Society games are even more likely to have characters break scenarios, that's the nature of not usually having the same play group week after week and being able to take your character anywhere. If anything, uncommon game breaking options being uncommon is more helpful for society than home games since there's not usually the negotiate your character with your GM to make sure it works with what the GM has planned aspect that many home groups engage in.
That horse has left the barn. I would agree with you if we hadn’t already started a rewards program, but since we did, you cannot take it away without some people feeling like they are being punished. Wether you call it elitism or selfishness or whatever, we started rewarding people for GMing. Now it’s a thing. We cannot restrict or eliminate it without hurting local events. I’m the first to agree that it sucks, but it is what it is now. I wish more people were just altruistic too. If you want to maximize your volunteer pool, you need to provide rewards. It really is that simple. I think it goes beyond this, there's a fundamental question to be answered. What is the point of playing or running PFS/SFS at a convention? I can play every single scenario that isn't a special at my FLGS or online whenever I can gather 2 other people and a GM (or run it if I can find 3 people to play it.) What benefit is there to do this at a convention if there isn't some chance at a unique reward for doing so? I think that's this is a fundamental problem with Paizo organized play. There isn't enough reason to go to conventions to play (outside of a select few very large ones which make boons far easier to obtain.) But we want to promote conventions. Conventions are where a lot of recruitment happens, and that's hard to do if it looks like the program isn't vibrant (i.e. we need existing players to attend them.) The boons do help, but I think maybe the whole structure of what conventions can offer with regard to PFS/SFS play may need to be reevaluated.
I mean ideally people wouldn't need anything in return for 'volunteering' I put volunteering in scare quotes because GMing for PFS is only volunteering in the loosest sense when you're talking about doing so in a convention setting (especially larger conventions). GMing for organized play is not a charitable endeavor. Sure you are providing the ability for others to play games, but in many cases they paid money to do so (especially at conventions.) Beyond that, legal fiction aside, Paizo organized play is a marketing tool for Paizo, people playing PFS/SFS helps get brand exposure and it helps move product, 'volunteers' are necessary for this process to function because Paizo doesn't have the staff or the resources to make it work out for them at a reasonable cost otherwise. Because of this arrangement, people recognize what they really are, cogs in a system where they are only a volunteer in the sense that they aren't getting a paycheck for what they do. That doesn't mean that people should be expected to be part of Paizo's marketing efforts out of the kindness of their hearts. Some people will view the compensation they receive as adequate for them to continue to be cogs in this system and others will not. I personally think its well worth it to volunteer at conventions because I value the boon (and/or other rewards) that I receive as worth the commitment of time to do something that I largely enjoy. Others have different calculations but it is certainly a decision everyone makes on their own and its definitely something where compensation factors in to people's decisions to volunteer in a lot of cases. Put simply, how many people do you think Paizo would get to GM at Gen Con if there was no reward for doing so? Maybe a few, but it certainly wouldn't be as many as they need to provide the experience desired for the number of players who want to play.
what bonous does target traking give the Torpedo Technicians? The stats dont give its base BaB. Target tracking for NPCs is always +2. Per the Mechanic Class Graft in Alien Archive. Target Tracking (Ex): As a move action, this NPC can designate and track a single foe, gaining a +2 bonus to attack rolls against that target. Use this same bonus for twin tracking and quad tracking.
