It seems weird to me that the mentality is that playing something that is neither written for nor intended to be an OP scenario entitles you to OP credit. Here's a less pessimistic lens that I prefer to look at it through. Thanks for buying and playing our product! We know how much you also enjoy OP, so here's a chronicle sheet giving you an entire level, fame, gold, and access to some items that have absolutely nothing to do with the OP campaign for your OP character. We appreciate your interest in our non-OP products and want to thank you by giving you this entirely unrelated reward as a way of saying thank you. Thank you, Paizo for giving us OP players/GMs an extra bonus to our OP characters for purchasing and playing your non-OP product. I appreciate it!
Maybe you can sell them to someone to recoup some of the money you're out? At least you would have lost less in this deal, and you won't be stuck with un-assembled minis. If the Starfinder Battles start producing the same minis, I am 100% offloading this product that I cannot attempt to use until May of 2021 due to my schedule and may never have the time to learn a new type of professional quality craftsmanship for. I see no reason to produce garbage on my own time and money when my trash might be someone else’s treasure. I’d rather get nothing and suck up the loss than to have Archon try to help out by severely downgrading the product and handing it to me. It would be like handing a golfer a tee that is in two pieces and saying it’s better than nothing. No it’s not. It’s broken (down) and requires you to remove the pieces, clean the surfaces, assemble it with no evidence of assembly, then use it and expect it to be as sturdy as single piece construction. Seriously would have rather been peeved at ND than be peeved at ND and also have Archon else come in and offer something totally different and unusable (by me) and call it help. The gesture is nice. The execution is just another slap in the face after I had finally gotten over the whole thing.
Well I went from excited about this to just throwing it all on the shelf for a few years. I didn’t back an assembly required project. Unassembled minis do me no more good than nothing at all. I work full time, am in school full time, take my kids to piano lessons, gymnastics, cheer, Girl Scouts, and 4 different therapists. On top of this I GM 2x a week in stores, some a 1 hour drive away. I bought a product to help me save time, not require me to vet and pay someone to do it for me. My schedule already has me going to bed at 1am 7 days a week and getting up at 6am 6 days a week. I understand this is “free” and that others may like this, but I am being charged my valuable and very limited time without my consent. This is an incredibly frustrating, negative turn of events. I don’t even own the stuff to properly trim, clean and prepare the surfaces, nor do I have any experience doing these things on anything smaller than a 150' wingspan cargo plane with far less precision required to appear perfect upon close inspection. So now I am forced to go from polished, finished product to my amateur garbage? The only reason I am not throwing these up for sale immediately upon arrival is because maybe, after Spring of 2021, I *might* get some time to buy a bunch of other crap minis to screw up before finally being brave enough to try to get into crafting and start these minis. By then, I'll probably have all of the same minis preprainted out of the box, and well-worn from use, thanks to the Starfinder Battles boxes I will be buying, making these still basically worthless to me. It would have been less frustrating to hear that Archon was backing out then that they were going to make me put in hours of inexperienced work for a product that is probably on the verge of obsolescence anyway.
@AsmodeusUltima I am sorry this happened in the first place, but I am glad that your items are recovered and also that through your misfortune, you have had the experience of the amazing caliber of people in this community. Between the Paizo staff, Know Direction and everyone else who supported you through this, you seem to have been touched by a genuine community of people who love this game and care for the people who play it. I'm thrilled that Paizo was able to replace your (Paizo product) stuff and even more thrilled that you were able to recover all of your original stuff. Congratulations and good gaming. I envy your ability to be there.
