I think I can help there.
While on Paizo you got to the "Organized Play" tab along the top and select "My Organized Play".
That will put you on a summary page that lists Triage-347 under "My Characters".
Click the "Edit" button on that row and that will take you to a page where you can edit your character's profile, but there will also be a option near the top, right between setting your character's faction and full name, there will be a spot for "Character Image". Click "Change".
You will be on a page where you can select your avatar. Find an image you like in the lists, hovering over it will give you information about it and a "Select this Avatar" button. Click that.
At that point your character icon for that alias will be set.
Let me know if any bit of that is confusing since I know it is a lot of steps there. There might be an easier way, but this is how I learned to do it.
Who are you, and what do you have to offer the party?
I'll be taking a moment today to look over to get a character ready for this and I'll post more on them when I have one up.
Do you need any help building or formatting your character?
I should be good to build and format my character and I'm very happy to help anyone else with any questions they might have.
Have you done any kind of PBP before?
I've been doing PbP for several years now and have been playing in person for several years before that.
Have you ever played Starfinder before? If so, what was your favorite adventure?
My favorite Starfinder adventures are the ones that have felt like out of various Star Trek episodes. One that sounds out was one that took the group to a mysterious would with a strange anomaly that the party had to investigate and figure out a good solution to solve.
Do you have an up-to-date 'bot me' spoiler -- complete with dice expressions? (Subtle, aren't I?)
I have "botting" spoilers on my characters and I will make sure this character has them all up to date.
Will you be willing to bot other characters if I ask you to do so?
Do you promise to let me know if you get super busy for a few days so we can bot you?
Are you comfortable with a 2 post a day pace?
What is your Discord ID so that we can set up a back channel for Discord notifications?
I will admit that I had thought I had purchased a ticket for PaizoCon 2020 and only in the last day realized that I never actually made that purchase. I'm just a bit sad since I've been to every other PaizoCon and this messes with the completionist part of my brain.
Even though I'm a bit disappointed, I'm in agreement of how this is being resolved. I'll still be keeping an eye out in case badge purchases do appear, but otherwise I'll be looking forward to attending the online event.
GM OfAnything wrote:
Yes, but since I jump between running in-person, online by VTT, and online by PbP, there is a bit of different prep for the games. Even then it does make it far faster. When I was most coordinated on what I was running, I generally ran a given scenario two times. Sometimes less or more if I didn't enjoy it or also ran it during a convention or outside home games.
While I like the cantina-feel for Starfinder, I'm not convinced I would similar love for that in pick up Pathfinder games as that does make more sense to me in the space traveling setting of Starfinder. I do support adding more freely available ancestries though.
I do think the GM rewards for running at conventions are a worse now for getting a new GM through the door and run those first few games.
The current system works very well for me because previously when I went to conventions and got my first ancestry boon, I thought it was awesome. After time though, after the fourth or fifth time getting that same ancestry boon of those same options, it had lost that same allure.
Now instead of getting that same ancestry boon over multiple events, I have a wider variety of options (in theory, in practice I'm still not sure when I will use them). I even get more controllable rewards for running more or less at an event. I also continue to accrue these rewards for running outside conventions which make up a lot of my game time.
Despite all of that working for how I run, the current system is worse for other situations like rewarding GMs for running at one convention. Beforehand they got a small selection of ancestries for a relatively small amount of time (with respect to TTRPGs). Now instead of maybe getting an uncommon ancestry while running two slots at a convention, one would need to run two slots at that convention, then run two slots at the next convention, then run a couple more scenarios for their local group, and then the remaining points they have earned as a player should be enough to get one of the uncommon ancestries.
On top of that, I would say that GMing does not earn you more AcP if we were just counting hours. For me, I think I take around 3 hours to prepare a scenario (some take more or less), so while I'm getting double AcP per game, I'm still getting the same amount of AcP per hour. For me that is fine and I love running, but for newer GMs they might need even more time and effort (like learning bestiary rules or learning how to use an online tool as a GM if they run online).
While I'm good for rewards, I do think they could be better for more casual GMs as I don't think there is a significant incentive to try out GMing (with just AcP).
Edit: To add an actual suggestion to this, I think that having some ancestries start at 20 AcP would mimic that aspect of the previous system. Running two slots at a convention would be enough for players to achieve with just running two games at a convention (Premier event).
