Arc Riley wrote:
As a society GM, I allow drone use in combat and will continue to do so until official clarification is made against it. In practice, I've found it has almost no mechanical impact on combat or the scenario but adds to the players enjoyment of the game.
And as a society GM I would not allow a drone because it is clearly a class feature and thus not allowed.
I understand the desire because of the whole Star Wars and R2D2 thing. But per the CRB, they are not allowed.
We do agree that a FAQ clarifying this is needed urgently. So please everyone click the FAQ button.
There has to be an impact because the PCs have more actions with a 5th "character".
Anyways, an old debate between us that will not be resolved until the powers that be make a clarification. The fact they have not speaks volumes to me that no clarification is needed because drones are a class feature and not an independent entity.
The feat allows you to take a guarded step if an adjacent foe takes a guard step. It uses your reaction.
so you move 5'.
Since Step up is a reaction, it is not on your turn, it is on his. The other creature could take a Guarded Step, your reaction to that with a step up, so he can use his standard action at attack you. You don't get an attack by using Step Up.
Step up and strike does allow you to make an attack, which would happen happen before the foe would attack.
Dread Moores wrote:
Tools aren't a class feature though. It seems like it wouldn't apply, under that ruling.
Do you mean would apply?
Because tools do apply during space combat because that bonus is to the skill, not an action.
There is a clarification posted about it but can't point to it just now. I know it is not part of the FAQ.
The delaying character has already won the initiative roll. They don't need to check again.
Right. The question is where in the initiative order does the delaying character go? If one uses page 238, the delaying character would have the same initiative count in the next round, and could act BEFORE the creature that the character acted after in the previous round because the character has a higher initiative modifier.
I believe a delaying/readying character would have the same initiative count but would be after the creature in initiative order.
Other say this is not the case.
So I found a 3rd party site that allows people to see the GenCon events and see how may tickets remain. Looking at the 3 specials, there are some interesting tidbits.
For 10-00, it is practically sold out. The only thing left is Tier 3-4.
For 8-99C, there are LOTS of tickets left. Most tiers are at about 60% sold. However, Tier 7-9 is almost sold out.
For 1-99, All tables for 1-2 are sold out. For tier 3-4, about 85% of tickets are sold. Tiers 5-6 and 7-8 are about 25% sold.
The higher level Starfinder scenarios have tickets available.
So from this, I would expect some shifting of tables around.
It states you come out of delay and take your turn. Seems pretty clear it is immediately to me. The character is already primed for action. They get dropped into order directly after the creature they selected to act after.
You and I agree.
There are others who feel that process on page 238 for Initiative is repeated every time two creatures have the same initiative count, not just the beginning of combat roll that the GM then sets the initial initiative order.
Thus my request for a FAQ to provide guidance about how Delay and Ready actions affect initiative order from round to round.
So if please click the FAQ button!
Oh I hope I draw that tier to GM!!!
So I'll kind of reiterate the question again, does Starfinder only have the one pool items you can use credits to buy from (the Always Available item pool) or do your Chronicle Sheets count as a separate pool of items you can buy from (while factoring in that they contribute in a way to the Always Available item pool)
Sorry I got confused with your question.
There is one pool of items that someone can spend their credits on. The "Always Available item pool" as you call it. A character is limited to what tier of item they can purchase based upon their level, Infamy, chronicles, and amount of credits they have.
You can purchase any item from the Core Rule Book that is your level + 1 in tier. I.e. at level 1, you can buy tier 2 items, level 2 you can buy tier 3 items, etc.
Additionally, you can purchase items off a chronicle that is your level + 2. I.e. at level 1, you can buy tier 3 items
Do note that infamy will affect what you can purchase.
Unless noted on the chronicle, you can purchase as many of as item you wish.
Ok so you have created your event and now you wish to report on it.
When you get to Society Page that has 4 tabs across the top called Player,Player Sessions, GM/Event Session, and GM Session, you need to click on GM/Event Session.
Once you do that you will see the event you created. To the right you will see "Report". Click on that. This is were you report sessions for the event you created.
This is where Nefreet reminds you to change the type from "Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild" to "Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild".
You then enter information on the GM PFS number, character number, Fame earned. Next you move onto the players and enter their information.
Hopefully this helps.
What about something like magic missile, would you allow forgoing the auto-hit aspect to instead roll for harrying/cover fire?
I am much more willing to allow Telekinetic Projectile to do Harrying/cover fire than Magic Missile because there is no roll to make the attack.
It would be a cool spell to tweak for Magic Missile to make an attack roll and thus harrying/cover fire. Maybe call it Magic Barrage?
