Seltyiel

Castrin's page

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber. ***** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 30 posts (39 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 31 Organized Play characters.


RSS


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Had an interesting rules question that I think I know the answer to but I wanted others opinions/rulings.

Situation. character ran into a reoccurring trap without detecting is and set it off. After suffering the effects the player said that they should now be able to deactivate it. However I said that they would still need to make a Perception check to be able to do that regardless of if it had been set off. I refer to this entry:

Source Starfinder Core Rulebook pg. 410
A character must first detect a trap in order to attempt to disable it, since only through observing particular details about the trap can the character know the proper countermeasures. Even if a trap has already been triggered, characters can still attempt to deactivate the trap. Some traps no longer pose a danger once they’ve been triggered, but the PCs might be able to stop the trap’s ongoing effects, if any. Other traps might not have ongoing effects, but reset over a period of time; characters can still attempt to disable the trap during this time.

I find that allowing people to just run through traps to "detect" them doesn't mean they know how the trap works so why should they know how to deactivate it? I think I'm doing it right but I'd welcome other's take on this.

Thanks


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fumarole wrote:
I don't know if I am happy about this being part of the subscription. I'll have to think about if I want to continue with a sub to this line.

I feel the same way. Seems a bit of a money grab when the PDF is already going to be free to everyone.

2/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Looks like this is a web site bug. After counting everything up the credited tables seems correct.

Add to that the number of Novas listed for me on the forums is incorrect as well but the number listed on my Org page is correct.

Apologies and feel free to disregard this post. :)

2/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Hi,

Recently I noticed that I haven't received GM credit for tables I ran. The only thing that I'm seeing that accounts for this omission is a note that "player has already run scenario..." message.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought a GM gets run credit for a table regardless of how many times they run the same scenario. Has that changed? According to every Starfinder Society Guide (including the most recent) it says you get credit for every table you run. So is this a bug in the recording/accounting system? Web site bug?

Please advise.

Thanks.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Kind of a bummer that the pregens are the iconics and not more original, but, we can fix that. :D


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

This order appears to be stuck in the "pending" state.

Payment information is correct and funds are available.

Please advise or fix this so the order can be processed.

Thanks.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Please resubmit this pending order for processing.

Thanks.

2/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
How to fill out chronicle sheets online with foxit

This is exactly what I was looking for!

Thanks Wolf.

2/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

This is probably covered somewhere but I've failed to find it.

Question: what/where are the guidelines for online chronicles? For example: how do you create them so that they are "official" and recognized? I get that you can make your own from the PDF but is it that simple? Are there do's/do not's that I should be aware of?

This pertains mainly to Starfinder chronicles but any guidance would be appreciated.

Thanks.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

These two orders have been pending since Aug 10th and Aug 14th (respectively).

Can I get an update on when these might be shipped?

Thanks.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I posted two sessions for my Dawn of Flame AP campaign and noticed that I was given 24 Starfinder GM credits for each session.

Someone might want to take a look at that.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Also, I think there's a typo on Page 88.

** spoiler omitted **

Considering the description I don't think that's a typo. It's a "style over strength" choice for those that want to go full on fighting "monk" build.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gainsbourg wrote:
Dr. Creed Morvius wrote:
Any chance this will become Society legal with a chronicle sheet in the near future?
Great question!! Hope we don't have to wait much longer; I've been dying to play these and it's already been like 6 months since the first one came out.

Well they recently added the chronicles so it's now Society legal at least. Still can't report it though. Haven't been able to find it listed anywhere in the Event matrix.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Any word on if there will be Society rules/chronicles for this AP?


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

For grouping explosives I agree that increasing the radius and DC are reasonable but not increasing the damage seems unreasonable. Linear progression is very unbalancing and counter to the feel of the game so that's out.

Why not use damage dice progression such as the rules listed here. You could use an opened ended progression for cases where more numerous explosives/grenades are being set off at once. Combine it with a DC adjustment and a radius adjustment based on the same progression.

One question is would/should this be used with non-kinetic based grenades? Game mechanics wise I'd assume so but realistically speaking (yea I know, no such thing) the kinetic grenades rely on explosive force but others, like cryo based ones, not necessarily.

Just thinking out loud.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Upgrades to a computer improve the overall effectiveness of the computer. The Range upgrade would effect all control modules on that computer and only needs to be purchased once.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Castrin wrote:

and I'll not bother to respond as we have fundamentally different thinking and I see no middle ground to be found here.

Peace.

They're disagreeing because you have completely different thinking.

The way you're looking at the rules has been shown time and time again to NOT be how the rules are actually written. It's been shown time and time again to not be how the rules should be interpreted. You can't interpret english by latin grammar and you can't determine paizo rules like a computer code or stereo instructions.