I disagree. I believe someone can make inferences even with a small sample size. They don't need to be correct, but I think that is not unreasonable to jump to a conclusion before gathering a significant sample size.
If I was in either of the groups you mentioned (which are both completely fine), I would find it outside the norm I experience, but given the tables I've participated in, I would be able to count it as an outlier. If I had instead been seeing regular occurrences of different corgi-riding sprites or tiefling androids, then I wouldn't feel they were an especially rare to see (for some definition of rare). Again, I don't think that is bad, but my perception of whether something is uncommon will be affected by how often I experience it.
Reading it again, unless you had another thing you were trying to say here, I do want to say that I would ever want to monitor other tables to determine if they are playing the "right" kind of Pathfinder. If there are hundreds of groups having fun with poppets and leshies that is honestly great.
The organization of PFS is very large and hard for me to grasp the totality of what they need to manage, so I have been treating the management of the Society as one big eldritch GM. And, like any GM, they can determine what is appropriate for their game. If one GM gave full access to androids and another did not, I feel both GMs are not unreasonable from just that information.
In the same way, I'm fine with Pathfinder Society restricting character options. Despite me really loving the inventor and gunslinger, I would have understood with them not allowing the classes within Society play. I didn't think that was likely they would ban either of those classes, but I felt it was still in their discretion. From the same book I immediately looked at the automaton and I wanted to play one (honestly that is my reaction to most ancestries), but I thought it was unlikely they would be available in Pathfinder Society. I was pleasantly surprised to see that they were available, at any AcP cost.
It would be the exact same situation in the future, if/when there is a Numerian tech book, that futuristic tech reappeared in Pathfinder. I would love to have access to that content for some character concept, but I would be understand if they restricted that content for Society play.
As to what I persoanlly allow as a GM, I think the best example would be from the first multi-session game I ever GMed. There I allowed a player to play a winged half-dragon tibbit (like kitsune, but house cat). That was decent number of years ago and I like think I have a lot more experience as a GM.
I don't have a doubt that I would still allow that character. The details might be different, but I would still be absolutely on board for allowing that "ancestry" in my games. I am very fine with allowing characters that people want to play.
I'm not sure what you are saying. I don't go around to other tables checking out table composition.
No problem, I was mostly worried what I had done wrong.
Hilary's character Bobbi explained my thought process a lot better. I personally love that character log and think that the vanity existing (and her not having it) produced a fantastic story for a character that might have better than if the character just had the vanity.
I will admit I feel the mindset of 'why play this game, there's no chronicle' has worked more to my advantage. During conventions I feel it has helped me get into awesome games run by great GMs because less people were fighting to get into the game because there was no chronicle sheet attached. :)
More seriously though, I do agree that valuing the games for the chronicle sheet and not the game you played is more prevalent than I like and I personally have fallen into that myself sometimes.
I will even say that I have generally felt bad whenever there is a random roll for a boon and I didn't win the boon sheet. This is despite the fact that most of my boon sheets tend to gather dust as I don't use them.
For AcP, based on how I am, I think I really like the concept of having access to rare and unusual options, but I'm unlikely to actually actually spending any significant amount of AcP (although I did spend some points for access to a discounted shoony boon). That might because I don't play enough to actually get through the roster of characters I like to play or it could because I rather have those points available (and do nothing with them) rather than spend them.
Absolutely myself and only myself. If the decision was made to put certain things behind vanities I would respect it.
I'll admit that the number one vanity that would effect my characters in any way would be a "Trained by/Child of PFS 1e Society character". Effect being a strong word since this is all just character backstory that I haven't even brought into the games I've played.
I don't understand why you couldn't have. But maybe I'm just tired of everyone demanding mechanical reward for character story.
I apologize if I gave the wrong impression, but I'm not suggesting I want mechanical rewards for backstory. I'm honestly confused what it looks like I said if my post implied that. In my mind, if anything, I was arguing against that.
Mark Stratton wrote:
I'm certainly fine with adding more ancestries to the freely accessible (and adjusting costs on others), but I don't like the idea of putting titles or non-mechanical dressing behind AcP as it reminds me of vanities for PFS in Pathfinder 1 and I was not terribly fond of most of them.
Right now I feel I can make a character who owns a bakery in Absalom and that is how it passes his downtime as his day job. I also can make a Taldan character with a meaningless title. I can make a character who own a significant home out far away from wherever this adventure is taking place. I also can make a goblin puppeteer and say that they got one of Hats's hats.
