FireclawDrake's page

Despite all that, I feel guilty only being a player. It feels like I'm only taking and never giving

I just wanna chime in here since I've seen this sentiment before:

Players are just as important as GMs. The game doesn't happen without the players. GMs might be a linchpin, a point of failure, but players are not "taking".

GMing should be fun, it shouldn't be a chore required to not feel guilty.

That's just my two cents, and I understand and sympathize with it being intimidating.

The Inventor Dedication increases Class DC to Expert at level 15, not level 4.

keftiu wrote:

Maybe we can even harness the magic power of punctuation :p

Can confirm that the addition of an exclamation point makes a product name more powerful.

Taking advice from Zo!, I see.

I imagine the operative might see a melee build as well, since there's a SciFi archetype around knife fighting too.

Maybe, though I bet Rocket Launchers have Area Blast 2 action activity to fire like the Stellar Cannon, so who knows what the design space is gonna be like.

-Changed Capacity to Magazine. Updated text so that it reference magazines now. Removed ambiguity about reloading (you don't reload per shot in SF2, you just reload the magazine).

Yup, Thurston already said so in this very thread! XD

But Reload 2 is at least confirmed to have mechanics working for it. I imagine that would be for big heavy weapons with a more complicated reloading process.

All of the weapons in the Field Test have Reload 1. So they take 1 action to reload.

The Soldier also has a feat for one action for two Reloads as long as you've fired a Reload 2 weapon just before.

It works! By the glory of everything, thank you tech for fixing that!

I found the portraits: they're in the Campaign Info tab.

Not gonna lie - my heart skipped a beat when I saw over 50 new posts.

[And Belatedly waves to FCD] (^-^)

You and me both! Sadly too much Hope for us. Esperanza was always kinda mean.

Lyn was the one who did the class portraits, I think they're still linked under her profile...

Discord is decent but I'm not sure super sure it would be good for this type of game...

Honestly there's a lot of potential on the "What Ifs". There was a lot of plots going, and it felt like we might even get to the Dragon Empire someday hah.

I guess for me, there's a roleplay aspect but also a game aspect. It's nothing so abstract as allowing the system to fade into the background - I want the system front and centre. It's the part I get to interact with to influence my character - how and what they do is completely tied up in the system.

For me, I view systems as sets of incentives. This goes for game systems, but also societal systems, financial systems, and so on. The primary question I consider when evaluating any system is what are the incentives?, aka how does the system shape play?

And at least for me and the groups I've been in, PF1 incentivizes winning a given scenario before that scenario has begun through build choices. There was a time when I found that kind of gameplay thrilling. I definitely see the value in it as builds are always part of any TTRPG - they are how you express your character after all. But I feel in PF1 that once your build is set, there's very few choices left - you have an optimal solution available for most problems your characters can face.

Starfinder has this to a lesser degree. but I still prefer Starfinder's setting (Pact Worlds) to the Inner Sea and that helps take the edge off a little when I'm playing Starfinder (though I yearn for a Starfinder 2e).

Like you guys though, I think people should play what they like. There was a time when 3.5 and PF1 really really appealed to me so I can definitely understand wanting to stick with them.

Yeah, I haven't played a PF1 game since Wrath of the Righteous came out, I actually quit TTRPGs for a long time because I was so sick of PF1.

Luckily Starfinder showed me there was a little life left in 3.5, and then PF2 reignited my love for the hobby. Even going back to Starfinder now feels like a chore compared to PF2, I can't imagine trying to play PF1 again.

Out of Character Questions and Technical Stuff

Do you need any help building or formatting your character?
Mostly I just need to decide what kind of character the group needs, since I'll be building fresh. I have a couple ideas floating around in my brain, but I usually need a spark to get the character built.

Have you done any kind of PBP before?
Yes! I'm in a game of yours right now ;D

Have you ever played Starfinder before? If so, what was your favorite adventure?
Storm of the End Times is probably my favourite Starfinder adventure, though I'm very partial to talking about my homebrew campaign as well. :D

Do you have an up-to-date 'bot me' spoiler -- complete with dice expressions? (Subtle, aren't I?)
I will when the character exists! ;D

Will you be willing to bot other characters if I ask you to do so?
Sure thing!

Do you promise to let me know if you get super busy for a few days so we can bot you?
Yup!

