If you really do want to “teach him a lesson.” Start at level 8...
Very first encounter: Doors slam closed and a long (but not particularly dangerous) fight takes place in an area saturated with medium radiation. While this player tries desperately to get through the sealed door, the other players button up their Item Level 7+ armors and say “what’s that guy’s problem?”
In Pathfinder Society play...
You can occasionally end up with partial rewards from an encounter, but usually only when one side or the other flees. The two ways I’ve seen this happen when playing/GMing:
1. Boss hits his “run away” condition and successfully flees. Party gets room loot and the loot of the other NPCs but not the items the BBEG was holding.
2. Party flees a tough fight, gears up/buffs, and returns. If they take a long time, the BBEG may have finished what he was doing and just left. They wouldn’t get his items, but they might get some hidden/securely affixed items from the room and maybe the items of any mooks they had killed earlier (if the BBEG didn’t take them). I tend to be pretty generous in those situations.
If the party outright flees and doesn’t return, they would only get whatever they grab on the way out. If the party is TPKed they wouldn’t get anything from that encounter but they wouldn’t lose anything from earlier encounters or from their gear. (Though of course they would have to pay for body recovery and raise dead/restorations.)
If I'm reading between the lines correctly, you're starting your campaigns at pretty high levels. A complete speed suspension is a level 12 item. That's why this is showing up as an imbalance. If the campaign was starting at level 1, the items he could get would be far less useful.
In addition, this is really only an imbalance for a character level or two. Because of the way Starfinder prices and loot scales up rapidly, his "boost" won't last for long before those starting items get lost in the noise floor. The other players will likely have picked up items of equivalent item level within a couple of character levels.
It's a little confusing to figure out exactly what you are asking here. I'm not sure why you're so focused on the coffins: Vampire Spawn (the Vampire Spawn creature type, not a full vampire made by a master), don't have the defensive ability to retreat to a coffin when reduced to 0 hp. They die. Which are these creatures?
The central question seems to be: "should I turn the player character into a spawn?" I don't know why the vampire wouldn't choose to create a spawn. He's lost some very valuable minions. Unless it's going to cause a huge rift with your players I would do it. Whether he makes it a Vampire Spawn or a full vampire is up to the GM (you).
Flagged for movement to the advice forum. This is the forum for discussing GM questions on Pathfinder Society and Starfinder Society scenarios.
This is not correct. Both the rider and the mount get a full set of actions, though there are limits on what the rider can do based on how far the mount moves. If the mount charges, both creatures count as charging, and can each (normally) make a single attack at the end of the charge.
The mount gets its full attacks and the rider gets a single attack.
Mounted combat is ugly and tricky. Be sure to read the full entries for the Handle Animal skill and Ride skill in addition to the mounted combat rules. Once you declare what you are doing but before the actions happen you may have to make a whole series of checks to determine a)How many of the rider’s actions are available, b)How many hands the rider has to use controlling the mount, and c)If the animal performs the actions at all.
flagged for movement to the rules forum
Adam Yakaboski wrote:
And do what?
This is why people are confused by your posts. What does “take harassment claims seriously” mean? What do you want the Organized Play Foundation to do? Ban harassers from participating in OPF games worldwide? Publish a “known harassers” list? Provide counseling?
The mascot used to be amazing*, now it’s just decent for a lot of group compositions. I got a lot of use out of my falcon mascot by having him bond to the cleric in the group. He could then function as a toucher for all of the cleric’s healing spells. You can do similar things for other classes that don’t normally get familiars. A speedy familiar with the ability to move around delivering anyone’s touch buffs/heals is quite good.
*In Ultimate Wilderness the mascot’s Share Spells and Deliver Touch Spells features were updated to function at its master’s caster level -2 while in Familiar Folio it was its level -2. The old wording led to two uses which probably weren’t intended but were awesome: 1) A multiclassed team member could deliver touch spells much higher than her own caster level and 2) A halfling wizard could use the FCB to crank the level for delivering touch spells.
For the other players - no real impact. Eyes was written for 4 players and for a much lower power level than the current norm.