or gets it, but is actively ignoring it in favor of their own interpretation? Is this not allowed? Just because one person thinks a rule works a certain way doesn't mean that person is right. Especially when that person is not a member of the design team making an authoritative FAQ/errata and when that person has no greater rules insight than anyone else in the thread. I'm not sure why ignoring one individual's interpretation in favor of my own (or someone else's) is a problem. I think that interpretation is not correct, not consistent with how I read the rules, and leads to absurd results if applied in certain situations unless you then make another logical leap which is not explicit in the rules (namely it may pass through if you completely destroy it. See previous discussion regarding a door being different than a table flipped over based on what is around but outside the area of effect). Like BNW, I interpret the rules thusly: Line weapons do not interact with or alter the rules for line of effect anymore than non-line weapons do (if they did, it would explicitly state that). All they do is let you attack multiple targets when you otherwise would not be able to. The line of effect rules allow for plenty of wiggle room as to whether or not you need to apply them. For one the line of effect rules have a specific caveat that when they apply is subject to GM discretion, "...it normally requires that you (or whoever or whatever is using the ability) have a line of effect to the target to be effective (subject to GM discretion)." and 2) they specifically say, "[a] line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier that can stop the effect in question (such as a wall, for most effects)" which is open to wide interpretation since it specifically says it doesn't apply to all effects. What is a solid barrier that can stop the effect in question for something that specifically says it can travel through objects provided that it breaches their hardness/DR? That's up to the GM. Some people think that those objects don't stop line of effect once they're hardness is breached and some people think they do. More people than not seem to think penetrated objects don't stop lines of effect or that the line of effect rules don't apply at all, the latter of which they are free to do because of caveat one to the line of effect rules which make them GM discretion. None of this makes either side right, there can be debates that don't have clear answers where different people rule differently.
or completely destroy the door? They're not the same thing and you can model them different ways. Very clearly just penetrating hardness does not destroy an object, thats why it has hardness and hit points. A door with a bullet hole in it is still a door. Its also incredibly clear you don't have to destroy an object for a line to get through it, but you're not willing to accept that line of reasoning (and direct rules citation) so here we are. does a door with a bullet hole in it block line of effect to a line weapon that shoots through that bullet hole?
Sure, but then you're open to the idea of ignoring what line weapons say, which is that you only have to get through hardness to get to the next target, you're well into 'this is how I think the rules should work' versus 'what the rules say' territory.
Why do you know that, he is completely behind the table, his mohawk is not sticking out, his ankles are not sticking out. You no more know that Iseph is behind the table than you know that Iseph is behind the door, that's the whole point. When you're shooting through a door at Ipseth you DON"T know where he is. You're going to have to put the bullets EVERYWHERE to get rid of the door and try to hit him and in that process you're probably going to destroy the door and NEXT round you can shoot him. you need to blow through the entire 5 by 5 wall and thats going to soak up more bullets. Again, why do you know where he is when you shoot through a table when you can't see him on the other side any more than you know where he is when you shoot through a door, both are solid objects, both completely obscure the target. What if its not Iseph but instead a diminutive stellifera, do you still know where they are behind the table but not the door, afterall their space is only 1 foot but the table is 5 feet. I'm not why you've decided a door is somehow this magical construct that blocks line of effect when other objects of the same composition and size do not relative to what they are obscuring. The rules certainly don't say it. The rule specifically says "such as a wall, for most effects." what makes a table less of a wall than a door?
I agree with Vexies. Beyond that, the mountain argument appears to be a strawman. I'm not sure why it keeps getting brought up. Lets take a more realistic example. The mentioned table. Flip a table on its side, drop prone behind it. If you fire a gun you do not have line of effect to the prone person behind the table. Under the theory that line weapons can't target things they don't have line of effect to this would mean that as soon as you get to the table the line weapon stops, despite specifically saying it can go through objects if it damages them. This is true even if you go through its hardness and even if you do enough damage to completely destroy the table. If the counterargument is, well, I'd let it work through the flipped table but not the mountain because of some sort of appeal to verisimilitude, I just don't buy it, why are we trying to apply real world 20th century verisimilitude to a futuristic game with futuristic weapons that the book specifically tells us usually have at least a bit of magic in them. "The mountain has too many hit points to penetrate" isn't a counterargument to the line of effect portion of this debate.
