Distinguished Decapus's page

Thanks! That's good guidance.

Thanks, that's good advice. I'll likely also have the ship descend a bit in altitude to be able to target PCs. The cannons only have a range of 30' -- and if I assume attack modifier to hit is a typo, since there's also a basic reflex save, then they'll need to be within 30' to target PCs (vs. being able to fire longer with modifiers for range).

I'm running this adventure now and we're just entering the final combat. I'm curious how others ran it.

1) The way I read Weapon Systems Activate, it can't be used in the first two rounds of combat because it requires Star to have actions and they don't act in round 1 and are creating the wall of wind in round 2. Is that right?

2) I made the cannons medium-sized creatures mounted on the side of the ship. It seems intentional that with the potions of leaping and the emerald grasshopper provided to the party that can should be able to jump up to the ship and try to disable or destroy the cannons. Did others have PCs who got on board or tried to climb onto the ship?

3) Did you decide that disabling or destroying the shadow cannons was necessary for the PCs to be victorious? (It seems like it)

What do you think?

The best virtual conventions I’ve been to post-covid have had virtual social spaces alongside the actual convention. This would be in addition to discord — a virtual convention space where attendees can wander around and interact with others in virtual spaces. For good examples of this, see both the Roguelike Celebration (http://roguelike.club), which had a text-only custom crafted event space with all kinds of hidden puzzles and fun things, or even http://gather.town, which is a product producing virtual spaces geared towards events or workplaces.

Its a small limitation. Parties will get hit by AOEs once every... I don't know, but a far cry from every encounter.

And there's no reason for the Summoner to be anywhere near their eidolon.

That assumes you have control over the battlefield and placement. Perhaps somewhat true in a dungeon crawl where the party decides marching order, when and how a room is entered, etc. But definitely not true for most encounters I play.

Of course, the summoner's problems aren't just limited to the necessity for both summoner/eidolon to save vs. an AoE to really save; it's the combination of that with all kinds of other bad design decisions.

I played the 1e summoner and the unchained version. Yes, the basic 1e summoner was overpowered if you wanted it to be. Even the unchained version could be too powerful. But was the basic concept fun to play? Absolutely!

Rewind this summoner to the fundamentals. Figure out the style of play that the summoner should have both in and out of combat. Then build from there and don't sacrifice fun for high concept.

Hard disagree. Right now, the common hp pool is an asset.
First, you are more resistant to AoEs. If you have 2 hp pools, AoEs deal twice more damage. With current design, they just do the highest of both damage.

Or, put another way, in order to succeed at a save when both eidolon and summon are targets, both have to save. Combine that with the four grades of success and it's also "in order to not critical fail, both creatures can't critically fail."

I'm not sure how you could read this as an asset. The class as written is a disaster.

Exactly. This is what happened to me, too: I decided to purchase the 20AcP version because it must be better, have fewer restrictions, etc (it actually has more restrictions for more AcP cost).

Glad to hear that staff is working on making the full boon text available to anyone who wants to purchase one in advance.

I ran into similar confusion. I first downloaded the free rebuild, and saw it had the %15 wealth reduction. I then made a poor assumption that the rebuild that costs 20 acp must be an improved version of the free one. I later learned the free one was temporary, but was initially surprised that the two were identical in all things but cost.

I guess I missed the announcement, but extra details would be useful before paying the purchase price.

I looked recently for the text of the various new Achievement Point boons, but couldn't find them anywhere. While short descriptions of each were included in recent blog posts, those descriptions aren't necessarily complete.

It would be really nice if the exact text of boons was available to read before purchasing. Have I just missed it?

For example, these blog posts briefly describe the Evolving Destiny and Rewrite History boons:

February Update
Achievement Points and Free RPG Day

I downloaded Rewrite History (0 AcP) and also bought Evolving Destiny (20 AcP). While the above text is accurate, there's also a hidden catch not mentioned in the blog posts that describe either of these boons: a PC is taxed 15% of their total wealth when they use the boon.