Are you comfortable with a 2 post a day pace?
2 posts per day is a touch on the fast side on some days, but I will do my best not to slow the group down.

What is your Discord ID so that we can set up a back channel for Discord notifications?
FireclawDrake#3216

Hey everyone!

I'm FireclawDrake, I'm a Venture Agent for the Online region of Organized Play. Welcome to the campaign!

I'm going to be rolling up a new character to play with y'all so I'm looking forward to seeing what everyone is bringing to the table.

Hey folks! I guess I'll ask what character folks would prefer I bring, as I do not have a preference:

Shiktal - Shirren Experimental Weapon Mechanic/Divine Champion of Yaraesa, her focus is on acquiring knowledge and disseminating it for everyone.
Srurdez - Vesk Combat Envoy. He mostly just has a good time fighting and bullying people for the Society.

I may pull out since we're up to 5 now, so this will bring you down to 4. This way Yuvana doesn't have to pretend the last time she did this adventure it was all a fever dream. I wish the Pathfinders luck!

I will hold off on Character introductions for now as I am here as No Credit to help the table fire. But Hi everyone!

I do have to say that the increased focus on One-Shots over scenarios when I get to play my own characters is sad. Pre-gens just don't do it for me as far as a gaming experience goes.

I understand I'm probably in the minority since you have the data to back it up, just saddens me that Organized Play is moving away from what I like, even if only a little.

I'm interested to know how Bounty rewards will work in Starfinder, since that system doesn't use the 12 XP model.

Hey Lyn, no worries as always about the text stuff. I hope things keep getting better for you and yours as we leave this past year behind us.

My thoughts are mostly that if you are feeling like it could be a burden and you want to bow out, then we should consider that if it'a just a scant few of us who remain, we should consider the format. If Avalon'a scope is too large, maybe we should consider a different format in the same Universe, or a character-trimming timeskip, or something of the like. Start fresh-ish as you guys did when you first migrated to Paizo in the first place.

As much as we all loved Avalon for years, if it's going to cause unnecessary stress, maybe it's time to try something else? I don't even know if we could rally most of those who played major characters. Kryzbyn, Lurch, and others might be gone from beyond our grasp forever...

These are my thoughts. I'd love to play again like the good ol' days, but in a way we can be happy to participate in. If we need to make drastic changes for that to happen, that's fine too.

You know I didn't actually see the Zeppler post this morning haha, only saw it just now. Cross-posting begins already.

Work is a bit chaotic today sorry for the trucated post.

Honestly, I have no idea what's been going on in the broader game, but it seems neat and I'll probably keep quietly shuffling about in the background doing little gags for the time being. I have no wish to distract from anything, to be clear! Just having some fun being tangentially involved.

The real challenge is not contradicting anything. The fake sun didn't explode, right? :P

You are most welcome to do that! :D

I think the fake sun did explode but I am not back up to that point in my readings and I don't remember clearly enough

FireclawDrake wrote:

I mean if you have an idea, feel free. :D

Stale PM for you, sir.

[Salutes]

Let's see if we can't make some french toast then. :)

Well...hm

I mean if you have an idea, feel free. :D

Hermea is such a fascinating concept, and just teeming with story potential!

Also, yes please, to keep posting stuff! Missed this game, and my frendos muchly!

Have you played Age of Ashes? Part of it happens in Hermea :D

I'll just start posting and if stuff happens, it happens. :)

Methinks I shouldn't have started re-reading things....hm.

You got me started on a re-read with this post, I'll have you know. Ahhh....

Ah there's a FAQ I missed that. Thank you very much! :)

FireclawDrake wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

The GM was correct. You can upgrade magic items by paying the difference. You don't have to craft them.

Is there anywhere that says that specifically? The post I referenced was in regard to the Craft downtime activity so I was hoping for something more specific.

It is somewhere on the forum, and should also be in the next iteration of the guide.

Now that the new iteration of the guide is out, I went looking for the passage you mentioned. I couldn't seem to find it, but I did find this:

Any equipment listed on your character’s Chronicles with an item level equal to or less than your character’s level + 2. Some items found on Chronicles are available for purchase only a limited number of times. Weapons and Armor found on Chronicles can be upgraded following the normal rules for upgrading.

Emphasis mine. The passage seems to indicate that only weapons and armour specifically found on Chronicles follow the normal rules for upgrading. I'm assuming this is in regards to etching runes? There are no "normal" rules for upgrading that I can find.