Only if there is their own project and they have no inventory. Maybe if they declare bankruptcy, but even then you're an unsecured creditor since they do have an obligation to fulfill their promise of your pledge. It's not a preorder but it is a contract in the strictest sense. From the Kickstarter Terms of Use: "Kickstarter provides a funding platform for creative projects. When a creator posts a project on Kickstarter, they’re inviting other people to form a contract with them. Anyone who backs a project is accepting the creator’s offer, and forming that contract. Kickstarter is not a part of this contract — the contract is a direct legal agreement between creators and their backers. Here are the terms that govern that agreement: ..When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers. Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life. At the same time, backers must understand that when they back a project, they’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised. If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if: they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned; they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers; they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised; they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form." Ninja Division is in violation of the bolded provision at the very least. Honestly, as the days tick by I'm more and more convinced that the best way to make sure Soda Pop/Ninja Division really stop scamming people is to sue them out of existence. It's pretty clear to me that their kickstarters are used as a way to fund their other projects and then when it comes to fulfilling the Kickstarters they don't have any money, its obviously a sort of ponzi scheme. It hasn't gotten that far with this project yet, but I'm sure their claim of this week shipping wave one is going to be another broken promise.
"Part of this discussion revolves around delivery options. The big question at this point revolves around the feasibility of supporting a living document that resides online with print options. This would allow for faster updates and more integration between the guide, campaign clarifications, additional resources, and FAQ. " If this means that this document wouldn't need to involve any other teams at Paizo, I am all for it. I think there needs to be a way for the organized play team to not have to rely on other teams with many other competing priorities before documents go live. I can't see any value in things like the AR, which is effectively simply a document of the organized play team's stance on published items or the Society Guide which is exclusive to organized play, having any people besides those who approve the items being involved at all. When the AR or guide is done it should just be able to be posted somewhere, it shouldn't take weeks or months for it get through a queue of other web postings. If, in the alternative, this simply means putting the society guide on the paizo website like the AR and FAQ etc already are, I'm not really sure that there's any real value there.
If You call it necromancy and necromancy can't effect constructs ...and androids count as human or construct whichever is worse ...the PC androids have a problem This has specifically been FAQ'd: When the constructed ability for androids says they count as both constructs and humanoids, whichever effect is worse, does that mean they cannot be targeted by a beneficial effect that only targets one of those two types, since not getting the benefit is "worse"? No. When determining what abilities affect an android, and how, replace the first sentence of the constructed ability with the following. "For effects targeting creatures by type, androids count as both constructs and humanoids (whichever type allows an ability to affect them for abilities that affect only one type, and whichever is worse for abilities that affect both types)."
Has anyone gotten an answer on how Mengian is supposed to use Inspiring Boost since neither he nor his allies have SP? According to page 128 of Alien Archive. "Stamina Points: NPCs don’t have Stamina Points. Any abilities that would normally affect an NPC’s Stamina Points affect its Hit Points instead." So that's the answer I would use.
They've also been unhappy with monster attack bonuses and the poison/disease/curse rules all the way through, though as the GM I disagree both of those. Frankly, I'm going the use the Pathfinder Unchained poison rules in any PF game I run going forward. Its not shocking, poison and disease are one of the few things that actually feels like a real threat most of the time in Starfinder.
The race boon question is separate and has a different ruling here
Available at Additional Resources Overall, I think its an excellent job weeding out many of the problematic things while still allowing a lot of stuff that will make things interesting at the same. I do have a couple of issues with what made it in, personally. Not banned bipods and gunner harnesses being a big one. Allowing for shenanigans with summoning grenades and bombarding fusion being another(although this may be dealt with in an imminent FAQ.) But overall an excellent piece of work which opens up a lot of fun builds.
Online games do not currently have access to the Regional Support Program. Beyond that, games at convention (such as this is even if it called a gameday) do not qualify for RSP checkmarks. As far as the GM boon, that is a reward for GMing a game, the only way to receive it is to GM a game, the other boons, which GMs also roll for, can be obtained by anyone through a die roll at the end of the game.