If you keep reading them like that , if you keep insisting that the way you read the rules is THE right way and everyone else, including the people that write and clarify them are wrong, you are going to keep running into that problem. The way you read them is an arbitrary paradigm, NOT something where you and everyone else MUST read the rules that way.

I never said anyone was reading the rules wrong, only you used that term in reference to me. I simply have a different point of view which allows me to read them differently and which you personally take offense to.

It's a moot point anyway. Dev has spoken and it is what it is regardless of if anyone thinks differently.

Good day.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Castrin wrote:
My reply on 2/22 @ 8:09am clearly refutes your sad attempt at framing me.
can't tell which one you're referring to. Different time zones and after looking twice i don't see any ending in 09.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unp7?Can-Operatives-take-10-in-combat#45

The rest of your comments are simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and I'll not bother to respond as we have fundamentally different thinking and I see no middle ground to be found here.

Peace.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

@Castrin so your key complaint is really that the developer made a crystal clear decision ("yes they can do that") but didn't put it in an FAQ. And you only accept developer rulings if they've got sufficient formalities attached.

I think you're overestimating the formality of Paizo's way of doing things.

Haha! You are probably correct. I'm likely overestimating it but hope springs eternal. :D

As for my key complaint, no, that's not it. In a nut shell my key complaint is allowing an auto success in combat is counter to the idea that in combat you can always fail. However in discussing this with others I've come around to the realization that the Take 10 in combat ability of Operatives isn't overpowered. While it's still counter to the spirit of the d20 rules, an Operative still needs to hit just like anyone else so giving them an artificial boost to their damage and automatic conditions, while powerful, isn't overbalanced. I just wish they'd errata/FAQ the rules on p93 and make it clear outside of this forum.

Thanks for the laugh.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Castrin wrote:
Yes. You do.

Objectively, absolutely, 100% demonstrably false.

Observable evidence, I do not assume they are different. I do not conclude that they are different. I do not think they are different.

That would not be possible if i HAD to read the rules that way.

Despite what you might think, observable evidence trumps baseless declarations and suppositions.

The rules are NOT written to be read objectively. In fact it seems the harder that people push for an objective meaning in what they're reading the less likely they are to be right because you're not reading it in context. You say it stands alone. It was grouped together a sentence earlier. That matters.

Ah, I see. So if I read the rules differently I'm wrong because you are so much better at reading the rules objectively.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
The actual line: "Unless you have an ability

Changes absolutely nothing so you're correcting me for it's own sake. None.

When it was grouped together three sentences earlier. You have to try to read what's written in context. You can't dissect the words down to the word or sentence or even paragraph and still expect it to work.

THATS what really annoys people. The objectivity you expect is there. The larger the block of text the less objective it is.

You are obviously referring to the "immediate danger" entry in the previous paragraph. Which is where you fail.

I pointed this line out to compare not with anything on that page but to compare it with the wording on CRB p93 where "immediate danger" or ""combat" was not called out. That's is the crux of the discussion which you fail to understand.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
For the sake of clarity it needs to be given either the official stamp of approval for use in combat or a statement that combat isn't included.
At which point you'll complain about the faqratta.

Absolutely, 100% demonstrably false.

My reply on 2/22 @ 8:09am clearly refutes your sad attempt at framing me. You simply don't comprehend that someone can debate and discuss something without some kind of agenda. Instead you stoop to baseless accusations and assumptions of the person that doesn't agree with you.

Well I'm done discussing this with you since there seems to be little point in it.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Castrin wrote:
They call out combat as a separate situation than "distracted" or "stressed" thus we must assume they feel it is different.

No. You don't.

If someone tells you no X Y Z then X Y Z are probably different things.

But if someone tells you no carbs no doughnuts no cookies you know that one is a subset of the other because you know what those specific things are. Combat is both stressful and distracting, not an entirely separate clause.

Without a special ability ... what special ability do you think they're talking about? It's not like there's another ability somewhere that says you can take 10 in combat but not while in danger or distracted by non combat stuff to compare it to.

Yes. You do.

If they had included it in the "X Y Z" format I'd be willing to concede the point, but they didn't. While you personally can believe that combat is the same as stress and distraction my contention is combat is far more than having gnats fly in your face or standing on a shear cliff trying to run that hacking program to get in a door.

The actual line: "Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter." That's the whole point, the condition of being in combat is called out specifically. It is not called out in the Operative Specialization Skill Mastery wording that combat is included, that is why it needs to be errata'd and the FAQ updated. They very likely are referring to that class ability but due to the wording it's ambiguous. For the sake of clarity it needs to be given either the official stamp of approval for use in combat or a statement that combat isn't included.

