Blake's Tiger's page

I, for one, think this is a cool idea.

Even though I can see the advantage to focusing, I'm torn between focusing and spreading it out because it fits the character concept for my first character.

This is actually the first time I *actually* understand the Masters' roles.

Is money an option? Yes. It falls under general spellcasting services (and would definitely be more expensive than the material cost alone).

Slotless boons don’t take up any of your character’s slots; they are in essence always active. There is no limit on how many slotless boons you can have active at a time.

There. Official.

They're slotless: without a slot. You can't slot--to place into a slot--something that has no slot.

Slotless are available all the time. Some of don't even make sense to slot.

I have a magical tattoo that activates when hit for enough damage. How would I even remove it and put it back and remove it, etc?

I have a dermal implant. Same question.

I have a physical Starfinder badge. If I don't tell my GM about it, does it vanish from my inventory?

On and on my list of slotless boons go.

MaxAstro wrote:

I love that they realized the potential problem with Mountain Stance and made it a Trigger instead of Requirement. If you are going to build your character around it, losing an extra action whenever you need to jump would feel bad.

Oh, just noticed the touching-the-ground requirement.

…Does that mean you can't enter the stance if you're wearing shoes?

They are rarely so literal. It likely means not swimming, flying, levitating, probably not climbing, definitely not on a ladder or rope...

My first character will be a druid Magaambyan arcanist: multiclassing wizard or (fingers crossed) maybe there will be a Magaambyan archetype in Lost Omens before I hit (and play at level 2 in PFS).

I wish that I could favorite a blog post. :)

P.S. That one glimpse at the sorts of flavor in Lost Omens backgrounds makes me more sad that it's delayed. As I tell my son, I will tell myself, 'You must learn to be patient.'

We never know the why. All we can do is speculate.

For example, the guide does not explicitly say, “Do not throw dice at your GM,” but that’s still not allowed.

Unfortunately, you GM is under the weather.

Glen Parnell wrote:

@Ferious

The rubric and 3 reviews do not apply to PF1.

Is that stated somewhere?

Yes.

I think the more popular a character (NPC) is, the more likely it would be for them to lead a minor faction during a given year's story line.

I was thinking Envoy's Alliance for my first character, but now I'm thinking the Vigilant Seal.

Hopefully the inimitable Ms. Dralneen will be making an appearance in some manner related to one of these two factions as well!

Depends on how those reporting conditions go for a certain scenario...

Hmm. Maybe it's only custom maps.

I disagree with your logic used to create the loopholes you described.

You should make it clear when you present your loopholes to your table that this is not how the rest of Organized Play interprets the rules and they should except a GM to overrule them if they try to destroy a player's character's "unattended" gear or use the "not of their own volition" clause to justify drones attacking PCs or equipment or drones. You should also let them know that those actions will piss off the other players at the table.

If you play publically, then people familiar with Organized Play who visit your table are going to justifiably be filing complaints if your loopholes significantly affect their experience.

...are you sure everyone involved wants to play in Organized Play? I.e. they want to take their characters to other Organized Play games at other venues or conventions? It seems the premise of your players' characters, their desire to PVP, and your inclination to find a way to let them are better suited for a home rules game.

The social contract still exists.

You're not going to find a "rule" written down in the guide that spells out the definition of a team player and covers every potential bad behavior.

Rule of thumb to pass along: ask permission before using AOE damage that will include another player's character(s)--as they've mentioned above, a drone mechanic happens to have two characters--and as the GM, enforce it.

John: "I throw the grenade at intersection X."
GM: "That area includes Bob/Bob's drone. Bob, are you OK taking the damage?"
Bob: "Sure. That villain needs to go down soon!" and you proceed.

...or Bob: "No."
GM: "John, you'll need to re-target or choose a different action."

My group put in for PF2 special but did not get in :(. I'm hoping more tickets will open up and am a bit surprised there aren't more seats available.

It's limited by the volunteers.

They did add more seats all around, but I don't know if GenCon posted them and they sold out or if they have yet to be posted.

The player who didn't agree threatened to destroy all his gear while he slept.

I think all players involved should reflect on their responses to the situation.

Character Versus Character (aka PVP): Character-versus-character conflict occurs when one PC attempts, of his or her own volition, to harm, kill, or otherwise contribute to the injury of another PC. Player-versus-player conflict is strictly prohibited in the Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild. See page 8 for more details.