I recommend Enhanced Resistance feat for DR rather than the DR 5 Armor Upgrade for a soldier, especially since you're not feat starved. Now for a non-solider, the Deflective Reinforcement may be very attractive since you're not getting an additional DR every level like you are as a soldier.
Normally GMs are allowed to pick any boons on the chronicle sheet (except for faction specific boons for which they are not a member of that faction). Can a GM select both boons on this chronicle sheet as normal or is this an exception. I thought I had read something about choice boons like this the GM having to choose but I can't find it now. Additionally, if the boon which has a negative consequence spelled out in the scenario is taken does a GM take on that negative consequence.
It's also been suggested we're all reading the rule wrong. Removing a fusion seal and transferring it to a new weapon takes only 1 minute and does not require any specific skill training, but the fusion doesn’t function until the seal has been in place on a weapon for 24 hours. This particular sentence is talking about what happens when you remove and transfer a fusion seal, not necessarily what happens when you apply a fusion seal, which has never been used, for the first time, or so the argument goes. Reading it as only applying to transferred fusion seals and not first applied fusion seals may solve the issue, since you are not usually finding fusion seals on weapons already you are finding them unattached. It also solves the question I've had as to why this 24 hour restriction isn't a separate sentence in the description and is instead in a sentence about removing and transferring. If it was a general rule for fusion seals when first applied why wouldn't they make it its own sentence in the part about cost? It would also explain why they continue to figure in scenarios as if they can be used despite this being a known issue for months.
For Thursty purposes? Between Gen Con and probably February/March. The reason I say this (and he has confirmed this) is because for PaizoCon, Origins, and Gen Con receive non-released schedules early for GMs which necessitates a compressed development timeframe, this is not the case for conventions such as PAX Unplugged, DragonCon, UK Games Expo etc., which also have a Paizo presence.
Because I don't know better this is my Gen Con schedule: Slot -1 1230-1700 Wednesday PM:................SFS 1-12 Ashes of Discovery at Scotty's Brewhouse (4 Players, Full Table in the Bar Area)
So, when they describe the Scoured Stars Incident as "recent" they mean really recent. The description of the Aquisitives faction implies that the mercenaries hired after SSI have had time to build a relationship with the Starfinder Society and then join. Events have obviously moved along at a good clip. The Scoured Stars incident was over a year ago, a few months before the events of 1-00. 1-09 takes place several months after 1-00 (based on a clause in the adventure). Based on this, I think its reasonable to assume this as a relative timeline. Scoured Stars - Pharast or Gozran, 317 AG Claim to Salvation - Sarenith, 317 AG Commencement - Arodus, 317 AG Scoured Stars Invasion - Sarenith, 318 AG So roughly when they were released except that Claim likely takes place a couple months prior.
Yes. It's worked for years. It was hashed out 4 years ago. I don't actually see an official answer in that thread though...
This is obviously a question for Thursty, but I think logically the answer should likely be no. While these are slotless boons and therefore theoretically always applied to your character at the start of missions, the requirement for the boon states that you must be tier X of the faction to purchase them. That being the case, you are not tier 1 when you start the mission there you cannot 'slot' the slotless boon that you do not yet meet the requirements for. I don't think this should work any differently than, for instance, the instructor boon where you gain the benefit at the end of the scenario after it is slotted. You wouldn't be able to retroactively slot this at the end of an adventure you qualified for tier 1 in and as such you shouldn't be able to do so here either.
This is confusing to me as I was given 6 slots of PFS when I have more experience GMing SFS. It seems to it would have made more sense to give me SFS slots if they were giving people with more experience in PFS, SFS slots.
Its been my experience with the Alien Archive boon that people don't actually print out and rescan the thing so the loss of resolution is not really an issue, most people have been using a free hand drawing program (I like PDFescape for this) or simply making a text box with their initials.)