Page 214, first paragraph covers the limit for animal companions. I’m on my phone or I’d copy/paste for you. Page 217, second paragraph under the heading familiars covers the limit 1, for them. Summoned creatures are covered by action economy. All of the summon spells I see so far require all 3 actions to summon and then an additional action per turn to sustain it. Sustaining the spell then eats one of your three actions, preventing you from summoning a second companion. Page 304 outlines this. There’s a caveat. When you summon a creature, it immediately gets two actions. All sustained spells last until the end of your next turn. If you sustain one you can’t summon another because of action economy. If you summon on round 1, it gets two actions then your turn ends. If you summon instead of sustain on round two, you burn a second spell slot and have two summoned companions that each have two actions but as soon as your turn ends, the one summoned in the first round is then gone. You could technically chain cast all of your spell slots to keep getting companions, but given the level disadvantage of the summoned companions, I don’t suspect many if any people will think this a wise use of their spell slots per day. Even heightened. I hope this is helpful and if you see something I missed, please point me in the right direction so that we can both learn together.
Just a quick update. A VC did reach out to me yesterday about sitting in with another VC to observe me due to their general inexperience with high level Starfinder. I did not see this message until recently, because I didn’t notice that I had a PM. While I still believe my concern has merit, this individual is willing to make an effort and I find that to be utterly fantastic! I truly hope we see VCs who will be present at events people are looking for evaluations at step up like this. Wether we agree or disagree with the program implementation, that is no longer our choice. Being a community that still works to support each other through the process and its revisions is exactly what we need. Thank you, kind VC for stepping up and helping others move forward in this process. Even if you don’t feel comfortable signing the evaluation without more SF experience, you can provide valuable feedback that players are often uncomfortable providing and that means something to me. Thank you.
I think you may be rather jumping to conclusions here, I'm not saying that you're wrong or that it doesn't mean it won't be difficult to get evaluations under the proposed system if your experience is borne out so please don't misunderstand me. But I do think that saying there is some massive, organised secret protest or boycott from VCs because no-one replied to one post you made is... stretching things. Please don’t mistake me for thinking our VCs are united in a coordinated effort to stop this. I don’t believe that at all. I believe that one of them is. And another one is. And another one is. It appears that it is more an aggregation of individual refusal to participate.
I’m not concerned at a lack of offers or agreement to help me, personally. I would LOVE to have other people who don’t know me give me the feedback to improve or the kudos to congratulate me. I always strive to be better than I am in everything I do. My concern is that I see a LOT of active VCs, many who have stated they will be at Origins. Not one has even said hey, let’s meet up and see if this is possible. That’s more than any have been willing to do so far. No one said you need to be a Starfinder expert to evaluate. In fact the criteria doesn’t require the evaluator to be one. Excessive reference, excessive delays, things like that aren’t Starfinder specific. Good GMing isn’t Starfinder specific. If they don’t know the system, they can be an asset in ways others can’t. They get to see how you are with players new(ish) to the system.
I should also add context to my previous post. I originally asked if someone would be willing to work with me on this a month ago under the understanding that this was coming and I would like to be proactive rather than procrastinate. Any attempt to open a dialogue with the VC core has been completely ignored. I don’t say that out of contempt or frustration, but as a point of fact. If requests for evaluations are to be met with silence by the VC core then then their inaction will halt all access for everyone who doesn’t have the geographical luxury that I have. Wether they like it or not, the evaluation has moved from question to statement. The question now is how many people they deny progression through intentional inaction and refusal to support an official part of the Organized Play program. Wether or not you agree, this is now set forth by Paizo as the official way ahead. It is not appropriate to refuse to even discuss the possibility of supporting the program at the expense of others because of your personal stance on what Paizo has officially set forth. The evaluations are already taking place and even conducted at PaizoCon. Why attempt to penalize everyone else over your disagreement? You can disagree out loud without holding everyone back. Evaluate under protest in an effort to not penalize everyone else. I’m sure that absolutely zero VCs will be willing to evaluate me at Origins anymore now than they were in the last 30 days, but again, I don’t need the VCs at large. I’m voicing my concern over the impact to everyone else who will have trouble finding a VC in the first place, much less three times, when requests are met with silence or completely ignored. Is it really too much to even discuss the possibility of scheduling an evaluation table at “the Starfinder con”? It’s not like we don’t have precedent of evaluations before the guide update, because that’s already happening and the criteria has already been published.
