basically, if it's on the list above, you don't need to ask me if I'm OK replaying it. :)
I'm sorry your experience was muddled by poor organization, insufficient scheduling of GMs for the number of (door) tickets sold
To be fair, he was seated for each ticket purchased, he just wasn't able to get 3+ seats together with door tickets. It's a bummer to go as a family and not get to play as a family, but that is a situation that requites table specific tickets and early muster. Granted, that's not something I knew before attending my first convention.
As a beginner, he may not understand that GMs for conventions are volunteers rather than paid staff. He may not realize that table specific tickets fill before and at priority above generic tickets. He may not realize that marshals have a different task than GMs and one that continues past seating tables.
I can understand his confusion, but what he's experienced is a function of conventions rather than Paizo not supporting beginners.
I feel like I inadvertently stepped in a hornet’s nest.
I implied nothing. My feelings on the issue were what I stated and nothing more. BNW, you are unfairly attributing negative assessments to my thoughts that are not there. I did not call the rule inane or anyone wrong for applying it.
Having you jump down my throat for a legitimate question I had certainly makes me no longer interested in the subject.
It doesn't have anything to do with invalidating builds. It has the potential to invalidate the Take 10 rule.
I've got +10 Perception. I'm pretty sure an 11 won't find the secret door but a fair guess 20 might. I want to Take 10 to search the room. No, you can't take 10 to search the room because finding the secret door advances the plot. You rolled a 2. Oh, sorry, you don't see or have any reason to believe there's anything hidden here. Scenario over. Here's your 1 XP and 0 Rep/Fame. (There have existed scenarios where the entire adventure is hidden behind two DC 20 Perception checks, so it's not an exaggeration).
But more to the point, thete are lots of skill check points through scenarios. Random GMs may randomly decide different check points are "key parts" and allow or deny Take 10 randomly. For Repeatables, that's going to become annoying.
PFS' The Confirmation for example: GM Bob allowed you to Take 10 to climb around the pit or climb up the knotted rope to get out. GM Fred said no Take 10 because getting past it was a key part of thr adventure.
But on the lines of builds, it's as irritating as a Rogue not being able to Take 10 on Disable Device to pick a lock at random.
CRB p. 133 wrote:
. . . and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story.
It was just pointed out to me that this wonderfully vague bit was added to Starfinder's Take 10 rules as a deviation from what I was used to in Pathfinder.
"almost never": when do I, as a SFS GM enforce this?
I would sorely love to have SFS overrule this and declare Take 10 is available any time that you are not in danger or distracted when in organized play, as it is described right up until that line. Otherwise, there's going to be a whole lot of table variation on Take 10.
Proposed Paladin Code wrote:
You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.
Is this portion really required? You already have do not perform evil deeds (intentionally harming an innocent would be evil).
A sign that your tenant is flawed is that it need qualifiers to explain, and that section has a lot of qualifiers. It is also probably the biggest source of the 'would this make my paladin fall' debates.
A good tenant can be summed up with approximately 3 words.
Do no harm.
GenCon has them listed by Tier (1-2, 3-4, etc).
It is the same adventure, but the challenges increase in difficulty by Tier. There are sometimes different paths that no one table can take all of, and the tables each contribute their successes to a house pool to determine the progress of events in the Special.
Joe Bouchard wrote:
Tallow argues that prioritizing convention attendance lower than, say, going to my sister's wedding is a choice and you bite his head off. However, you argue that GMs who prioritize sharing the job of entertaining the kids at a convention so they only have time to GM one slot and maybe play one slot are doing "as little as possible" and shouldn't be rewarded and fail to see the irony.
I don't, personally, seen chronicle fishing as as bad a thing as other people. Wanting to play or run a scenario for access to a race is no different, to me, than wanting to play or run a scenario because it matches my character's theme or applies to my character's faction or any other reason one might want to play a scenario they missed out on.
There is always the SFS alien archive player boon method: Play X-number of unique scenarios and gain access to one of N races. Ironically, I have seen GMs put off by that system, even though they have a separate RSP GM boon to work on.
Joe Bouchard wrote:
and that's just to stop the practice of doing as little as possible and getting the same amount of rewards as other GMs that are doing more for Society
Now you can't have it both ways. One man's "little as possible" is another man's "the most I have to offer with my limited resources (vacation days, spousal good will, money, concentration, etc)."
Joe, you really are coming to the wrong conclusions what bout Tallow is trying to say and interjecting your own ideas into his words.