If you want to focus on something besides combat its combat prowess isn't an issue, but say you do want to focus on combat. Lets take level 5 as an example: A level 5 hover drone has 2 feats and 3 mods. Weapon Proficiency is a mod not a feat, so you take, Weapon Proficiency - Long Arm, Weapon Mount, Enhanced Armor. For your feats you take Versatile Specialization and Weapon Focus - Long Arm. For your mechanic tricks you take overcharge and Repair Drone The Drone has: HP: 50
a 5th level operative with 14 con (high but doable) and a 4 HP race has:
So the drone as 50% less HP total, hits 5-15% less of the time, gets hit 10% more of the time(but doesn't have to pay for the armor to get hit less) and does about 60% of the damage. When you couple this with the mechanic himself, you can see that the drone mechanic is perfectly viable in combat.
You met me! I was playing in Kate Baker's Sanctuary game when your 5-star game was going on. Morlamaw shirt. I actually did price out flights because it sounds like a great time, but between PaizoCon, Origins, Gen Con, and a local con at the end of August (which is being stood up for the first time), I'm not
As a general matter, disciplinary matters ought to remain private. The fact that someone has been disciplined generally is public, but not specific reasons why - which is how it should be. The biggest reason for this is the privacy of all individuals involved. Yes, we all may want to know the details, but none of us has a right to those details. It’s not about the NDA (though under some circumstances it could be), it’s not about personalities or how great someone has been in their local community (but those ARE factors to be considered). Certainly if someone has been disciplined, he or she should be allowed to talk about it, except in very specific circumstances. Mark, you and I have known each other for the better part of 20 years, I respect your opinion a lot because I know you have a wealth of experience in this and similar matters though the other organization for which we share membership but I couldn't disagree with the sentiment you're expressing here more. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. By advocating that specifics of discipline be kept private you allow bad actors to continue acting badly if they are the ones in charge of discipline without proper oversight. Which means the absence of an appropriate appeals or other review process. In the absence of such a process, the only way to effectuate positive change is via public outcry (like this thread), which is impossible if people do not know the details of issues that have arisen. I would agree that private matters should be kept private if we had a functioning system in place to prevent abuse, that does not appear to be the case here(hopefully it will be soon) but absent that process, I just can't get behind this idea, it just allows Paizo(or any organization really) to hide their malfeasance or nonfeasance under the rug. It's troubling because none of the many problems exposed here, conflict of interest, abuse of process, etc. would have been exposed if we followed your proposed course of action of keeping a disciplinary matter private. I do agree that emotions are running high but I don't think letting it cool down is the right answer, emotions are running high because of people view as an injustice which is being met with platitudes and locked threads, heck there's even now a whole Reddit devoted to this issue because even the Pathfinder reddit locked the thread regarding this issue, if people are going to stifle debate and discussion in such a manner in what way can there ever be trust that would allow for private matters of discipline to remain private. I am heartened by the fact that you do agree that the individual parties should be allowed to speak on the matter, since one of the parties involved here has allegedly tried to make sure that that was not the case through abuse of the NDA. He has not been disciplined, to my knowledge, for doing so, and I highly doubt he will ever be.