Here's the text of each boon. Again, it would be really nice if boon text was available to peruse before purchase, so players can see what they're buying before committing AcP.

Rewrite History:

Rewrite History (Limited-Use, Service): Between adventures, you may use this boon to completely rebuild your character, changing even features that are normally outside of the scope of retraining. This allows you to change the character’s ability scores, ancestry, background, class, feats, heritage, skill proficiencies, and related features. Remove everything your character has purchased with gp, as well as their class, feats, skill proficiencies, and related features. Your character’s wealth is set to 85% of the total gold you’ve earned—this reduction represents a small amount lost from consumable use as well as items sold back for a particularly favorable rate. This rebuilding process does not change the amount of Fame, Reputation, or gp the character has earned, nor does it change the resources your character has expended on services such as spellcasting.

You can also refund any faction boons for the Fame price at which you purchased them, though you cannot sell back Limited-Use boons that you have expended or Faction Champion boons that you have used to earn Reputation for a faction.

All changes to the character must be applied by the time the character next plays an adventure; once the adventure begins, no further changes can be made with this boon.

The boon is only valid if used on or before August 31st, 2020.

Evolving Destiny:

[ ] Evolving Destiny (Limited-Use, Service): Your early adventures have exposed you to difficult realities, forcing you to re-examine your skillset. Fortunately, your career is young, and course-correction is fairly straightforward. Between adventures, you can check the box that precedes this boon to completely rebuild your character so long as they have 48 or fewer XP (the Career Change boon allows you to rebuild a character of any level). Remove everything your character has purchased with gp, as well as their class, feats, skill proficiencies, and related features (but not their ancestry or background). Your character’s wealth is set to 85% of the total gold you’ve earned—this reduction represents a small amount lost from consumable use as well as items sold back for a particularly favorable rate. This rebuilding process does not change the amount of Fame, Reputation, or gp the character has earned, nor does it change the resources your character has expended on services such as spellcasting.

You can also refund any faction boons for the Fame price at which you purchased them, though you cannot sell back Limited-Use boons that you have expended or Faction Champion boons that you have used to earn Reputation for a faction.

All changes to the character must be applied by the time the character next plays an adventure; once the adventure begins, no further changes can be made with this boon.

Levels don't tell the whole story. An optimized level 4 champion can more easily carry a 4/2/2/2/2/2 team against a CR 6 boss than an unoptimized level 4 divine sorcerer.

The APL for that party is only slightly above 2, at 2.33. Should a clearly APL 2 party of six be forced to play high tier?

The articulated intent in Organized Play guide is at odds with the reality of the current Challenge Point system. This is what it says:

Parties with 16-18 play in the high subtier only if they have 4 PC. If they have 5 or more PCs, they play in the low tier. This allows small parties of high level adventurers to play in the high tier, while large parties of low level adventurers play in the low tier.

(emphasis added)

If "large parties of low level adventurers play in the low tier" how does having 2/2/2/2/2/3 and 2/2/2/2/2/4 being forced to play high tier make sense?

I was also at the table this weekend with Derek and Eliandra (and seriously, for the record: Eliandra handled this situation skillfully. We were absolutely high tier by the numbers and when the group was considering fleeing, I believe she handled the difficult situation very deftly).

It's true that this is a particularly challenging scenario; I purchased it after our session so I could read it and multiple encounters could TPK a 19-21 CP 2nd level party. This is because of the math in 2e and how party level+2 or party level+3 encounters work.

This particular scenario aside, I like Derek's suggestion that the number of players at a table contribute more to how tier is selected, especially in the case where there are 6 players.