In keeping with the “cooperate” theme of the Starfinder Society, character-versus-character conflict should be kept to a minimum. Accidental friendly fire can happen (due to missed attack rolls or other factors), but players must obtain the consent of other players before deliberately including fellow PCs in damaging effects. In such cases, the damage dealer should offer to assist with necessary healing costs. This rule does not apply in situations where a character is not acting of his own initiative, such as being mind-controlled by an NPC to attack a fellow Starfinder.

At my tables, people have always asked for permission with even 1 HP of damage splash weapon attacks.

How droids factor into this may be something where you need to negotiate a rule at your table. Apparently, at least one of the people whose drones were harmed feels it is a serious breach of the social contract.

For myself, while I would not be happy if it was unnecessary collateral damage, a drone does not require credits or Fame to be restored, so I, myself, certainly would not fly off the handle at the other player.

However, once you get to the point of intentionally destroying a player's equipment, then you're breaking the community standards: "Don't be a jerk."

One person's good faith is another person's offensive.

You've mixed apples and oranges (or left out a word or two).

What is offensive or hurtful to a person is offensive or hurtful to them. It just is.

Making a sincere and honest attempt to understand how your representation of a group of people significantly different from your self might affect members of that group is not offensive. Your ultimate conclusion might be mistaken and/or you might offend despite your efforts, which is what I think you were actually getting at. And sometimes, you might not have a clue in the world that something you've chosen to say or portray is offensive to someone. When those things happen, what is important is your response to offending someone.

A. "I'm sorry. How can I do better?"
B. "Hey, I'm just playing a character."
B. "You just have soft skin. Get over yourself."

I believe that one of those answers is intrinsically better than the other.

[sarcasm]

And with that I will now hide this thread.

Some days it seems like everything. Everything is offensive.

A non-exhaustive list of things guaranteed to not be offensive: respect, justice, kindness, compassion, mercy, patience, empathy, generosity.

I don't think research and introspection are going to help much on something that subjective.

I think that if you do so in good faith, you will be surprised with how far that gets you. Add in the ability to say, "I'm sorry. I didn't realize. How can I do better?" and you'll get even further.

I'd say the further removed(along real world axes) from your own personal experiences your character is, the more thought, care, and research you should be willing to put into the character. You should at least know what tropes are offensive.

Oh, thank you. I spent 30 minutes trying to craft an appropriate response, and when I hit preview, here this was.

The only thing that I would add is that when making a character, ask yourself, "Why is this particular character someone I want to portray publicly?"

If the answer isn't, "Because it reflects my own life experience," then additional introspection is recommended.

I think you'd be missing out on a lot of the game and social interactions if you had the sensitivity level set to the maximum for all things all the time.

Being respectful is not the same as erasing disability or diversity. For the sake of some sanity, I'm restricting my explanation to things that we can control ourselves. The level of offense of opting to play at a paraplegic is not the same as using a gun with electricity damage.

...and you can be sure that if I'm GMing a scenario with an opponent that triggered the wounding critical at a table with a person who lost their arm to osteosarcoma or veteran with a war injury, I'm going to ignore that particular nuance of the result. But you're right, I might have a veteran at the table who had several comrades with debilitating injuries, and it could be just as offensive and I wouldn't know it.

But people also get flak for erasure if all of their characters look just like them.

A player shouldn't be given a hard time for playing a character that mirrors their self perception or life experiences. It is the authors of game settings and adventures who need to hold their writing to a higher standard where everyone does not look like and hold the opinions of the author so that the diverse players feel included. And this is an aspiration. There are plenty of people who would find PFS scenarios still far to Caucasian-centric. You also have to balance your writing with what you know and are comfortable writing. Is it better to stick to a culture that mirrors your own at the risk of not being as inclusive as you'd like or is it better to try to expand your range, knowing that you're going to take some missteps?

Representation is never going to be universally perfect, and we don't need to flagellate ourselves for enjoying the game.

But we can try to be aware.

?

I'll circle back to that promptly. I will also preface this by saying that although I taking quotes out of Mark's post, these sentiments have been repeated multiple times in this thread by several different people.

We play characters all the time with whom we have nothing in common.

Roleplaying an alien experience--a cuttlefish with psychokinetic abilities, a plant that sees only color but can sense the presence and absence of life around it with perfect precision, or a wolf-headed biped without eyes who hears and smells as well as humans see with eyes--is inherently different than taking a character, throwing some numerical penalties on it to reflect a disability that real people struggle with in the real world for your own personal entertainment.