If I can’t get a single VC to be willing to even open a dialogue about it for Origins where I will be running 8 tables, I can’t help but have concern for the ability to do this at major cons. I may have misrepresented my concern. I have frequent and regular access to at least 3 VCs, so the new system doesn’t pose a problem for me, personally. My concern is what appears to be a boycott by VCs to even discuss the possibility of doing a Starfinder evaluation at Origins. Of all the places someone should be able to have that discussion, especially for those with limited VC access, Origins should be that place. I am currently at 7 specials, 42 unique scenarios and 96 tables. I will have all but the 150 table count by January with no trouble using my local VCs. If exactly zero VCs are even willing to open a dialogue at doing a Starfinder evaluation at Origins in some sort of act of protest, that’s a problem. That’s their right, but at what cost and to who? Refuse to entertain the idea to force change at the expense of your GM core? That seems to be a problem that needs to be addressed. “I don’t like it, so I will passively contribute to preventing anyone else from achieving this.” is a poor way to protest and isn’t victimless. That’s not the behavior that seems appropriate for a VC.
I think getting VC support may be harder than people realize. I’ve asked for any VC willing to evaluate me at a table at Origins in the VO forums and not a single person has replied or contacted me. It’s gone completely ignored. I have 3 VCs within 2 hours of me, so I’m not worried about the ability to get my evaluations done. I’m at 96 tables with 4 scheduled before Origins, but I want to meet other VCs and hear feedback that isn’t from people who know and see me regularly. I want outside, unbiased feedback that I can use to improve because I enjoy trying to reach my highest potential in everything I do. If I can’t get a single VC to be willing to even open a dialogue about it for Origins where I will be running 8 tables, I can’t help but have concern for the ability to do this at major cons.
Level 21, right! Meant to say that, not 41. I literally just sprayed Mountain Dew laughing at this in a restaurant. Now people are looking at me like there’s something wrong with me. I’m also wearing a Starfinder shirt. Thanks for the laugh and the story I can laugh about BNW!
@Kishmo I print them on 36” x 48” with decent quality using GIMP (which is a free image software). Using Adobe Acrobat, loaf the scenario PDF
In GIMP, ctrl+shift+v to paste as a new image of the same size, DPI, etc.
If you’re lucky, you can convince them to print as a blueprint for a fraction of the cost. I pay $11for full color 36”x48” and $6 for a 24” x 36”. All but one of the employees at mine will do that for me. I hope this is helpful and best of luck to you. For those wondering why I don’t just do this in the future for an out of print map pack, it’s just the frustration of Paizo saying “Hey, we’ve got this great product you can use to show this on something much more portable than a roll of architectural paper, but just kidding. You can’t. Print it on photo paper and spend a fortune if you want it to be as nice as the product we’re referencing but not making available. At least if it were called a custom map when it’s really a custom arrangement of map pack materials Paizo fully intends to eventually stop production of, it would feel less like an IDGAF to meas the customer. I try to give the highest quality physical experience, depicting the author’s descriptions as I can afford time and money for, as I can. My 8 year old is a better artist than I am. When I draw maps, crates that provide cover are confused for doors. Areas of varying terrain types get mistaken and it just tends to take away from the overall experience when the players have to spend time clarifying which part of my Jackson Pollack is which mechanical advantage or disadvantage to them. Here’s a great thing you can go out and buy, but just kidding. We won’t sell it to you. Figure it out. I just don’t look forward to that day. At the end of the day, it’s still a business and the business needs to do what it deems in its best interest. Sometimes that might mean the author uses a material that may become forever unavailable 6 months after publishing, but best fits their writing. I can accept that, even if I disagree with it.