If similarly styled vanities and titles returned though, it is likely that similar vanities would return and while I could still say all those things, despite them making no real appearance in the game, suddenly I am compelled to spend points in order for my character to retain a meaningless title that will never serve any use in the game.
I'm running games enough that costs are going to be irrelevant to me, but I really don't like much on how those vanities functioned. I'm certainly not opposed to some things of the kind appearing as new AcP options, but I'm wary of them becoming the primary item.
I repeat a sample size of a party does not represent a population. if Absalom had 10 poppets and 4 of them are in an adventuring party that party in all non-human in a human-dominant setting. Some GMs may find that odd and some would enjoy it
And that is perfectly fine, but in the context of an organized play game, if a new player comes into that group, their thoughts would not be that poppets are extraordinarily rare, but that they fairly common and mundane, at least within the Pathfinder Society. At the very least, it would indicate that a large population of poppets existed within the Society.
The same would go for leshies. If I see a number of leshy characters at tables then that would tell people that leshy are not that rare or that that is some reason a lot of leshies joined the Society. That is the case for leshies though so I don't have that same disconnect.
I may be unique in saying this but I find poppets, automatons, and sprites more fitting companions or heroes than goblins. even if we somehow remove the ACP requirements it is not going to change anyone's desire to play something uncommon or rare, they will just be more free to do so. We are just trying to increase freedom of choice by reducing cost.
Yes. By reducing/removing costs for uncommon and rare options, it makes those options less uncommon or rare to the point of making them neither uncommon nor rare through their usage.
I'm personally find for allowing these options in my home games, but it does change the feel of the campaigns I run and I'm not comfortable saying that is how all of organized play or pressuring other GMs into feeling they can't restrict anything in their own games.
I would have to disagree if you spend 10 months investment go though 2 characters' active carriers and anticipation in playing a character the one you want: their/your hopes and dreams, backstory, outfit, drawing them, creating a custom 3d model/mini, what ever else is part of your character creation process you will have more invested into them and feel worse at character death.
Yes. If someone has sold their soul to play a particular character, I would expect them to be dismayed to lose that character regardless of ancestry rarity.
Now what I was referring to was the idea that "one free rare ancestry" being an issue with character death because a brand new player would be less familiar with the Pathfinder Society systems and likely unable to fix that character death. I would suggest that someone who has played through two character careers will be far more familiar with those systems and would be able to resolve a character death within Society (or would otherwise be far more familiar with the risks they are taking).
I do feel empathetic toward anyone who walks away because Pathfinder Society's rules are so restrictive to remove any character they want to play. However the composition of the party is going to do a lot to set the tone for a game. I would be very content to run for a group of players playing poppets, automatons, and sprites, but seeing less common ancestries at the forefront of each game will change how the game feels than if it were a number of ancestries from the Core Rulebook.
Different doesn't mean this is bad, but I think it is fair for Pathfinder Society to have a goal for setting a tone for the campaign. For both PFS and any GM, I do think that they can reasonably set rules that prohibit or just restrict the options people have access in order to attempt to maintain a feeling for the game.
That said, I would be curious to exploring if there if a better option exists for causing this scarcity than what exists now. I don't think removing all restrictions is a great option and I worry that having one free ancestry on sign up would cause character death to feel worse (even more than if you had to spend points on it).
Played in game with my level 7 mystic with three evolutionists. We played in the scenario "Live Adventure Extreme!" at the 7-8 tier.
Beforehand I offered that, since I was leveling to 7 with my mystic, that I could pick out spells to specifically pair with the eldritch evolutionist and allow anyone to try that niche and spell twisting with their selection of mystic spells.
Overall the party did fine throughout the adventure. Since the group was combat focused and paid some attention in preparation for the starship encounter, nothing imposed a major issue with the party not taking hit point damage throughout the adventure. I made some poorer combat decisions during the adventure, but only once the group was in at a significant advantage.
Discussing it with the eldritch evolutionist I picked up spells I either was less likely to rely on myself or I was not able to use to any good effect. I picked up synaptic pulse and ectoplasmic barrage 3 along with a number of spell gems with other spell options.
It wasn't an great experience as a spellcaster, it was uncommon that the evolutionist was in a position to be able to use spell twisting on any of the spells. Even then, he was unlikely to want to use any of the spells I had on hand.
It never seemed like an advantage to use him as a source for a spell. We didn't even bother with the Fort save on spell twisting since he couldn't improve any part of my spells DCs.