Under the current system, the following 6-player tables will be high tier in a 1-4 scenario:

• (2+2+2+2+2+3) = 19 CPs
• (2+2+2+2+2+4) = 21 CPs

The issue is that, party composition aside, the 3-4 high tier will typically have combats that overwhelm either of the above two parties. Take for example the encounter design rules on page 489 of the CRB. "Party level" in the above two examples are 2.16 and 2.33, respectively. Let's say an author is designing a moderate high tier encounter for four 4th level PCs. The encounter budget is 80XP. The encounter could have two 40XP Creature-4s. However, for the 2nd level parties, these same two creatures would be equivalent to 160 XP (two Party Level + 2 creatures). A severe encounter for 6 2nd level PCs would be 180 XP. Our 2nd level party playing up will probably hit multiple severe difficulty encounters and such a party would regularly encounter extreme difficulty encounters...which is probably not what the author intended.

FWIW, the encounter in question was not the final one. By the CRB guide it was easily an extreme difficulty encounter....

By assigning the low subtier to 19-21 when there are six players, the above party level distribution would have more appropriate challenges.

In my games the melee characters are outshining the casters -- in combat -- due to both the action economy and the horribly flawed critical system.

The action economy has been somewhat addressed above: melee characters have far more options than casters who spend 2/3 or all of their actions each turn using their primary ability, spellcasting. In my experience the melee characters are able to additionally stretch the action economy to its limits by playing dual wielding PCs that limit the impact of the MAP:

* A fighter dual wielding shield boss w/ agile secondary weapon crits of most attacks against level, level-1. Consider: an extra +2 from expert training and he is making two attacks for two actions (Double Slice) at maximum MAP.
* Ranger w/ animal companion dual wielding can get +2 from their opponent being flat-footed, spend one action for two attacks at MAP max, max-2.

...and so on. Basically there's a lot of ways to gain bonuses that almost guarantee crits, and thus double damage, for the melee characters at least once per turn.

I've also found that the critical system slows down play because instead of the GM rolling an attack and checking hit vs. a single number, they now have to determine the range of success, a secondary math calculation. Even a minor calculation, it seems to slow down encounters significantly.

Events are now up on the Gen Con site. Download the whole event catalog: http://www.gencon.com/downloads/events.xlsx

Disappointed in the 8pm-1am schedule for evening Gen Con events again. They disrupt the whole con by going so late, are harder on the GMs, and make it impossible to socialize in the evening with anyone not playing Paizo events. Leaning towards skipping one or more this year for that reason alone. The 7pm-midnight slots in the past seemed to be easier on players and GMs. :(

Hello from Gencon 2018!

My group played Raiders of Shrieking Peak today, which was a challenging module that resulted in a TPK. I'm glad we played the demo, because there's no substitute for figuring out how a new rules system works than by trying out the rules in practice.

First, the non-spoiler general feedback:

• The critical hit system is very problematic. The way critical hits work, a natural 20 is a critical success as is scoring 10 above the necessary DC for a skill check or attack. The relevant text is on page 292 of the rulebook and its impact on the game can't be understated.

  "[I]f you succeed and rolled a 20 on the die (often called a "natural 20"), or if your result is equal to or greater than the DC plus 10, you critically succeed. You apply the critical success effect instead of the success effect. If the critical success was an attack roll, it is sometimes called a critical hit."

  Note that there are no rolls to confirm critical hits in the new system.

  Under these rules, critical hits are far more likely to occur, as you'll see when you play. Not only because a natural 20 will auto confirm if the attack was a success, but because of the DC+10 rule. We found that although PC hit points are much higher in this system, the frequency of crits made combat feel a lot more random. I imagine that at higher levels, if monsters are routinely hitting AC+10, PCs will die a lot faster.

  If I were to immediately request a fix to one thing in the new system, it would be how critical hits occur.

• A significant and unwelcome change from 1st edition is the new dying rules that make if difficult to bring someone back from death's door.

  Our playthrough ended in a TPK, mostly because half of the party was taken out of combat in the final fight (see spoilers below). That meant we got to get some small experience with the death and dying rules.

  When you go down, you start on the dying track at "dying 1" if a normal attack took your PC down or "dying 2" if the attack was a critical hit, which as mentioned above happens a lot more often in this version.