Much of how I view this question is tied to my personal view of the world. I don't like contradictions. I like things to be neat and orderly. And of course the world is not that way and neither is anything created by man!
That is why I look at the one definition I could find and that was for ranged attack. It says weapon. Combat is based around weapons. Magic can do things in combat but, to me, they are not weapons.
I can see both sides and have gone back and forth several times on how I feel about this. I think what will likely happen for me is that I will be presented by a player who does this and then I have come down a side and go with it.
Unless of course clearer direction is given.
And I believe we have had, and will continue to have, good discussion and debate about how the rules should be interpreted and applied.
Landon Hatfield wrote:
This table's also showing up for me now. As the GM, I can see the reported numbers of the players, so if you'd like, feel free to PM me your PFS number and character, and I'll see if I can help figure out what specifics you'd need to send to Todd once completion is confirmed.
PM Sent. Thanks Landon.
For me, a spell is not a weapon. But there is really not a clear "A weapon is ..." statement that I can find.
I personally am not comfortable saying that a spell is weapon for the purposes of these things that affect weapons.
Additionally, because of the lack of language stating that a spell in question is a weapon for the purposes of X or Y, we can't really say that a spell is a weapon.
It does make it easier to say that a spell is not a weapon.
It is entirely possible that my poor penmanship is the cause of my problem.
I was going to ask for your PFS number but I realize I have it already!
A thought occurred to me.
Look at Jolting Surge, pg 363 wrote:
You touch a target with a device you’re holding that uses electricity, requiring a melee attack against the target’s EAC. Alternatively, you can instead touch an electrical device a target is wearing (or a target that is an electrical device, such as a robot) with your hand, gaining a +2 bonus to your attack roll. Either way, if your attack hits, the electrical device surges out of control, dealing 4d6 electricity damage to your target.
Since the spell calls for a melee attack, would the character add their strength modifier to the damage? Or only to the attack roll?
Arc Riley wrote:
Sorry for the wording on this Gary, that wasn't intended to come off as directed at you personally but rather me indirectly venting about a local GM.
No worries! :)
Arc Riley wrote:
If the rules don't specify that a player can't, then the GM can rule that it can and I think clearly should in this case. Since there's little to no mechanical advantage to casting a spell vs firing a cheap flare gun, why not say yes?
I have gone back and forth on this question. For me, it comes down to wording found on page 245 that says a ranged attack has to use a ranged weapon. But guess what? There is no good definition of weapon!
So Yea, GM call and I am good either way.
Interesting. We were at the same table and I am not seeing it reported on my character.
Arc Riley wrote:
It is funny, I thought we would have agreed on this one.
I quoted the CRB for ranged attack earlier. Here is what I said about 3 post prior to the one you quoted.
Gary Bush wrote:
Arc Riley wrote:
Its clearly neither written that spells with a ranged attack can or cannot be used. I'm certain that if a FAQ were published on this it would say that a spell with a ranged attack can work, but given how few of these questions get FAQ attention that's unlikely to happen.
I believe it is clearly written what a ranged attack is. Curious what your read on it is given the page quoted.
The page you quoted is from the section on dexterity and what the modifier from that applies toward. I believe the rule on page 245 is more specific and does not contradict the rule on page 21.
Arc Riley wrote:
I and most society GMs I've played with err on the side of which option leads to the most enjoyment at the table. Telling a player, "You're not allowed to do what you thought you could do because the rules don't specifically permit it" makes the game less fun for them.
I agree with this one on principle. However, if a GM allows players to do things that are against how the rules are articulated it can equally ruin the fun for those players who have an understanding of the rules that are similar as the GM. It is a fine line.
Arc Riley wrote:
But you have to be prepared for GMs who default to "no" so its a good idea to have a flare gun or pulsecaster pistol for such cases - and then avoid playing at their table in the future because they're clearly more interested in rules lawyering than making an enjoyable experience.
I believe I give my players an enjoyable experience while being fair and open to creative ideas. If someone does not want to play at my table, I am not going to get upset about it. I have not had someone walk away after learning I was the GM. We use Warhorn to manage our tables so people may avoid me and I not know it.
And it is the GMs job to be the rules judge. I try to know all the rules but that is not possible. If my understanding is incomplete or flat out wrong, I will (and have many times, especially with Starfinder) changed how I handle something.
This is why I am active in the rules section. To increase my understand of the rules.
Anyways, look at at the page of the CRB I quoted for a second time and give your opinion if, in this case, ranged attacked is pretty well defined.