Overall felt too difficult to coordinate and the costs were too high for the results. I was able to use one casting of ectoplasmic barrage 3 with the evolutionist and while that was good I think my other spells could have produced a similar effect in combat without trying to change both of our characters.
I was running a spellcaster running alongside an eldritch evolutionist and I did end up having some questions on how the spell twisting ability worked in a number of unusual cases. I went with the GM decisions, but I wanted to mention the questions that came up.
Generally I have made the assumption that the only things that spell twisting changes are spelled out in the ability. That anything beyond the immediate targeting, range measuring, and attack rolls required when the spell was cast instead falls upon the actual spellcaster.
Question: If an evolutionist uses spell twisting to take a spell that centers on the caster (e.g. synaptic pulse) is the evolutionist excluded from the effect.
Question: Can a evolutionist take a personal range spell with spell twisting? For example, if an allied spellcaster casts see invisibility, could the evolutionist use spell twisting and then benefit from see invisibility until the duration ran out?
Question: If a evolutionist uses spell twisting on a spell and then targets themselves, does the caster then need to roll to beat the evolutionist's spell resistance?
Question: What happens for spells like junksword? What benefit does that provide for the spell twisting evolutionist?
Question: Can a evolutionist use spell twisting if the spellcaster is casting a spell from a spell gem?
That does omit obviously "this element feels good" and other more positive elements. While change is very much part of a playtest, the feedback provided can be both negative or positive. The negative feedback is fine, but my own more positive feedback was treated as less so. That is still not the worst, I was not offended, I just moved on because there are more useful areas to place my feedback.
We are not diametrically opposed. I'm certain that you don't know what I actually want for the class because I haven't given it anywhere on this forum. I don't think my group even knows my particular position on particular class elements. I wouldn't even say I saw you as an opponent even as I was trying to clarify my own position. It was only after I realized that was not going anywhere that I stopped trying there. That is also why I have only been discussing the concept of playtest feedback here rather than the class.
It isn't because I take this as a personal affront, but because has felt like a waste of time when there are other more productive things I can do (even with relation to this playtest). This might also be unproductive, but if it has the chance of someone else being treated better down the line, and other comments posted in this thread, that it was worth the attempt.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
If feels to me that even as you ask here why I like the class, you go into what seems to be a preemptive argument against why I am wrong for having fun thinking about and wanting to play this class.
I believe it is fine for you to have those opinions, but I don't it is particularly worthwhile when those opinions are just going to be used to attempt to prove that my opinions and feelings are wrong.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
I read "Why is the numbers jumping up and down every round (and both ways per turn even) appealing?" as a request to understand my perspective better. My goal would be to talk about why this mechanic is interesting and fun to me.
You comment though would seem that wasn't what your request was. It seems more like your request was to convince you that you would enjoy this mechanic. I can't do that and certainly I don't believe me sharing my own preferences would or should change yours.
I would suggest if you do want to see the class improved and become more appealing to others, you be open to understanding that people might actually like the class as it is presented now. Understanding what others see and enjoy in the current design would be just as helpful as your own concerns.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
I do applaud that apologies, but I want to say that this was my experience elsewhere. This is a playtest and I'm not going to tell people not to give their opinions on it.
But in giving my opinion, and trying to clarify it, you told my positive experiences were aberrant, that the way I process information in game is wrong, and only seemed to find statements credible if they possibly could be construed to support your position.
I do think at any point I told people who they should feel about the class mechanic, but gave my impression of it and how it compares to my previous experiences.
You asked above what part of this mechanic is appealing and based on those previous experiences I feel it a trap. Any attempt I make at explaining why enjoy it, would be met with a declaration that I my reasoning for enjoying it is wrong.
That isn't the worst thing to experience, but I do not see a benefit for the time I might spend typing that out when I know that is the result. Even this post is slog to try to get out imagining the result.
I was the GM for this game I second the results and I want to give my input on how I felt both played out.
Outside of combat the party did well on every skill challenge with both of the evolutionists contributing. That largely due to them taking effort to have access significant number of skills (by taking a high Intelligence) and not anything of major note that evolutionist granted.
General Evolutionist Comments:
Neither character spent any Resolve Points to gain Evolution Points during the adventure. At once point the Vital evolutionist could spend a RP to gain an extra SP during his turn, but that was turned down because of how important RP is to staying alive for low level characters.