Peace.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

I would have been surprised if someone argued that Operatives can't take 10 before, but now that Owen Stephens has weighed in I'm seriously wondering how there's still an argument.

1. It's not overpowered.

2. It saves time in play.

3. It makes sense based on a casual, non-lawyer-y reading of the rules.

4. It makes sense logically. (If the "stress and distraction" of combat isn't what keeps you from taking 10, then what feature of combat is the problem?)

5. It's not a guarantee for high level threats (i.e. Where it actually matters)

6. It's consistent with the root game system (Pathfinder)

7. A developer has flat out stated it works, and is mildly surprised that it was even a question.

Well one reason for the discussion is that after a year and a half there has been no mention of this in the official FAQ and some, like myself, would like it stated in unambiguous terms.

Covering your points in turn ...

1. Well that is the discussion really and personally I'm not convinced it isn't.

2. Nice but not really relevant.

3. Well really isn't rule lawyering exactly why it's still being debated?

4. It can be argued that combat is a super-set beyond just "stressful and distracting" in that getting shot or stabbed is far and apart different then being in a rain storm.

5. If you are throwing ultra high CR threats at your players that is an entirely different issue.

6. Not really. while recently pointed out there is at least one similar way to get the same effect, it's way harder to achieve.

7. I completely grant this as important. K.C and the rest just need to make it official and the debate is over.

Peace.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
AtlasSniperman wrote:
Castrin wrote:

2. There is no use (that I'm aware of) of the Pathfinder Skill Mastery talent to double/triple/quadruple damage and automatically inflict conditions on targets in combat. I could be wrong as I have not played not GM'ed a Rogue above 10th level.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

A build designed to make feinting a move action, combined with Skill Mastery, basically functions exactly the same as here.

Feint -> Target is flat-footed -> Flat-footed is subject to sneak attack.

There are probably others, but that is the automatic first to mind.

Well done! I figured there is likely some way to do something similar.

The feat cost for this would be high though and not even possible till 10th level. I guess there in is the main difference really. While your example in Pathfinder is feat heavy (takes two feats) and Skill Mastery isn't available till 10th level, the Operative gets all that automatically at 7th level.

Still different game so different class mechanics.

Thanks for the example.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Garretmander wrote:

If the operative can't auto trick attack by mid levels, they have a 40% chance of not using their class feature, and not doing damage either. At this level, trick attack is not better than get 'em, or spells, or full attacks from the other classes, but those other class features are automatic, why isn't the operatives?

Every other class has a way to make use of their class features and contribute to the damage game. They don't have to be built this way, but they can.

Why should the operative be any different?

If the powers that be want auto trick attacks then so be it but to say it isn’t as good is false and a misrepresentation of the class.

An Operative debilitating trick is as good as an Envoy’s Get’em. An Operative’s ability to do three attacks is as good as any other class’s full attacks. (Note however full attacks aren’t automatic.) They’re better than spells too as the Operative will never run out of tricks, there is no use limit. Operatives also get sniper weapons which they can further extend their debilitating attacks through giving bleeding and flatfooted to targets 500ft or more away with the proper weapon.

So in the end they are just as good as any other class to deal damage and conditions, maybe better in some ways. That they can’t use a trick attack with non-Operative or sniper weapons is irrelevant. They don’t need to, to aid in the damage game.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
AtlasSniperman wrote:
Castrin wrote:

[SNIP]

Until it's posted in the FAQ it isn't official. That's what these forums are for. Debating and getting clarity but also to get this kind of stuff in the FAQ.

I can understand the joy the "Take 10 in combat" statement gives to Operatives. Well at least until NPCs start lighting them up with their own guaranteed bonus damage. Bummer about that.

Later.

I find it interesting that you quoted Owen but forgot to include a clarifying side remark he made:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Interestingly it's almost exactly the same wording as the rogue skill mastery advocated talent in Pathfinder, and I've never seen anyone question how that ability works.

But new game, new context.

The omission was on purpose for two reasons:

1. The reference is Pathfinder and while certainly valid as an example the talent is one of many that are possible and not automatic at 10th level. A full 3 levels above the Operative automatic specialization.

2. There is no use (that I'm aware of) of the Pathfinder Skill Mastery talent to double/triple/quadruple damage and automatically inflict conditions on targets in combat. I could be wrong as I have not played not GM'ed a Rogue above 10th level.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

AtlasSniperman wrote:

Though I do understand the source of the problem; The change of the wording of "Take 10"

Pathfinder Core Rulebook 6th printing, page 86 wrote:
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.
Starfinder Core Rulebook 1st printing, page 133 wrote:

Take 10

Most of the time, you attempt skill checks while under pressure or during times of great stress. Other times, the situation is more favorable, making success more certain.
When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 on a skill check. When you take 10, you don’t roll a d20, but rather assume that you rolled a 10 on that die, then add the relevant skill modifiers. For many
...