I appreciate the response. I’m trying to figure out what map packs I might need to buy before they go out of stock to cover the future scenarios (I really dislike trying to draw maps of far inferior quality to the published art for my players). I’m trying to balance this against the possibility that as a customer, I can’t see which are out of print, only which (if any) are out of stock. This is part of my season 2 SFS budgeting for the year. Thanks again for the response. I’m not sure it helps me anticipate anything more than seeing the map preview a couple of months out does, but I know what to expect, and that’s something.
I seem to recall that Paizo had decided to halt production of Map Packs in favor of the newer tiles system. As recently as 1-34 scenarios are still being designed to use them. Is the intention to continue using them in scenarios to help clear inventory with the knowledge they will eventually become difficult to obtain then you have to print or draw on your own? Is there a QC process in the works to avoid map packs and maybe use tiles instead, where applicable? If the intention is to use map packs anyway, I would personally prefer to have them listed as custom maps (which would also save the frustration of maps with misaligned, stretched or gapped spaces). If tiles become a thing, could we please make it a requirement that the tiles not have to be partially stacked and leaning on each other in a map design?
A few points from a different lodge that what seems to be the vocal majority. First, in Saint Louis, we run every new scenario twice every month. We also run 4 back-plays a month. We still need more to satisfy our player base. Because that doesn't seem like something that is going to happen anytime soon, we also run APs. This isn't some way to power game or manipulate the system, it's a way to continue to offer SFS in a community which regularly plays so much SFS that we simply run out of things to play. Second, congruent to my first point, we sometimes have to offer repeatables in a way that affords more play opportunities without forcing people to make even more characters. Thus, we have characters that are level 5 on repeatable content alone. (Quest, 1-01, AP1, AP7, 1-12, 1-16, 1-25, 1-32). Putting a glass ceiling above these players just because others do not have the same option is not in the spirit of the society. Growing the pyramid by expanding both outward and upward ensures lots of content for everyone. The mentality of holding others back because you can't advance is frustrating. So is the mindset that content should only grow upward like a tower. I am grateful for the plan moving forward. Third, I have to agree with Bob. Handing a level 12 soldier with 2 combat styles, 12 feats, 3 gear boosts, several conditional abilities, possibly powered armor to track the charge level of, weapons of multiple damage types, maybe DR and adaptive resistance, a jet pack to track charges of, etc. to a newer player just so they can play would be obnoxious. At that point, they aren't playing, you are playing for them. That's just what Obozaya could easily be. Now let's add Quig and have them run 2 characters of level 12. You run the risk of potentially overwhelming a new or low level player. Or worse, you're going to turn them away and tell them they can't play, but they can sit and watch the grown ups. In my opinion it's better to pull out a repeatable and include everyone in a compatible tier and include the low level or prospective member of the Society than it is to exclude them or overwhelm and discourage them. I understand there are also times when a level 8 character will want to play at the 9-12, and that would be perfectly reasonable and a much smaller jump. But for those of you using your low table frequency and preponderance of mostly low or mid level players, the addition of a level 12 pregen this early in the campaign seems contrary to your needs. Fourth, I am completely in favor of level 12 pregens when there is so much content that a player is playing said pregen in that tier because they genuinely want to try a level 12 class. I know I said it in three, but I'm going to say it again. In my opinion, it is better to change the table to something everyone can play than it is to exclude people or split the tables and offer it again for the other half that graciously ensured no one was turned away. No one should feel unable to play in an OPF game if you have 4 or more people present.
IDK how many tier 11-12 tables of 2-00 will be offered at Origins, but I will be GMing tier 11-12. I'm looking forward to studying and prepping that. I'm looking forward to seeing a full table of characters that high wreck face (or have their face wrecked if I know Thursty). I hope to see some of you there!