Both of the evolutionist's took energy based weapons. Throughout this adventure, kinetic weapons would have been just a worse option. While it was noted that the ACs were generally low this adventure, a number of hits by both evolutionists were because they were both targeting EAC. Since there is no increase in kinetic adaptive strikes at 1st level, it would have been a drop in accuracy for no increase in damage.
Hortus Evolutionist (Vital)
The melee evolutionist was the primary source of damage for the party because of the 18 Strength. While I could argue that he could have given 18 Strength to any class and gotten a similar effect, I will note that having access to a d6 damage melee energy based weapon (that isn't unwieldy) felt good for 1st level character.
Aside from first use of Biotic Invigoration that dropped the character to 0 EP (and losing the bonus healing), the use of the ability ended up being fair, eventually healing an amount of damage similar to what the envoy was able to do. However, despite it being used in most combats, there wasn't point where another ally was healed by biotic invigoration. Characters weren't entering near melee to gain 1 SP per turn.
Unfortunately, despite there being an envoy in the party that could restore SP, the vital evolutionist didn't get any extra benefit during the adventure. The 2nd level envoy's inspiring boost healed 7 SP which was the evolutionist's max SP. This is party due to the higher level of the envoy, but also due to the character didn't have an high Constitution nor a large stamina pool from their class.
The Vital drawback didn't matter for this adventure as nothing in the adventure required this character to make a Will save and any skills requiring patience could be resolved in the early part of combat. The instinct did affect the character, but only their own healing from a serum and biotic invigoration.
Despite having a 10 Dexterity, the character still was tied for the highest KAC in the party (with the other evolutionist) because of vital evolutionist's heavy armor. Seeing that comparison I'm not sure if I like that the universal ability does not increase KAC for characters going out of their way to don heavy armor.
Xenometric Strix Android Evolutionist (Mechanized)
Upon reflection I probably targeted this character the least during any of the combats. I had to guess, it would because their flight kept them in positions where I could not easily reach them in comparison to other ranged characters. Because of that there were less chances to mitigate damage through their instinct or retaliate with Avenging Burst. The one time Dracomicron mentioned them using the ability was the only time it could be used the entire adventure. The other times they were struck they were out of range of the 10 feet required by Avenging Burst.
Their drawback weakness to damage came up once during the scenario, but it ended being canceled out by other damage they were taking at the same time. The other half of their drawback did end up applying the entire scenario because of the envoy in the party. The character could only benefit from the envoy's get 'em if their 3 EP drawback was not active (if it were, they couldn't benefit from morale bonuses).
Despite the evolutionists being critical to the success to the adventure and looking fun to play, neither seemed to be exceptional compared to any other combat focused classes and they didn't get other abilities to create their own niche elsewhere. The self healing from Vital Evolutionist was the most notable, but still required a couple rounds to set up and then multiple rounds to complete the healing. Compared to similar classes that build up energy over multiple rounds, this seemed to be more costly and less worthwhile than solarion or vanguard (either from spending points or building them up).
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
I haven't been trying to convince you the class is something you enjoy.
I'm trying to saying that the class, as it appears now, is not as complex as you describe after I read it and now after one game. I do have issues, but this thread has not felt like a good place to place those comments.
Through this though you have been saying that there are things that I didn't think about, when I did think about them; told me that I will slow down the game because I will be constantly rebuilding the class, when that did not slow down the game; and that I will argue to recon actions because of forgetting things in game, to which I'll admit I have issues as a player but this is not a think I do.
I make no claims to what you or anyone else feels about the class, but you seem to have a clear understanding of how I interact with this class that I would only assume from my closest friends of years. If it wasn't completely entirely inaccurate.
If you are doing these things with this class, that is completely fair and reasonable criticism of the class. But you are saying things on how I'm playing with the class without any knowledge of me, at least I don't think I ever played with you. Since your claims about me or so far off base, it is making your other arguments less persuasive to myself at very least.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
You picked only a single thing that changed then ignored everything else, proving my point that most people will ignore it (especially the negatives) or forget it.
No. As I noted I took it and more than just the change in speed.
While you make it clear in your post you are counting the AC increase as a calculation despite it being in effect for effectively no time, I ignored it for that reason. For example, I don't try to take in account for the bonus an envoy's get 'em when my turn is going to be throwing an arcing surge. I see a lot of these bonuses in a similar fashion. I might be getting them, but I don't need to do any additional thought to apply them.