Yes, and that is the main problem. Here is the rest of the entry from the Starfinder CRB (p133) noted above:

Starfinder Core Rulebook 1st printing, page 133 wrote:
Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter.

They call out combat as a separate situation than "distracted" or "stressed" thus we must assume they feel it is different. The dev has further muddied the water saying that now combat isn't a separate condition. I feel that is an over simplification of combat but then I'm likely in the minority here.

For the record, while I disagree with the allowing of Operatives to Take 10 in combat, I'm not disallowing it. It is what it is. I'm okay with it even if I find it counter to the spirit of all other combat rules and the ideal of "there is a 1 (or 20) on every die" that's the foundation of combat in a d20 system. Bypassing things just to artificially increase one class's combat stats is not unheard of but it is annoying.

Thanks for the discussion.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Garretmander wrote:
Operative NPCs don't get specialization skill mastery, they never auto trick attack...

Assuming the NPC is created by the rules in AA yes, you are correct. However that doesn't apply if a GM creates an NPC via the PC creation rules.

Garretmander wrote:

Yes, technically a GM could ignore developer clarification and disallow taking 10 in combat due to a perfectly literal reading of the rules until this is updated in a FAQ. I don't know why they would, but they could.

Auto trick attacking is no where near as good as you make it sound. Depending on the weapon used, it gives them the ability to move and make a single attack with similar damage to their own full attack as a full action. The operative's small arm + 1/2 spec based full attack, not the blitz soldier's advanced melee + full spec + 1 1/2 STR mod full attack.

Taking 10 in combat lets the operative limp along behind the real damage dealers, it doesn't make it the god of the battlefield.

Good point however with the trick attack there is more than just additional damage. Automatic continual damage or conditions can tilt the battle greatly as well.

Still I do get that Operatives, without a guaranteed boost, would be behind the damage output of a Soldier. As an "expert" class though isn't that to be expected? Why must every class do the same amount of damage in combat? I never understood the "grass is greener" mentality regarding this.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Metaphysician wrote:
RAW is not God. What's more, when the developers themselves say what a given phrase means, they probably know better what it means than a random player.

Well then I'm glad I'm not a random player.

Never said RAW is anything more than what it is but rules are important. As you're just a random player you likely don't understand that.

Thanks.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Castrin wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat.

Just as a point of order, the Skill Mastery states "you can take 10 even if stress or distractions would normally prevent you from doing so." However at no point does it say it allows you to do so if in immediate danger. From the Take 10 text: "When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 ..." (CRB p133).

In combat you are in immediate danger so by the above interpretation you might not be able to use Skill Master in a trick attempt. It would purely be a GM decision.

Sure, GMs are free to rule however they want in their homegames. They can also rule that Humans have natural attacks and Mystics must worship deities. But if you're interested in Starfinder's core rules, or are playing in Society, then you heard it from the Starfinder Design Lead:

"Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat."

Until it's posted in the FAQ it isn't official. That's what these forums are for. Debating and getting clarity but also to get this kind of stuff in the FAQ.

I can understand the joy the "Take 10 in combat" statement gives to Operatives. Well at least until NPCs start lighting them up with their own guaranteed bonus damage. Bummer about that.

Later.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Castrin wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat.

Just as a point of order, the Skill Mastery states "you can take 10 even if stress or distractions would normally prevent you from doing so." However at no point does it say it allows you to do so if in immediate danger. From the Take 10 text: "When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 ..." (CRB p133).

In combat you are in immediate danger so by the above interpretation you might not be able to use Skill Master in a trick attempt. It would purely be a GM decision.

ahahhem....

NO

It isn't a "DMs call" in the sense that the rules might say one thing or might say another. The rules said you could take 10 in combat and they were re affirmed by the developer to mean you could take 10 in combat.

Reading the rules to not allow the ability to work was persnickety legalistic and overly literal. That isn't the right rules, that isn't the real rules, that isn't the developers going all faqratta when they calrify that they didn't mean things that way.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. It NEVER says you can take 10 in combat in RAW. You are taking a statement by a dev as gospel but no such FAQ change has been posted.

The problem I have with this is there should never be a "can't fail" situation in combat. If you allow a Take 10 in combat that will be what you have. Maybe you don't see the slippery slope here but you should.

Anyway, peace, I'm out.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat.

Just as a point of order, the Skill Mastery states "you can take 10 even if stress or distractions would normally prevent you from doing so." However at no point does it say it allows you to do so if in immediate danger. From the Take 10 text: "When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 ..." (CRB p133).

In combat you are in immediate danger so by the above interpretation you might not be able to use Skill Master in a trick attempt. It would purely be a GM decision.