For her - it isn’t going to do her any good. The GtOP is pretty specific about this:
Guide page 24 wrote:
Eyes of the Ten: Characters must start with exactly 33 XP and can’t participate in any other adventure until this Seeker arc has been completed.
I know how hard it is to wrangle players for Eyes, but you’ve got 8 weeks ‘til the con. I would work really hard to have everyone block out a couple of full days now for times in August (or even earlier if possible).
I made some suggestions in the other thread, but just to recap I think some of the flourishes are just way too good, especially as a single-level dip. At a minimum I would:
1. Make Jinin’s Exodus an enhancement bonus.
Some people also have problems with the amount of AC a Warrior Poet can get up to. But the Warrior Poet is quite MAD (multiple attribute dependent) so it’s not terrible if you use a reasonable point-buy when building characters.
I almost never play female characters these days, as opposed to my early teens when it was about a 50/50 split. If I really examine why this is so, it’s probably because since then I’ve seen so many men playing offensively stereotyped (or just poorly stereotyped) female characters and have decided that the easiest way to avoid falling into that trap is to avoid playing female characters.
Earlier posters are right; it’s often the desire to create a memorable character that leads to the stereotypes. So we try to create characters with a funny personality quirk. While a man playing a male character might decide to play up a collection of buttons, overwhelming ego, fondness for marching songs, or love of cabbage, the same player might look at his female character and decide to play up “is woman.” So we get ditzes (complete with valley girl accents), man-hating feminists (“see, I’m making fun of myself!” [no you’re not]), and ladies who obsessively clean everything and complain about dirty adventurers.
And then there are what I refer to as the “wish-fulfillment” characters. Female PCs who act in ways their male players wish women would act around/towards them. It can occasionally be darkly amusing to see someone unconsciously acting out their desires but far more often (and far too often) it’s just plain disgusting watching a man put his female character in pornographic situations and insist he’s “just doing it to be funny.”
You can play cross-gendered characters. But it requires a degree of awareness that is depressingly uncommon.
Sure. I rarely go for the “tragic backstory” unless the campaign forces the PCs into it.
- A monk, raised from early childhood in a monastery. Nurtured, taught, and cared-for. It was only when a remote village asked the monastery for help fending off an invasion of magical beast (that ate the sheep, not the villagers) that he got a thirst for adventure.
- The eldest son of an Asmodean missionary to Qadira. Well-provided for, with many siblings and a large extended family. One of his father’s wives was a very successful merchant, so he got the best education and experiences money can buy. Left home to carry on Dad’s work of bringing Asmodeus to the heathens. (Evangelist cleric).
-Closest to “tragic” is a Molthune arsenal chaplain. She served many years in the Molthuni army and saw plenty of compatriots die. But that’s not tragic, that’s just what happens in war. (She is very pragmatic.)
From a GM perspective:
A couple of players came up with this a few years ago (using the Heavens Oracle “Moonlight Bridge” revelation as the cap). As they were high-fiving and congratulating each other I asked “are you sure you want it to work that way?”
“Yeah! He’s gonna get crushed in two rounds!”
“OK, but remember that what works for you works for NPCs as well.”
“. . .”
I would say “no” and “no.”
If you have gifted adept for mind thrust 1, then gifted adept wouldn’t do anything for mind thrust 2. Just like having gifted adept for magic fang wouldn’t have any effect on greater magic fang.
For your second question the rules on undercasting state to treat it exactly as if you cast the lower-level spell.
When a spellcaster undercasts a spell, it is treated exactly like the lower-level version, including when determining its effect, saving throw, and other variables.
Using a metamagic rod does not alter the slot used. It does alter the casting time for spontaneous casters but in no case does it alter the slot used.
To throw in a little bit of the real world (cringe):
“Electronic” door locks exist in several varieties. Which variety you install depends on exactly what you want the lock to do.
1. Number Keypads - put in the correct combination and the door unlocks. Relatively cheap for a door with many users. Downsides: No control over spread of access (anyone can share the code). If you wish to exclude someone you must change the combination and inform all authorized users of the new code.
2. RFID card readers - each user has a card, and a central server contains information on which doors that card is authorized to access. Scan and the door will unlock (or not) based on permission. Users/cards can be revoked by removing permissions from server. Downsides: expensive, in most systems administrator must be present to add to access privileges.