I did see a few issues of complexity in the one session I have run for evolutionists so far, those issues do not seem map to your post copy/pasting the playtest evolutionist's abilities. There weren't a lot of issues recalling which abilities were gained or lost during the game.
The ebb and flow of EP still seemed fun to me, along with how abilities changed. Had issues with it, but I can deal with those elsewhere. I look forward to getting more experience with it to see if I enjoy it for itself or just because it is new and different.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Your point seems to be provides as little information in your query as possible, then provide a similar amount of information as you declare you own success. I don't see anything that changes my position that "evolutionist at a glance does not seem too complex before I playtest it."
If the question was "an envoy has spend a RP this round. How many calculations have you done since the round started?" I would have a similar limited answer? Do I have to assume get 'em was used and I need to count each potential attack in the party member as an additional calculation for that attack bonus? Are they also doing an quick inspiring boost? I have no idea what this envoy is doing to give a great answer and would be only able to give a bare bones answer like they one I just gave you.
It the same for your evolutionist. I thought about including a recalculation for BAB, even ignoring the fact that I can't say it is being used in your example, but when I play these sorts of characters that have a varying attack bonus (like 1e investigator or barbarian, or a SF exo-cortex mechanic) I write out separate attack lines for my targeted bonus and my non-targeted bonus. It isn't something I would be recalculating every turn.
I discounted the AC bonus entirely because I made an assumption that the character was spending EP on their turn and wasn't triggering an AoO or readied attack. If I'm not getting attacked, that AC bonus isn't something I need to deal with at all, even if it is trivial.
You might be referring to a number of instincts, drawbacks, adaptations or niche abilities. I have no idea which one you might be referring to. Some could present more complexity in a given round, while others might have no effect. There just isn't enough information for me to give it more than the reasonable fair thought had already given it.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
If you go up to 4 EP on this round and spend 2 EP what all calculations have you done since that round started.
Based on that information, I have increased my speed at the start of the turn by +5 feet. During the turn that bonus went away.
That is about it for calculations. (Aside from what I spent my EP on).
Other abilities might be in play, but depend on other things going on.
I'm not convinced that the Evolutionist produces too many calculations per round.
At a glance I will say it looks to be a more complicated class than others in Starfinder, but I will say that a lot of that makes it more interesting for me to play than an operative.
I like having more than one option on a turn and this class looks interesting to me because in part because it has a lot of minor things changing based upon how much EP I might have or might want to spend.
That isn't to say that I don't have a limit. One common memory in my local group is ability from one of the games we played where a character granted a damage bonus equal to 1/2 the number of enemies within 15 feet to themselves and allies within that same radius. That was too complicated for our group because of how that might change as enemies or allies moved. While that is an easy number to describe, it was a bit of a hindrance to our group as we played. I might change my mind via playtesting, but Evolutionist looks fun to play rather than arduous.
I would also assume that it is Fortitude Negates for the drain. I admit I have nothing to back that up as the only other case of a creature that had ability drain on an attack in Starfinder was a CR 13 Driftdead and that offered no save.
Restoration is a good fix for most characters and I think it would be say it is reasonable that the group returns to Absalom Station between mission to fix the drain at the "minimal" 2 Fame.
I will say that I don't think drain is appropriate within a 1-2 sub-tier just because it isn't something I want to inflict on a brand new character who will have no way to fix it.
Overall, if I'm making any assumptions on the design of this encounter, it seems easiest to me to assume that the hatchlings are meant to inflict ability damage rather than drain. I have nothing back that up aside from my intuition that this is just a terminology mix up.
Take 20 to remove the curse can put the party within a reasonable shot to remove it themselves, but it does reflect on the fact that this is a scaled down CR 7 trap that only lowers the DCs but none of the effects of the trap. Lowering the DCs to detect and disable is not enough to reduce the CR of the trap in this case.
I honestly don't know how to resolve this for a level 1 party (without changing the wording of the effect) besides hand waving the fact that the Dataphiles have members the clean the infected devices post adventure or suggesting that the characters replace all of their gear as they are able.
Seeing it also makes me want to prepare for PCs trying to weaponize themselves. Throwing lasers at armored enemies to purposely infect enemy gear as the penalties are so substantial that this easily dwarfs debuffs the PCs would have access to at these levels.
