Kitsune Kune's page

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber. ** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 81 posts (147 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 14 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I would personally rule it, as if the property runes do not specify they must hit, then they add their effect, and damage type, to things like Certain Strike.

Dark Archive 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
RealAlchemy wrote:

In my first PFS2 game we had to disperse a crowd of protesters nonviolently, and it came to my turn. (It looked to me like it was one of those cases where you try to use a variety of skills creatively.)

"I use my geneology lore skill."
GM : "Uh, how does that possibly apply here?"
"I single out the ringleader and insult his mother - very specifically."

Was said mother, perhaps, a hamster?

Dark Archive 1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I agree that I see many pro's to how it is laid out. However, it also does have the issue that if you don't know what segment something is in. it can massively extend the time it takes to find it. Further, the individual segments are not always intuitive. (There have been multiple occasions I expected something to be in section X but was actually in Z)

Dark Archive 1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Hello Bob,

We have never met, and only spoken back and forth on the forums once in a blue moon. however, I still echo those above and thank you for all the work you have put forth. I have always enjoyed reading your take and opinion on any thread you chose to respond to, even ones where I had not had a chance to formulate my own. I hope life treats you well going forward.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
I looked at the scenario after we played and the GM got the watchtowers slightly wrong. The watchtowers were 15ft tall.

Actually, you are still not quite right.

The line with the relevant details is on the page AFTER all the monster and combat stats are given. It describes it as "Each watchtower is 15 feet wide and 25 feet tall. A ladder on the north and south sides of each tower allows for easy access to the top of the tower. A PC who attempts to Climb the tower via a ladder can do so with ease. A PC climbing the ladder can move up to half her Speed without attempting an Athletics check." (Bolding mine)

Now why it tells you how wide they are, when the map shows you as much, is an interesting question. However, the 15 feet is specifically width, versus 25 feet tall.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:

Every single caster desperately needs that Legendary to keep with enemy saves and have a 50% chance of affecting them with his weaker and reduced in number spells.

A fighter gets legendary so he has a leg up on the other martial classes, who have special utility and weird abilities that he doesn't. The Monk, for example, can fly and throw punches at range and spit out a cone of force damage, but he'll always be a point behind the Fighter when it comes to hitting things.

I really like the combat abilities of the martial classes, I think the nerfs to casters and spells greatly limit their ability to handle utility/narrative stuff, and with some tweaking of skills (more skills for the Fighter and Monk, relaxed signature skill requirements, publish more actual skill limitations requirement expert/master/legendary to avoid GM fiat and player guessing) stuff is more balanced than I ever expected.

The "desperate need to keep up with saves" has less to do with getting Legendary, and more to do with the save levels. Just like, as it sits for martials, expect a 50% or less chance to hit. Drop some spells classes to end at expert, some at master, one at legendary. drop saves for levels 13+ by one or two points, and you have the exact same curve on the save vs roll path for casters. (Especially since most monsters are walking around with the maximum possible proficiency-for-that level type stats, on multiple stats. Which makes it clear they built the classes first, then balanced the beasties to be right around the 50% mark all the time.)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

So, this debate is not actually as legendary as I made it sound. The only question I have, is if we are trying to get rid of the disparity. Then why does every single caster progress to Legendary in casting... Yet only the Fighter ever becomes Legendary with ANY martial weapons. (The monk only ever gets to Master with unarmed strikes even.)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Why didn't someone just grab the little buggers? They've only got a Fort Defense of 12.

From my take, if the game is meant to be "new user friendly" knowing to do that single particular activity... is not new user friendly.. .especially if you don't know what their fort defense is.

Just my 2 coppers

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
MidknightDiamond wrote:
Someone will surely correctly me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it now - something that would have been an opposed roll before, like perception vs. stealth, is now a roll vs. DC. So someone trying to spy you if you're trying to be stealthy is your stealth roll vs. their Perception DC which would be 10 + the observer's Perception modifier.

As far as I can tell, you are correct. (In fact, the book specifically calls out stealth vs perception DC as an example.) Furthermore, searching the book for "opposed roll" comes up with zero results, which further strengthens your statement

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yako Zenko wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I was wondering who would discover that synergy first. You get the prize! (if someone found it on another thread earlier, feel free to correct me) I still really want to make a reach weapon giant totem barbarian with fighter dedication, AoO, and a Large reach weapon, going to Large for a big old area of threat.
I actually had made a plan to do exactly that.. .with a halfling barbarian and Glaive... Because the fluff idea is hilarious to me. (I made the character last Friday when i noticed the medium or smaller going to Large thing.)
A lance might be fun too for sudden charging around the fight, or a halberd. Really any reach weapon I want to try out!

I went glaive for the forceful, deadly, reach and great/cleave potential fun times. Especially once the +1 2 or 3 shows up

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
GinoA wrote:
http://pfsprep.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2929

I second Joshua James Jordan. I don't know how many people you have to help to become a saint anymore, but considering that pfsprep.com just went down, i am going to guess you have made a sizeable start.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
RunnerAndJumper wrote:

Page 89:

The fighter-feat "combat grab" gives the same effect for the enhancement and the failure. Not sure, if this is intended.