3. Wireless remote entry - Authorized user can unlock with phone app, and when a visitor requests entry an authorized user can grant entry from a remote device on the network (or anywhere on the internet if so connected). Downsides: authorization schemes vary wildly by lock manufacturer, security risks.
Number 3 is vulnerable to remote hacking. Number 2 can be implemented wirelessly, but is usually hard-wired to remove that potential vulnerability. Number 1 cannot be opened without physical access.
Two wildly different points:
1. There are several items available that can give you proficiency in bows. Lesser bracers of archery for 5,000gp come to mind.
2. Alchemists are one of the most versatile classes when it comes to the possible builds. Depending on archetype, discovery, and feat choices they can vary from melee brutes to long-range snipers. Even among bomb-specialists not all are nova-capable; some focus on packing as much damage as possible into single bombs. Which is a long-winded way of saying that many alchemists simply wouldn’t be very good at using a bow.
From the outside, it looks like Lone Wolf Development is trying to move to a different business model. Instead of selling character creation tools to individual players one-by-one they want to be a one-stop shop for a gaming group to get all their campaign management tools.
It might be a good business model, and might be a good deal for a fair number of groups, but it’s rubbing people who just want the character creation tools (many PFS/SFS players) the wrong way.
I would need to dig into the Community Use Policy (and applicable law) to be sure, but I think enterprising players could build their own electronic boon tracker.
Presuming the “HeroLab Code” box is going to contain a unique identifier for each scenario to make the boons appear for that character, there’s no technical reason a free tracker couldn’t reference the same codes.
Personally I’ll probably stay analog, but a fair amount of people would probably like a digital tracker/slotter.
With the understanding that Starfinder is not Pathfinder...
If you hunt around on the boards you can find advice from actual Paizo designers on what usually makes a good rules mechanic. Most of it is in the form of "Don't do this!" I think Sean K. Reynolds was probably the most prolific poster among the designers.
One of the many no-nos is "No item or feat should duplicate a class feature."
There are examples of Paizo breaking this rule in their own published material, of course. But the general idea is that class features are what makes classes unique. If you add a Remote Hack feat, why not a Trick Attack feat? Or a feat that gives anyone a single Envoy Improvisation.
That's not to say you can't do this in your game. If it is necessary in your game, absolutely do it. If it's not necessary but is desired, you can still add it but you probably want to make it more expensive. I'd probably do something like this
Remote Interface wrote:
Improved Remote Interface wrote:
Your GM is probably being tripped up by the language on page 213 concerning spells that DO have a 1-round casting time.
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
So a spell that has a 1-round cast time takes a full-round action from you. So does a spell that has a full-round cast. The difference is that the spell with a 1-round cast doesn't come into effect until just before your next turn, while the full-round cast comes into effect as soon as you spend the full-round action.
All 1-round casts are a full-round action. But not all full-round action casts are 1-round casts.
I think orders is really only useful on the pilot isn't it?
Greatly depends on the size of your crew. The smaller the crew, the more likely you are to give orders to someone other than the pilot.
If you're taking a lot of damage you may want to have the engineer divert and patch in the same round. You may want the science officer to rebalance shields and lock on to the biggest target. If you don't have many gunners, you may want to have the same gunner shoot an aft weapon at the ship tailing you while broadsiding the big target in front. Or just shoot twice so she isn't taking the Fire at Will penalties. Having the pilot able to stunt and Maneuver or Full Power in the same round is often useful.
Starship combat can break down into a solitaire game quite easily if one player continually comes up with a grand plan and tells everyone else what to do each round. Can be fun, especially if it's a group of friends and the captain has the plan. It can also be quite annoying when that one guy keeps trying to "play your character."
Whether you are a fan or not, the paradigms inherent in the design of the item rules and wealth of Starfinder are “buy new; don’t upgrade” and “you can’t afford new weapons and armor every level.”
Power armor upgrading is a decent compromise to let you keep using an armor with a unique ability a little bit longer than you normally would before replacing. It isn’t a good deal financially. If it was a good deal (or just a break-even deal) it would have shifted the whole monetary assumption of the game.