I might be wrong, but when playing through the adventure last evening one player was noting that Elsir had less spells per day than a sorcerer of his level should (I think he was missing 1 each of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level).
I would love to join if there is room. I have a few characters on hand including a level 2 mystic and level 3 envoy. I'll get the stats up for both prepared tonight to make sure they are correct in my profile. I would honestly rather play my 3rd level envoy if all things are equal, but I don't want to cause any problems if that causes an issue in the tiers.
I have enjoyed the Archives of Nethys site for years and I'm glad to see it get this attention.
Even still, I don't know if there were other reasons for this immediate change, I will say that this fast of a change over feels unusual and somewhat disruptive.
As an example, for a few magic items my groups had found I opted to post a link to the PRD to the full text of those items and spells. Both of those aren't working now, and I would have been surprised if they were supported. I don't mind if they stopped working a week or even days after I posted them, but when I was linking them, my thought process wasn't "what if that page on the PRD is taken down tomorrow?"
Again, I do think this change is for the best. I do think that the PRD is better served with this change. I just felt a little blindsided by the sudden change.
Edit: And of course, congratulations to Blake.
I've had some unexpected trouble on my end and got my investigator locked in mid-scenario. I've sorry about that bit. I do have another character in the queue to use though, I would be using my level 8 gunslinger. I do have a few other options, but he is more or less up to date and will be ready for this scenario.
Right but the wider the group, the more feedback you can get. More really is better in a playtest. You need those people that will break the game. You need the people that say that even with all the tech, the wizard exists and magic is just better so who would bother with tech. You need the jerks and everyone that will bash and complain because you need to hear all the complaints, see if they are valid, and compare them to what others are saying. When you keep our testing group small, you get very limited feedback. You say they may just pick the people that file the reports, but you need to look at what people say in the forums as well. You need to see the complaints and the praise and how players compare things with each other, especially since they said you can use all the pathfinder books with this game.
They covered this question in a panel which hopefully I remember well enough. Filtering with the noise produced from a public playtest was one of the reasons they gave for not having a public playtest. Another reason they have was of agility, as with a private playtest, they could produce a new rule, hand it to groups to test how that rule works, and get feedback on it in a timeframe that wouldn't be viable using the public playtest.
They indicated that the changes to the system would be significant and that while you might be able to use Pathfinder books with this game, it isn't the goal that it would slot in perfectly.
I recall Feast of Sigils as the day that most of the characters belonging to the Andoran faction players shrugged and took a boon without much of a care. My recollection of the ioun stone was the party describing me as being lucky that I could take it without getting atonement. I left the convention feeling as though there wasn't really a place in PFS for a good character with three evil boons and not even an acknowledgement for not taking them.
That said, I do like the idea of the boon from Wardens of the Reborn Forge better, but the penalties far outweigh the bonuses. There are not many characters that could take on that boon with their build. If they wanted the bonuses, it would be more viable to spend money to mimic those bonuses than to take the boon and spend money negating the penalties of the boon.
Despite my distastes for them, the season four evil boons they had the important feature that anyone could benefit from them. While some people benefit more from the bonus, everyone can use a bonus to an ability score or an extra feat. That is one element the Warden boon lacks. That boon feels as though it is directed at a very small subsegment of characters. For an evil boon to work it needs to be usable to a significant segment of characters.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
I don't agree with that. Just because the character is a pacifist doesn't necessarily they aren't contributing to a fight. I don't think the comments would be the same if the character was healing "allies" or in the middle of battle. As described though, the character is staying a distance from the battle and takes only defensive actions (until their paired character is threatened).
This isn't the situation you mentioned before where a tank is taking full defensive actions while blocking enemies from approaching the rest of the party. I'm not suggesting that full defensive actions equate to someone contribute nothing to the battle. Even if the character was moving into the close range and exclusively spending actions to diplomatically end the battle, it wouldn't be the same situation that has been described.
There can be an argument, I feel, whether or not that diplomatic action could be considered "contributing", but I think that this situation as described does not seem like contributing to an encounter.
Neils Bohr wrote:
Ask the GM to change mechanics.
I would recommend something like the "Removing Alignment" section in Pathfinder Unchained. You have your shades of gray morality without the paladin being completely required to play dumb.
Because you will be doing evil stuff and no matter your bluff bonus, you are rolling a d20 against another d20 repeatedly until they roll high and you roll low. If this was a session I could suggest it but for a campaign it will fail unless the rules are handwaved.