Since upgrading is only mentioned in two contexts in the CRB (being the section on upgrading Runes specifically, and then the errata'd section that allows you to use the Craft activity to upgrade an item to a more powerful version), is there any further passage or clarification I'm missing?

As it stands with the rules I have been able to find:

There is a Discord link at the bottom of the site where Phox can answer questions directly, but the feedback in this thread is passed to him as well.

The GM was correct. You can upgrade magic items by paying the difference. You don't have to craft them.

Is there anywhere that says that specifically? The post I referenced was in regard to the Craft downtime activity so I was hoping for something more specific.

Hey folks,

Just wanted to clear something up regarding the clarification from this post.

4. The errata states that “the GM might allow you” to upgrade an item from a lower-level version to a higher-level version (for instance, upgrading a type I bag of holding to type II). This is allowed for Pathfinder Society.

I was recently in a game where a GM said that you were allowed to upgrade items for merely the cost of the difference in gold pieces, citing this post as their example.

But this post is specifically in the context of the Craft activity, allowing crafters to upgrade items.

Is there any further clarification to this ruling that would allow you upgrade items without using the Craft activity and the requisite Downtime?

Darn you Alex! *shakes fist at the heavens*

Are there even any agile weapons that also have the finesse trait and a maneuver trait?

Edit: sickle does soooooo fingers crossed it gets missed in the crossfire ;)

I mean, finesse is an absolute non-starter since it only works on attack rolls not attacks.

But yes plenty of weapons have the Agile trait and a maneuver trait.

Hey, here's something the designers may want to nip-in-the-bud (or confirm it works this way).

I call it Finesse Weapons Doing Maneuvers 2.0 - Agile Weapons Doing Maneuvers.

The multiple attack penalty you take with this weapon on the second attack on your turn is –4 instead of –5, and –8 instead of –10 on the third and subsequent attacks in the turn.

Currently the Agile Trait works with all attacks and not just attack rolls. It's possible this is intentional, but by RAW, Agile weapons still work with weapon traits that perform maneuvers.

Obviously this is less build-defining than Finesse, but it seems noticably inconsistent to me so I figured it must be something that was missed on this pass.

Will the interactions with finesse and "maneuver" weapon traits also get clarified or fixed? Not being able to apply finesse on Athletics maneuvers is a pretty huge blow.

Seems to be the intentional purpose of the change (to remove the ability to use Dex for Athletics). Here lay Whips, never to be used again.

Unless... I just realized, but does the Agile trait still work for weapon manoeuvres? The original text of Agile trait just says "The multiple attack penalty you take with this weapon on the second attack on your turn is –4 instead of –5, and –8 instead of –10 on the third and subsequent attacks in the turn." Still seems to affect Athletics actions made with the weapon.

Danscath wrote:

Will be the bestiary 2 sanctionated???

What are you looking for from that book.

There are creatures to be summoned, I believe is the main thing.

I've mentioned it upthread a few times, but I think a reasonable solution to the theme and powercreep problems is the cleric/druid "spellbooks". Now all prepared casters have the same expectations.

It's probably too late for such a major change to the way the rules are written but that would've been my preferred solution. It's not like most clerics/druids prep more than a handful of spells for each spell level.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

Because people keep missing it...

This blog wrote:

Learning Spells - Some members of the community raised questions about how their cleric and druid characters could use the new spells from the Advanced Player’s Guide. We’re happy to provide a solution! Any prepared spellcaster can use the Learn a Spell activity to learn any common spells they have access to from tutors at the Grand Lodge. This adds no additional material cost beyond the standard cost for the Learn a Spell activity.

The BOLD is the only actual ruling made...

You seem to be missing the fact that the change is that clerics and druids now HAVE to use the Learn a Spell activity AND spend money to access some Common spells. Which is a significant change from what a great many people thought the rules said and that, inarguably, the rules as written could easily be interpreted as saying

They are saying that the ruling does not explicitly change the rule, and without an explicit statement to the contrary we can simply carry on as before, following the CRB and the text "from other divine/primal spells to which you gain access".

You started this conversation saying that you were doing this as a form of protest. You shot your own credibility in the foot.

And yet here you are, not engaging with any actual substance I do present. I've been nothing but honest and forthright with my intentions (which is to follow the rules to the letter on this matter), whereas you seem to be arguing for the sake of it.