I’m personally not a fan.
The Secondary Success Conditions document describes how to award PP for the series. Up to two points for Part 1.
Which can be found here.
One thing I like to do for Eyes is to still pass out the faction missions for all four parts (if you have enough time). If you read the document and scenarios, you'll see why.
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Ok, so you can apply store credit to subscriptions, right? So take your vouchers, buy gift certificates, redeem certificates, apply to subscriptions...
According to Bob, buying certificates with vouchers no longer works. It probably wouldn’t have been an issue if it was just individuals doing it, but if a Con organizer were to do so for all the certificates Paizo would be right back in the same situation accounting-wise.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
The roll-out on this after other situations makes for other concerns about the continued fiscal health of the company, and that worries me deeply.
This switch doesn’t say anything to me about the health of the company other than an indication that they are becoming more sophisticated with accounting intricacies. Paizo is still potentially giving away the same amount of money. I don’t pretend to understand it all, but the accounting is an issue for all companies, it’s just a question of scale. It’s a bigger deal for companies that gave away gift certificates, as they have to carry a liability but never booked any profit. (While a purchased gift certificate generated an initial profit.)
US Law and gift certificates:
I don’t know the accounting particulars. But what kicked off the discussion with my brother-in-law was when several companies announced that their gift certificates would never expire. It turns out there was a federal law passed in 2009 that says they can’t expire in less than 5 years. State laws may be even more generous. In California gift certificates can never expire. In Washington state purchased gift certificates never expire, though “give-aways” can expire after 5 years. (Which would require Paizo to create another class of certificate.) So the potential liability may extend for many years. Rather than deal state-by-state a large number of companies just decided to have none of them expire.
I would love to see any unused portion of a voucher be added as store credit. I think a reasonable portion of people who buy once will come back again, especially if they have a credit waiting. But I don’t know if that option would trigger something that classifies the whole voucher differently.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Paizo has explained that the old process of giving gift certificates created accounting problems which are at least in part a legal issue.
The way my accountant brother-in-law explained it to me:
Businesses that sell gift cards can book the revenue from the sale immediately, however they have to track the total outstanding gift card amount as an expected future cost. He used some accounting terms and reasoning at this point and my eyes glazed over, but if I understood correctly the takeaway was that they have to carry a certain amount of reserves fenced off for covering the redemption of those gift cards. If the cards get lost or simply don’t get redeemed they still have to keep carrying that reserve.
The particular problems with the gift certificates as convention prize support are: 1. With randomized distribution a decent percentage of them are going to people who are trying the game out and will never visit Paizo.com, much less buy something, and 2. Not all organizers were diligent about returning gift certificates that were not given out.
Coupons - which the newer vouchers act as - aren’t subject to the same requirement.
Puts on “reads too much” hat.
Before going down the trigger tag path I would encourage the responsible parties at Paizo to pursue the available academic research on the subject. Unfortunately there is very little published so far, but some data suggests that trigger warnings may be counterproductive. Other research says they can be helpful to people with severe post-traumatic stress. I’m not bashing trigger warnings, but I’m not praising them either. I just want to make sure the end result is more positive than negative.
One of the things I like best about the whole “minor faction” idea is that the developers can introduce a new minor faction to drive a Society metaplot rather than using an existing one. Most of the common complaints about PFS1 factions can be traced to the way the factions careened from one focus to another. Very few stayed firm on “this is what we are about” for more than a couple of years.
If Season 2’s focus is on Molthune - introduce a Nirmathi Irregulars minor faction for that season. Season 3 is exploring Casmaron, with a final push to the ruins of Ninshabur? Sarenrite minor faction. Once they complete their goal (season is done) they fade away. If it’s known from the beginning “we’re here to do one thing then leave” then expectations can be met. Keeping the major factions static will prevent the whipsawing of motivations that frustrated some people.
This is not the word of a Paizo employee, but it is the word of someone who has been at several convention panels where similar questions have been asked:
I wouldn’t say that it’s being done to clear inventory of map packs, but rather so they can avoid using the same flip-tiles over and over. As the catalog of flip-tiles grows I suspect you will see them more and more often.