Why should disabilities be off-limits?

Because we should have respect for persons: respect for the people with disabilities and recognize that their disability is not for our personal entertainment.

Stories about disabilities or life as a person with a disability should be told by those people with direct experience, if they want to.

Imagine that you walk up to a table at a convention and gleefully pull out the character sheet for your wheelchair bound character and describe how proud you are to role play such an interesting and fun character. Two minutes later, a young man with significant paraplegia due to the myelomeningocele he was born with arrives in his actually necessary wheel chair. Sure, you can slip your character sheet under your binder and pull out a different character, but that response rather underscores my point.

We should be respectful at all times, not just when not doing so makes us look especially bad.

Startfinder is a cooperative game and a person who plays a character with a significant disability places a great strain on the other PCs.

One of the things in this thread that offends me the most is that most people have focused on the effect on the table of arbitrary numerical representations of disability.

The argument people have made (and people have tried to counter, which is just as bad) is, 'You cannot take a penalty to your character's statistics to represent a disability, not because it is disrespectful to the community of people with disabilities but because it makes the scenario harder for everyone else.'

No one seems to grasp the signal being sent: other people's disabilities are a burden to me.

Not that making disabilities invisible is any better either (Vlaka are a well-intended misfire in my opinion).

...and that is why these stories should be left to those with personal experience, if they want to tell them.

Startfinder is a cooperative game and a person who plays a character with a significant disability places a great strain on the other PCs.

Re-read your statement from the perspective of a person not privy to the other thoughts and emotions in your own head.

Tonya, to clarify, are we not allowed to discuss this matter anymore? I think most of us have been engaging in a civil discussion.

If they had wanted the discussion to cease, they would have locked the thread. And you may wish that it had been locked in a moment.

I am offended by this entire thread and the premise behind the original post.

An interesting aspect of playing a disabled character is overcoming actual limitations.

As someone who has spent nearly two decades caring for children, adolescents, and young adults, many of whom have disabilities along the entire spectrum of mental and physical disorders, making the diagnosis of a disability and having the difficult discussions with the families, assisting some of them into palliative care, and bearing witness to the end of their too short lives, I find it offensive that a person without disability wants to "play" at being a person with a serious health issue or disability.

You are not "overcoming the actual limitations." You're safe in your healthy, not disabled body rolling dice trying roll a number a little higher than the game designers and fellow players expect during a recreational game. You are not overcoming the inability to hear sound, being at an increased risk of being hit by a car while crossing the street, struggling as most of the people around you cannot communicate with you efficiently. You are not overcoming the difficulty of trying to get alternate muscles to move your hand in the way that you want it to move all the while dealing with the pain of the contractures and the pressure ulcer forming where your hip presses against the seat of your wheel chair while you wait six months for the new seat to be fashioned. You are not trying to get a job while making involuntary vocalizations and body movements.

If you have a health condition or disability and want to role-play a character that better mirrors your life experience (autism, ALS, cancer survivor with cardiomyopathy, deaf, etc), then bravo, you go right ahead.

If you are an author who is trying to represent a more diverse environment to make players with disabilities feel included, you go right ahead, but do your due diligence in research and be respectful in your representation.

But if you are a person without disability who wants to "play" at being a person with a disability, I am going to be offended. I may not say anything at the table, but I will be as offended by you as if you were a white person showing up to the table in blackface.

And that you cannot see the offense in your efforts to "play" at or "tell the story of" a person with disabilities--whatever justification you've given yourself (it's my right to tell whatever stories I want with my characters, I'm inspiring people with disabilities, I'm bringing awareness to people, whatever)--when you do not have the proper context for what people with those specific disabilities experience are makes it so much more offensive.

'A dexterity of 1 = the challenges of ALS?'

I am so offended.

Is there a delay between submitting on the form and appearing on the spreadsheet? I submitted on the form yesterday but it hasn't appeared.

I suspect there's a manual component behind the screen.

I can count, and I assume even my 8 Intelligence character can count. So, if I know my laser has 20 shots in it, and I make 5 shots, I know I have 15 more shots in that battery.

If you're the GM and you tell me that I don't know how many shots I have left because the weapons section doesn't list a shot counter or battery guage in the description so I'm "metagaming" if my character acts like he knows and changes batteries when it gets pretty low before the next room, I might just excuse myself from the table right then.

Tier is processing speed, anyhow, not data storage. There are modules to increase data storage of any tier computer.