I think the ultimate issue here is that while it may be technically correct it's a heavy handed approach to deal with a situation apparently not explicitly covered by the rules. Beyond that, from what people have told me concerns about the VC for which Michael used his powers to investigate were raised up to the chain of command which fell on deaf ears. I've also read that the VC for which Michael investigated was at one point dating the niece of the RVC which, if true, feels like a pretty big conflict of interest. This should have removed any investigation of that VC out of the purview of that RVC but which apparently did not. Even if not impropriety itself certainly raises the appearance of impropriety. So it appears that due to the failing of the management chain to properly investigate allegations others around the area took it upon themselves to investigate and raise the issue with facts only obtainable through means which could be potentially considered to be verboten. The RVC then used this information to get rid of Michael. Which to me looks like was done because the RVC did not like Michael and the others going around him in an area he was specifically not doing anything about because of a pre-existing relationship with the VC Michael was investigating. Subsequent to all this the RVC attempted to suppress everyone involved right to speak out about this chain of events through an improper use of the NDA. Which at the end of the day is what I think is the biggest issue although conflicts of interest and break downs of process are also big issues, I will again say the cover up is often worse than the crime. I'm happy that through numerous attempts to point this out we've finally gotten to the point that some people involved feel comfortable sharing their part of the story but I am also hopeful that this whole ordeal will actually result in positive change with regard to investigation of issues with the VO program. Tonya has intimated such is on the way with a task force forming regarding VO removal. I'm not personally optimistic for positive change especially given that the RVC still has his position and Michael does not and will likely not be reinstated anytime soon, since I consider what the RVC did to be a far greater violation of what I would consider appropriate policy than anything Michael did.
This is directly from Tonya, "The only items covered by the NDA are Paizo business operations, as sometimes venture-officers have knowledge of upcoming activities and products before their information is released to the general public. At no time have I meant to imply that venture-officers may not speak their minds; barring extraordinary circumstances like systemic or egregious breaking of community guidelines, we do not take action against those who do so. There are many posts on the boards where officers speak their minds and we have left them for public consumption. This thread received the moderation it did because I was out of town working UK Games Expo and unable to comment on the situation. We do not talk about disciplinary actions or investigations to protect the privacy of those involved and the sensitive nature of the investigations, not because it is against the NDA." (emphasis mine.) I'm really not trying to make every thread about the NDA, but Tonya has made very clear what the NDA you are under does and not cover. Beyond that, the amount of secrecy people think is warranted around Paizo organized play is frankly appalling, the adage, the cover-up is worse than the crime seems pretty appropriate regarding all of this. I mean seriously, what is everyone so afraid of. I understand taking things seriously, but the amount of volunteers I see clam up when certain topics that are clearly not Paizo business related come up you'd think you were all under some sort of gag order.
It is unfortunate that his dismissal lies under NDA, because that makes people assume the very worst of him, and I earnestly do not believe that he deserves that. Definitely not trying to call you out here, but I hope if everyone gained anything from that locked thread it was the knowledge that information regarding the dismissal was not covered by any NDA and is instead not being disclosed because of privacy reasons.
None of this is consistent with how you said you would handle a volunteer being removed from a con. You said you view the NDA as prohibiting you from commenting on if someone was removed from a con. So, lets say Venture-Captain John Doe sexually assaulted someone at DragonCon, and was removed from the con. Is your assertion really that you could not tell people that John Doe was removed from DragonCon for sexual harassment because its covered by the NDA, because that is basically what you said. But how Paizo deals with a disciplinary situation is a private matter - potentially a legal matter and not open to public disclosure as it could have HIPPA information, or other private information which Paizo is not legally able to disclose. Which is completely different than saying such a thing is covered by the OPF NDA. And it goes beyond that, because whether or not Paizo chooses to disclose this information because of privacy concerns, volunteers have apparently been told that they cannot disclose this information, apparently under threat of NDA violation, not because they are being advised that it may expose them to liability for privacy breach. Paizo can do and say whatever they want in this situation (I've expressed that I think going with the privacy route without a solid basis isn't the way I would go), but the problem lies with what they've told other people they can and cannot say and why.
You literally said that you didn't think you could comment on someone being removed from a con because it would be protected by NDA. This is what you said, "I know Aaron wasn't banned at any events, while people may not have desired his presence he was never officially banned from any event to my knowledge. If he was I wouldn't be able to say that because it would be covered by NDA." Please tell me how that situation is any different than what Tonya was talking about regarding PaizoCon. Based on this back and forth, I think the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you have in fact been trying to suppress volunteer speech regarding this matter through the application of the NDA.
|