In answer to the question “why not just make custom maps?” the answer that was given in those panels was “budget.” I have no idea what the actual numbers in that budget are, but it doesn’t allow for custom cartography in every scenario. Most have one custom map, but if it has more then something has to give somewhere else.
(I haven’t started using Flip-Tiles yet, but if you do have to stack them off-center, that’s a problem. I’d guess it’s a case of authors using the electronic version and not being aware of the physical dimensions. )
It varies wildly depending on how much role-playing your players get into and for certain fights whether or not they have an appropriate counter for the main “effect” or have to use more creative - but slower - alternatives.
I would budget a full day for Part 1 (10-12 hours). Part 2 fights have far fewer moving parts and 4-5 hours is a good estimate. Part 3 again has a lot of intricate fights and can take 5-6. Part 4 is 6-7 hours.
These are for games with a decent amount of roleplaying. You can certainly push them through faster if necessary, but that’s the amount I would budget.
It depends on how you like to play. I feel like a caster ought to pass out the long-duration buffs they are good at - once that doesn’t take up all their spell slots. Beyond that, it’s up to your preference. Don’t feel like you are obligated to spend every first round of combat hasting the party. I have played an arcanist who never directly attacked, only buffed. I’ve also played a blaster wizard who threw out a couple of greater magic weapons at the start of the day, then threw fire every round. And a control cleric who never healed or buffed, just made the enemies do what he wanted.
If you feel like your party members are asking you to play in a way that isn’t fun to you, just tell them you aren’t having fun, and tell them what else you want to do for a while.
You mean your question about how common the forks are?
Common - the 19 major planes (20 counting the material)
Prices in a Store:
You can “tune your own” by using a 25gp untuned fork. Easy to do for a common plane, but progressively harder and more time-consuming with increased rarity. Past common, the book gives guidelines but essentially the GM is going to have to manufacture a situation where the PCs can turn forks.
Try asking/searching in the GM discussion thread for that scenario. If it’s the one I’m thinking of there is already an official reply there.
There have been several related threads and in at least one we’ve gotten specific direction that Campaign Leadership considers chronicle fishing to be against the spirit of the game.
Mark Moreland wrote:
As has been stated upthread, the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign is one in which we hope that players are not reading ahead (either adventures or Chronicle sheets) in order to cherry-pick adventures based on a checklist of monsters they'd like to encounter or equipment they'd like to receive. As such, we consider discussion of such spoilers to be against the spirit of the game.
I'm not sure you can have multiple intelligent items at once though
Organized Play FAQ says yes (with caveats).
Organized Play FAQ:
What are the rules regarding intelligent items in the Roleplaying Guild?
A PC may own and use more than one intelligent magic item at a time.
A PC can use the Use Magic Device skill to emulate another alignment to avoid incurring a negative level when using an intelligent magic item. A PC must attempt this check at the beginning of the adventure. Whether the PC succeeds or fails, the result applies for the duration of the entire adventure. Furthermore, any intelligent items of that alignment function normally for that PC, barring the PC performing some action that grossly violates the item's alignment or goals.
When wielding an intelligent item with an item with an incompatible alignment—natural or emulated—the item and the PC have a personality conflict (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook 535). If the PC succeeds at the Will save, the item functions normally for 24 hours. If the PC fails, the item compels him or her to store it away for 24 hours.
Intelligent items found in Tier 1-5 adventures (and similar adventures like Tier 1-2 and Tier 1 quest series) typically waive the negative level a PC would otherwise earn upon picking up an incompatible item. Not only does this prevent a 1st-level PC from dying for touching an intelligent item, but it also allows the PCs to enjoy the item during the adventure and make the choice of whether to purchase it (along with its alignment consequences) later.
Milan Badzic wrote:
Kevin is saying that you CAN use that sheet more than once, but only once per year.
Let me see if I can find something official.
Adam Yakaboski wrote:
Which part are you referring to?