Trying to steer this back to a line more conducive to discussion:
Here are the competing forces.
1. Conventions need to bring in GM volunteers.
How do we narrow this perceived gap without breaking a different part of the system?
Wei Ji proposed limited rare ancestry slots for all that could be spent on any approved not-always-available ancestry as they were authorized. Convention GMs could be rewarded with extra rare ancestry slots. The tracking to avoid fraud here seems worse than the current system, but I may not be seeing a simple solution (e.g. your ancestry slots are registered on the website and get coded onto your PFS card like stars; it gets crazy with enough convention boons, but the print could be very small).
One idea I had was to leave the system as is but make a concerted effort to release race boons in Scenarios related to that race like Starfinder did with Morlamaws. You play an adventure that takes you to work with the tengu and the chronicle rewards you with the ability to create one tengu character. You want a second? GM that scenario. You want more? GM conventions.
Re-posting for PDK's benefit.
Pavo the Rogue:
Male human rogue (burglar) 1
CG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +9; Perception +5 (+6 vs. traps)
AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 10 (dexterity +3, dodge +1)
HP 10 (1d8+2)
Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +2
Speed 30 ft.
Str 12, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 13
Base Atk +0; CMB +1; CMD 14
Languages Taldane (common), Kelish’
GMing for my local group is so much easier and convenient than arranging to go to a convention to GM. I can't even begin to explain how much more convenient. And if I have to back out for whatever reason, there's always next month to make up for it.
Why is being rewarded as a player even being compared to being rewarded for volunteering as a GM?
To GM: I need to buy the scenario, prepare the scenario, buy the maps, markers, minis/stand-ins, among other things, not to mention the ephemeral costs like running it before getting to play it, running a table instead of playing at a table. (Yes, I like to GM, but I also like to play and to be surprised when playing.)
To play: I need to bring my character sheet and a pebble I found on the ground to represent my character.
While the tone shouldn't be doom and gloom, it is disingenuous to say that Paizo is going to promote PFS1.
Here's what we know they're keeping for PFS1:
Here's what PFS2 is getting:
First, this is all appropriate for the change Paizo is making. However, nobody should be going around telling anyone that, "everything will be fine, they're still supporting PFS1 like always." And as far as players determining the viability of PFS1, we may be "free to choose," but I am certain there is going to be an invisible hand pushing us all toward PFS2 (marketing and advertising).
First, "pay to win" does not apply in any sense that I have seen it used in these discussions. It's just a charged expression.
However, PFS should be organized so that everyone involved has a high quality playing experience.
...and your suggestion to do that is to de-incentivize convention GMing?
EDIT: What is the barrier that PFS is setting up? The fact that you need disposable income and disposable time to go to a convention?
I need disposable income and disposable time to go to the movies. If I can't afford to go to Avengers: Infinity War, should Disney or my local movie theater chain send me a free copy to my house?
Joe Bouchard wrote:
It creates a huge barrier for people who just don't have the money to go to conventions all the time.
That barrier is socioeconomic and not PFS' responsibility to deal with.
I can't go to conventions around the country to collect race boons, but I support rewarding convention GMs with race boons.
People have priorities in their lives. For some people, that means spending money on rent, groceries, and car payments over convention entrance fees and hotel charges. Some people sleep in their cars to attend conventions. Some people just can't get the time off from work. Some people have children that can't be handed off to a relative or attend the convention. PFS cannot (and should not try) to address these differentials.
The following is academic since we all agree the combination doesn't work but:
Natural Attack is a modification of unarmed attacks rather than a separate kind of attack (like in PF). Natural Attack makes unarmed attacks "armed" and non-archaic.
To the point at hand: you either choose to modify your unarmed attack with Natural Attack or Hammerfist and cannot have both.
I see where some of these arguments are coming from, but I agree with N N 959:
Paizo needs to retain players so that all the people purchasing PF1 material buy PF2 material.
An existing market is worth more than a theoretical market.
As has be stated several times previously, the "blank slate" is a transient illusion because it will cease to exist the moment someone gains something from GMing (be it a star or early access to an ancestry). Alternatively, rather than barriers, they serve as incentives, showcasing the rewards of GMing to the new players should they wish to try their hand at GMing.
So, why encourage the OPC to alienate the existing market of return customers with a "blank slate" that might, in one theory of how a blank slate works in this situation, attract a smaller market of new players?