I don't see that batteries should be treated any different than ammunition clips or any other form of fantasy ammunition that Starfinder creates: you know how many shots you have.

Now, what I wouldn't at all be surprised by is a frustrated GM asking a habitually distracted player that has been full attacking all scenario long through a combat scenario, "How many charges do you have left?" The player responds, "I don't know, but my character would know. You tell me." Which then leads the GM to say, "I'm not your accountant. If you didn't keep track, you don't know. Your battery is empty."

It not being the GM's responsibility to track PCs' ammunition does not mean that PCs don't have an easy way to tell how many shots they have (and attaching a computer to your laser isn't going to make me as the GM keep track for you).

The only one I can think of for the Mwangi Expance would be the Magaambyan arcanist.

I am hopeful. *Fingers crossed*

10 archetypes in this first volume, so unless they're going to not give one to a region in the flagship for this line, yes, one per region.

I don't disagree with that rationale or interpretation, just looking for clarity before those who might have interpretted it differently start showing up at my tables in August (not that I'll have any way to verify).

5 unique scenarios? No double credit for playing and GMing a scenario? No credit for multiple runs of Evergreens?

Or 5 credits, any credits, doesn't matter how you got them?

I suspect he means the convention boon.

We will have PFS(2) pregens, though, so don't worry.

Frank Gulp wrote:

Of course now I am thinking of running an all skittermander table of it. Singing optional.

Is there a current way to get the skittermander race boon?

I was about to tell you how and then I realized that would be spoilers. If you caught the post for the 5 seconds it existed, now you know. Otherwise, it's kind of obvious if you think about it.

Also everyone who signed up to GM PF2 this year on launch, like those who did so for Starfinder two years ago, is a hero. Huge respect to all of you!

I'm going to put that in my mental vault to pull out whenever someone throws a pencil at my table or tells me I'm bad GM for enforcing the rules or whatever other random stuff GenCon attendees will do to me this year.

Potential volunteers: Don't be scared off. People are people, but most of my tables have been good, and I've had more than a couple that were pure delight. I had a family of six sit at my 1-99; they were the best fun!

Cross-Posting

Have (PFS):

Axiomite/Ratfolk/Vishkanya
Rebuild/Skinwalker/Changling/Samsaran/Grippli
Rebuild/Vanara/Skinwalker/Changeling
Vine Leshy
Metamagical Access
Share the Wealth (Equipment)
Against the Grain
Freedom's Champion (Liberty's Edge)/Argent Knight (Silver Crusade)
Hang in There

Have (SFS):

Ferran Heritage/Woioko Heritage (Personal)
Inside Manufacturer (Social)
Rabid Fan Base (Social)
Possessed Augmentation (Personal)
Relics of Golarion (Slotless)
Mining Laser Upgrade (Ship)
Augmented Affiliation (Social)
Free Captains Affiliation (Social)
Emergency Resupply (Starship)
Mystical Guidance Systems Upgrade (Ship)
Draelek/Witchwyrd (Personal) See Below*

WANT (PFS):

Seasoned Archivist (Dark Archive)
Seen It Once

Want (SFS):

SFS GM Boon 2019 Online Region: Dragonkin/Planar Scion

*My Draelek/Witchwyrd is available for an Uplifted Bear (would replace the build that I have in mind for the Witchwyrd), which I believe is an RSP boon requiring a GM to have run 24 games to give away a Bear. If I'm wrong, ignore me.

Cross-Posting

Have (SFS):

Ferran Heritage/Woioko Heritage (Personal)
Inside Manufacturer (Social)
Rabid Fan Base (Social)
Possessed Augmentation (Personal)
Relics of Golarion (Slotless)
Mining Laser Upgrade (Ship)
Augmented Affiliation (Social)
Free Captains Affiliation (Social)
Emergency Resupply (Starship)
Mystical Guidance Systems Upgrade (Ship)
Draelek/Witchwyrd (Personal) See Below*

Have (PFS):

Axiomite/Ratfolk/Vishkanya
Rebuild/Skinwalker/Changling/Samsaran/Grippli
Rebuild/Vanara/Skinwalker/Changeling
Vine Leshy
Metamagical Access
Share the Wealth (Equipment)
Against the Grain
Freedom's Champion (Liberty's Edge)/Argent Knight (Silver Crusade)
Hang in There

WANT (SFS):

SFS GM Boon 2019 Online Region: Dragonkin/Planar Scion

*My Draelek/Witchwyrd is available for an Uplifted Bear (would replace the build that I have in mind for the Witchwyrd), which I believe is an RSP boon requiring a GM to have run 24 games to give away a Bear. If I'm wrong, ignore me.