Stars don’t recharge every year:
You can only use one Expanded Narrative boon per year:
Well, no. It wasn't intended as an insult, and it wasn't a response to any other post. I firmly believe that the abilities you get by taking an archetype are usually not as powerful in combat as what you give up. There is absolutely nothing in that sentence or the rest of the paragraph that says you can't be a roleplayer if you like powerful characters. (Ask anyone who's played with my Evangelist of Irori or my Mindchemist. They'll tell you I've got zero room to make that accusation.) I said "in Starfinder you can give up the most powerful abilities for less powerful abilities with minimal impact to your combat effectiveness."
An ability can be powerful, useful, relevant, interesting AND flavorful. It can compliment and work with a class and characters existing abilities and be balanced for what you're giving up. And it should be. If it's not that's a game design problem.
And that's where we disagree. I don't think it's a game design problem just because an ability isn't powerful, or isn't always relevant. It's great when it's all those things but it can also be fun while being just one or two of those things. Even leaving aside the old saying that "balance is in the eye of the beholder," I don't believe that it's wrong to be asked to give up an ability for something that is less useful but fills a different design space.
The reason I like archetypes is that they give you a chance to do something a little bit different. Like that vehicle repair I did. Or rolling twice while hacking. Or using that spellgem I found without using it up.
Look, I certainly won’t deny that if you’re going for “the most optimized combat character” archetypes are not your friend. Fortunately, the combat math in Starfinder is different than it is in Pathfinder and - at least at this stage in the system lifecycle - there really isn’t much difference between “combat optimized” and “capable combatant.” Which leaves plenty of room to have a character with offbeat abilities that may not turn out to be useful in every scenario, but are absolutely perfect when they come up.
In the interests of full disclosure this is coming from a guy who also loves PFS prestige classes. If it can do something unique, I’m interested. Even if unique is not equal to powerful.
Redgar's ACG Characters wrote:
I meant the chronicles that 'recharge' stars mid-year for continuing to GM. We've had permission to keep filling those in for years, and I understand that nothing is changing w.r.t. existing replay methods?
You can only activate a maximum of one Star Recharge boon a year.
If you are a 3-star GM :
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Just a reminder, tickets for specials are sold by sub-tier and in this case further sub-divided by soldier and champion. Be careful to buy the ticket for the specific table you wish to play. Any/all real tickets not being used for the table designated will be converted into priority generic tickets. Meaning that if you chose not to sit at the table that your ticket indicates, you will be shunted to the generic ticket line. However all real tickets in the line will be seated in first come-first serve order based on our available seating and prior to actual generic tickets.
If I'm understanding correctly, the following might happen:
- I want to play Tier 10-11 Soldier, but all those tickets are sold out.
But, there's a chance this might backfire horribly.
So I better be really sure I understand the risks before I gamble on the priority generic line.
Thurston Hillman wrote:
This moment kept on giving to me both in the long and short term.
Long term, I proudly point to this moment every time someone complains about the fact that every single one of my characters has archetypes instead of (as they complain) "the good abilities."
Short term, what happened right after that was very amusing as well. Thursty knew the Field Fix ability, but he didn't remember all the details off the top of his head. After a very short drive in our recently repaired vehicle we start taking weapon damage:
Thursty: "It hits! How many Hit Points did you give back to the vehicle?"
Huh. You are correct. I was going from memory and conflated "do not alter your ability scores" with "treated as Adult."
Tommi's suggestion could definitely result in some powerful melee characters. Sounds like false age could use a clarification.
. . .Actually, there are also several spells and abilities to temporarily move someone to an older age category - usually as an attack (such as sands of time) - which being venerable would innately protect you from. I'm really trying to think of any situation where choosing to be venerable would be a negative. To prevent shenanigans, maybe instead of clarifications for each ability add in a blanket line in the Guide. Something like:
Potential RPG Guide text wrote:
Tommi Ketonen wrote:
Yes, but bear in mind that the “Pathfinder Society-specific ruling” referenced above is that all characters are considered to be adults, you can’t create a venerable (or middle-aged) character.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Because the Companion itself is somewhat vaguely worded. “Half-elves have access to the following spells” is not quite the same as “Only half-elves have access to the following spells” but neither is it “the following spells are available to any race but are most commonly used by half-elves.”