I wouldn’t mind another flashback scenario like 1-00 offered as a quest pack to give 5 short backgrounds. There’s no reason Guidance, the Forum, faction leads or any VCs couldn’t have a small story segment that present day Starfinders could learn as an interactive memory or vividly related experience. I personally would love to see 1-01 followed up with a quest pack or scenario to learn more back stories.
Maybe I'm blind, but I have been unable to find the pregens mentioned in the blog post. Are those available somewhere? I know of some players who want to try the new mechanics in play before they commit to building a character when we run at the LGS.
So, to answer the question in your post title, without reading your post, an emphatic HELL YES, YOU CAN!!!” Let me tell you about a mystic I GM’d for at Origins. Tier 5-6, 4 player. He was a level 6 Mystic doctor. The doc wore powered armor with DR/5- and a force field. He also took Technomantic Dabbler and carried no weapons. When he would recall knowledge, the first thing he would tell me was that he was trying to remember wether or not Mind Thrust was effective against this type of creature. He literally acted as a front line fighter built primarily around Con, Wis and Dex with some Int iirc. He would run in to touch patty members, eat AoOs in the process and generally not care. If no one needed his medical services he would Mind Thrust or Magic Missile accordingly. He never needed a weapon. This guy was a real treat to have at the table and built an outstanding combat medic. This goes to prove that if he can tank mobs and receive a proper front-line beating, you can absolutely make a melee Mystic!
Disease & Poison are strangely harsh on the players in a game that mostly isn't.(AP2...)After GMing it I wanted to hit the book with a flame thrower to ensure no larvae survived. AP2 made all the PCs wish for death. AP3 was so much nicer. My 8 year old daughter decided to play SFS for the first time recently, so I happily GMd a table for her to sit at in our LGS. I rendered her pregen unconscious with sleeping gas in that scenario. The party had to help her handle it. She had a good time though and took it in stride. She wants to play a character with a higher fort save next time, however.
You can absolutely stack the GMing and playing version. Source: This post by Thursty. *Edit* I should have read page 5 before replying. I would have seen that someone already answered your question and saved myself a lot of Paizo style Google-Fu. I am immensely terrible at that particular style.
Spoiler: The expression on one of our resident lore expert's face when Ylga mentioned Torag was awesome! When I said The Quest for Sky, his eyes widened and his jaw literally dropped. It was a wonderful reaction to witness. I also made up a sheet of twenty brief commercial spots (some were very punny) and rolled a d20 to decide which to read as we "cut to commercial" while the booth was set up and a PC was prepped for the interview with the ghast.
As for the big reveal, every player went back into the booth to provide their speculation. The alien zoo was one. A controlled experiment with an unknown purpose was another, but my favorite were the two Gap conspiracies, the second of which is my own. A) An entity (possibly a deity) became aware of the Gap before it happened and created a space ark within the moon, shielding it against the Gap to preserve as many sapient species as possible B) Triune is responsible for the Gap and prior to setting the Gap in motion collected hundreds of sapient species, mind-wiped them and put them in a simulation as a means to study the various races and how they would react to different historical events based on varied inputs. Simultaneously, the Gap would effectively create an opportunity for Triune to present itself as a deity by saving the races and introducing the Drift. Furthermore, a forgetful Golarion could theoretically be susceptible to Triune's influence, broadening their ability to guide the future. This was discovered by other deities who were able to "squirrel away" Golarion prior to the Gap actually taking place, thus keeping Rovagug safely imprisoned.
If you go to "My Organized Play" --> "GM/Event Coordinator" it will show your Nova status based not on the number of tables you have GM'd, but the number of reported tables you have GM'd. Literally as soon as your 10th table is reported, it should show up. Check your "GM Sessions" tab to see which tables have and have not been reported. Also, some tables early on were reported as "Path" not "Star" by mistake. If that is still true for any of your tables, they may not apply correctly and your reporter will need to rectify that. When I reported my 30th table, my second nova showed up as soon as I hit "Save and Exit" on the reporting page. This information is current as of 15 Feb.
|