  1) Recovery saving throws are just weird. They're based on the DC of the person or thing that took you unconscious and seem needlessly complicated.

  Page 295: "If damage that reduced you to 0 Hit Points came from something that doesn't have a DC, such as an attack roll, use the attacker's class DC. Though a class DC usually includes the key ability modifier for a character's class, the GM might sometimes decide a different ability score is appropriate; for example, a wizard's class DC usually uses Intelligence, but if he knocks someone out with his staff, the DC might use Strength or Dexterity. For monsters the GM will use a high-difficulty skill DC of the monster's level (see page 336)."

  2) If you get healed while you're down, you end up making recovery saves for a while, losing actions, no matter how healed you get...even if you get up.

  Say a critical hit takes you to "dying 2" and you are a 0 Hit Points and receive healing. In our situation, Kyra healed another PC for over 30 HP using her substantial heal spell (as high as 6d8 HP healed!).

  See page 295 again, because when you're healed to 30 Hit Points but at dying-2 after having gone down from a crit, you still need to make multiple Recovery Saves, losing actions as you do so.

  The whole system is unnecessarily messy.

• Ok, let's talk spoilers.

  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .

  * The harpies.

  Clearly this scenario was designed with the harpy encounter as the focus. With six players we had two harpies, each with (I believe) over 75 HP. Two PCs were enchanted by one harpy and one by another. With no chance to break the enchantment, we had two flying opponents plus the other combatants against three PCs.

  We were out of our Sound Burst, but tried throwing thunderstones vs. PCs to try to negate the harpy effect (it didn't work). We found that the opponents made quick work of us, which resulted in a TPK. The enchanted PCs, once they failed the first save, had no recourse but to walk around in a daze, taking them out of combat (no additional saving throws against the songs were allowed). We were told that making a save against a single harpy's song would bolster you against that harpy only, which meant that everyone made two saves -- one against each harpy's song -- and failure on either took you out of the game.

  We had some ways to deal with flying creatures (spells, bows, etc), but were quickly overpowered.

  General impressions: everyone has more HP but there's more critical hits going around and the whole system just felt more arbitrary and random. This could be the result of encounter design, but we came out of it simply hoping the system would be fixed.

Thanks! I completely missed that rule on p74.

A couple basic questions about drones: how are they repaired and how do their weapon mounts work?

1) Drones have HP, no SP, and are Constructs. They seem to be able to be repaired by most things that heal HP (as Constructs), including a few special spells like mending (1d4 HP 1/day) and make whole (5d6 HP 1/day, as mending).

However, the 2nd level Mechanic Trick "Repair Drone" says that when you spend 10 minutes repairing your drone, you can repair 25% of its max HP instead of 10%. I don't see anywhere in the book where this 10% rule comes from (not under the mechanic class, the Engineering skill for repairing, etc). Was this left out?

2) Drone weapon mounts do not include weapon proficiency. It seems that for the non-combat drone chassis (hover, stealth) that have weapon mounts, use of this mount without adding the proper weapon proficiency feat means the drone will take a -4 penalty to hit, right?

The Enhanced Resistance feat provides resistance vs. either kinetic damage or one of a few energy types. If you choose kinetic damage, you gain "damage reduction equal to your base attack bonus."

Is this DR X/-? It seems like it is. Given the description of the Resistant Armor series of spells, which are written very similarly, I would guess so.

Spell Amps and Spell Gems, Page 224.

Completely missed that! Maybe in a previous rulebook revision they were still scrolls and potions (thus the reference in Make Whole).

Reading through the core rules, there's almost no mention of magic consumables. No scrolls or wands. The only reference to potions is in the spell description of Make Whole ("potions and grenades").

Perhaps consumables will be introduced in the future. As it stands, though, a lot of spells that don't make sense to burn a known spell slot on will never get used.

Between the lack of consumables and the lack of prepared casters in Starfinder, the result is that classes that are primarily casters are a lot less flexible than similar counterparts in Pathfinder.

Am I missing something?