Want (PFS):

Seasoned Archivist (Dark Archive)
Seen It Once

They adjust based on ticket sales, although with everything being sold out, there doesn't appear to be room to adjust.

However, they also take GM volunteers up to the edge and add tables as they are able based on those new volunteers.

Unfortunately, the only way to snag one of these new seats is to stay vigilant. They haven't been announced when they've been added in the past, but people are always looking and ready to snatch them up.

Er, this PDF doesn't list the legal races. It's just a character sheet, item tracker, and some boons for a first character.

I appreciate the attempt, but this actually isn't what I was looking for. I need to know if I can play a Gnoll or Kitsune.

No, that link definitely takes you to the document you need.

Appendix 1 Character Creation will state:

Select your character’s race. The choices offered in the Core Rulebook are always available, as are ifrit, kitsune, nagaji, oread, sylph, tengu, undine, and wayang, provided you own a copy of the appropriate source book. [/ooc]

If the ability for one VC to do all three evaluations (at different times) is not a solution to GMs without easy access to VCs...

Would allowing anyone with 5 symbols in any system (and maybe X symbols in the rule set being evaluated) solve anything?

If I can’t get a single VC to be willing to even open a dialogue about it for Origins where I will be running 8 tables, I can’t help but have concern for the ability to do this at major cons.

I can sympathize, but none of that is new, right?

The status quo: 150 tables, 50 unique, 10 specials and be evaluated by a VC who just goes with his gut.

The new mode: 150 tables, 50 unique, 10 specials, and be evaluated 3 times by a VC using the proposed rubric.

If you situation was such that you couldn't get 1 evaluation without overarching guidance for the evaluator, that situation hasn't changed for you and has nothing to do with using the rubric/guidance on how to measure adequacy.

With the exception of the number of evaluations, the process was objectively worse than the proposed process, unless you were friends with your VC. Now, at least, those of us not friends with our VCs can be confident that there's more guidance on pass/fail than a random stranger's gut feeling. We have benchmarks to aim toward.

I'm a superfan of online play, but even I have to acknowledge the "play online" response to MTS (or anything, really) still ignores a considerable population, especially when you get to the complexity of GMing tables.

EDIT: And to demonstrate that I am not talking out of my tail-side, I have attempted online play from, in increasing degrees of frustration/difficulty: Lilongwe, Malawi; Zomba, Malawi; and Lodwar, Kenya.

It is inaccurate to combine all overseas venues and worse to equate them all with remote locations.

So the issue are GMing in remote locations and/or being a GM of limited means.

I think I have 1 VC, 1 VL, and 2 VAs in my city and nowhere else for at least 100 miles.

If I live downtown and don't own a car, I can't get to the venues to GM a game with my VC, let alone get to a convention.

Oh, wait... that also means that I haven't run 10 MTS, which have been a requirement forever, either. I'd best not get my cart before the horse.

EDIT: I left off my point. I'm not saying it should or should not be so, but it might be that 5-glyphs are not for everyone, no matter how many PFS(2) scenarios you buy and run.

I particularly point out the bias against the online community which is completely unwarranted.

As a predominately online GM, I'm not sensing any bias, myself. I'm open to having this concern pointed out to me.

Personally, I'd be fine if this had simply been dictated without 4 years of polling convention goers and discussions with Venture Officers.

OPF wants 5 stars/novas/glyphs to simply be a table count? Sure.
OPF wants a closed book 5-hour exam to earn your 5th symbol? Sure.

Fortune/Misfortune are just keywords for "roll twice, pick the best/worst result"?

Category of effect that includes the above as well as rerolling a failed roll and forcing a reroll on an opponent's success. See pg. 293 of the playtest rulebook for the specifics.

Hmmm, it says Hero Points are fortune effects... would that mean they could be effected by fortune enhancing powers (if 2E has any)?

Unless these bits have changed significantly from playtest, it means:

Cannot apply other fortune effects to the check.
Cannot be applied to checks with the Secret tag.
Are cancelled by (and cancel out) a misfortune effect on the check.

More than 75% thought it should have a qualitive element, i.e. represent the quality of the GM, not just a quantitative element.

I don't think that many people are in favor of a qualitative aspect to the ranking system.

One of those two people might have a sample size problem or a sampling bias problem.