Protest doesn't have to disrupted play in this context you know, it can be to encourage players to engage with the community in discussions about the game.

I do like that I'm getting hassled more for saying I'll follow the rules than those who have implied or stated that they won't follow the ruling.

You yourself stated you were doing this to disrupt play.

Stop arguing in bad faith.

Never did I say that following the rules would be disruptive to play, as it usually is not. A quick 30 seconds to check chronicles, or an explanation of the new rules is all I expect when I communicate about the new rule.

One of the things that separates Pathfinder 2 from 5e is that it is rules-oriented. This is a good thing. It means it is clear what the rules are most of the time, rather than relying on GMs to make a bunch of adhoc rulings, like in 5e. In my opinion it is one of the reasons for such a strong reaction to this ruling. Many people have had their confidence in their own readings of the rules shaken, even if slightly, by this. I don't wanna overstate it, since it is a minor change at the end of the day, but it is a sharp change from what was the easily assumed reading beforehand.

No, the worst thing that can happen is you give PFS a reputation for being un fun and rule obsessed, and drive away players form org play.

You literally advocated this as a way to disrupt play to get the rule changed.

Not to disrupt play, other than to follow the rules (just like many other small rules clarifications/adjudications which happen over the course of play).

Unless you are advocating for not following and/or not enforcing the rules? Which is essentially the same as the rule not changing.

I'm finding it rather hard to believe that you now believe that this is the fair thing to do.

I don't believe it's fair, but it is exactly playing by the rules that have been laid out by Organized Play.

This is a rule I can forsee as being commonly broken. As a GM, I have a duty to follow the rules and ensure the rules are followed at my table, and if a rule is being commonly broken then it's worth investigating it to ensure it's being followed.

That's the point of a work-to-rule protest. Everything is being done exactly as it should be, according to the rules. The absolute very worst thing that could result from that is people learning the new rules.

I don't think it's productive to urge people to make a harsh ruling in order to emphasize the effects of this rule.

I don't know if making sure people are following the rules could be described as "harsh".

The current rules allow for people who paid the wrong price to instead pay the correct price at the time the error was caught.

Oh indeed they do.

However, Learn a Spell is not just a cost associated, but also requires a check which, if you fail, cannot be attempted again for a whole level. Hence my belief that the least disruptive way to handle it would be merely to say that they don't know the spell, and the honest mistake can be corrected after the game (or maybe during a break in play).

In what way will that in any way convince the designers of the rule to change the rule?

By all means, educate people about the existence of the rule. But what you are suggesting violates the guidance on auditing chronicle sheets which is to work with players to correct honest errors in the least disruptive way possible.

It's possible that the designers do not realize the scale of their error. We'd be helping them get feedback from the players.

IMO, the least disruptive way would be "Sorry your character doesn't know that spell. You can retroactively pick a different spell for that slot if you'd like, and I will set aside some time at the end of the session so you can learn the spell at the Grand Lodge."

Unless you are suggesting we allow players to cheat? You could be uninvited from GMing at regions which value the rules, advocating for that.

The other productive thing you could do would be a work-to-rule type protest. Anytime a cleric/druid/wizard at your table casts those spells, request to see the relevant chronicle where they've learned the spell.

I suspect that many players and GMs are blissfully unaware of this change and ruling. If they can't produce the chronicle where they learned the spell, they can't cast it.

For me, I really just wish they'd waited for a proper errata to come out so we wouldn't have had all this. For me, the current text of the rules for the way clerics and druids prepared spells was clear - if you have access, you can prepare it. (And you have access to Common APG spells per Character Options blog)

While I understand the ruling, and the arguments that it could be read one way or the other, for the casual user it makes access suddenly a very muddy and unclear topic, since it means there are now two different meanings for the rules term access, one of which is specific to prepared spellcasters.

I hope the CRB errata comes out soon and clears this mess up to the satisfaction of everyone.

How does this affect scrolls or wands of Common spells from the APG?

Does a Cleric need to "Learn a Spell" before they can activate such items?

Looks like yes. "On your spell list" is used for both. For Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Witches the "spell list" appears to be the stuff they can prepare (spellbooks/familiars for wizard/witch and ??? for cleric/druid), whereas "spell list" for spontaneous casters appears to be everything they COULD add to their repetoire (so all common spells for example, plus any they have "gained access to" aka learned.)