If you read it closely there is a slight difference between success and failure. Success ends at the end of your next turn. Failure ends at the beginning of your next turn.

In short, do you get to keep the bonus going for your next turn's attacks or not.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

One thing to note related to the Giant Totem Barbarian, its size boosts, and things like fatigue...

Penalties no longer "stack" as commonly as they used to. As stated on page 9 "If you have more than one bonus or penalty of the same type, you use only the highest bonus or penalty." So the sluggish trait gives you a -1 conditional modifier to your AC. being fatigued once the rage ends is also a conditional modifier... so until you take an action, the only change that occurs is your speed is reduced by 5.

It should also be noted, that the sluggish trait only applies when 'wielding' a weapon... if you are walking around with a two-hander, but only carrying it in one hand, you aren't wielding it yet, and thus not sluggish. This allows one to do certain Dex based skills, or reflex saves if anticipating a trap, without the sluggish negative.

Next up, at 6th level, when you (likely) pick up the Giant's Stature feat. Becoming Large applies the Sluggish 1 trait... however if you are already wielding your chosen large weapon, literally nothing changes as the two effects don't stack in any way. Instead you simply gain 5 feet of reach. The above statement applies to the Titan's Stature feat as well, except now you gain 10 feet of reach.

In short, the large weapon does incur some negatives for the damage, however it is not as bad as it would be if the negatives stacked.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

So, as I was going over all the rules interactions, I noticed that the Monk's stunning fist gets a massive increase in effectiveness when you crit. By massive, I mean that a Critical Strike using it, always forces the target to be flat-footed or worse. Even if the target critically succeeds on its save.

Let me explain; On page 292 the rules for Successes and Critical Successes state as follows "If an ability doesn’t specify a critical success effect, then the effect for a critical success is the same as that for a success."

The rules for stunning fist are as follows.
"Enhancement The target must attempt a Fortitude save against your class DC. If the target fails, it’s flat-footed for 1 round. On a critical failure, it’s also stupefied 2 for 1 round. If your attack was a critical success, one of the following outcomes occurs: If the target succeeded at its save, it instead fails its save. If the target failed its save, it instead critically fails its save. If the target critically failed its save, it is instead stunned for 1 round."

As Stunning Fist specifically specifies what happens for an opponents success should you Crit on your attack. "If the target succeeded at its save, it instead fails its save." However it never specifies a difference between Critical success and a standard success. As such, "the effect for a critical success is the same as that for a success", and thus in this case, treated as a failure

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
zefig wrote:
Yes, no matter my answer for the puddles "did your character reach 0 hit points," it goes on to ask questions about reaching 0 hit points.

Just as a question for the programming logic in the survey. What happens if you respond with "yes" on the puddles question about reaching 0 hit points?

Dark Archive 1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gozer "Bone Splitter" wrote:
You can actually skip answering the zero hit point questions. I had that issue. I selected I never went to 0 and then it asked on the next two questions what happened to get me to 0. You can leave those blank and move on.

The only reason i hesitate on doing this for a survey. Is it is possible there are other questions that would be more relevant, and thus more useful to answer, if fixed. (Such as "since you did not reach 0 hp. Did you feel the encounter was too easy/hard/just right?" As balancing encounters to players goals is another important step imho.)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Kitsune Kune wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:


Actually, if the shield already has 2 dents, it's broken, and CAN'T be raised again - as such, I'm not sure it will ever get destroyed.
while correct. if it only takes 1 dent on attack 1. it could THEN take two more on the next attack, and thus be destroyed. (Also I believe there are shields with more than 3 dents eventually.) This is why I worded it as "do you shield block when only 2 dents from destroyed."

That is not actually correct as currently written. There is no rule that states 3 dents and it's destroyed. The written rule is:

Quote:
An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage.
As written, the only way to destroy an item is to damage it while it's already broken. Since the shield block isn't possible with a broken shield, and since there is no sunder mechanic, it's impossible under current written rules to destroy the shield (or any item, for that matter - since there is no other mechanic for actually damaging any object).

The argument I am making, that I feel the rules confirm, is this. If the aforementioned shield can only take 1 more dent before being broken (as defined by the shield.) If you at that time, when you CAN block with the shield because it isn't broken yet, block an attack that deals damage equal to or greater than twice its hardness it takes 2 dents.

The first dent causes the shield to become broken, at which point it takes the second dent "while broken" and thus, is destroyed. I see no rule that says this wouldn't happen. You are correct, if it is broken you can no longer use the shield block action. However, the number of dents is determined before it becomes broken, and thus rolls over to destroyed.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kerobelis wrote:

Size is a minor effect buried within the rules. Not like before where you did less damage, moved slower, much worse at maneuvers, harder to hit, etc.

I don't deny there are some rules, but for the most part, it is minor. Hell, I can be a 1d12 damaging greatsword Halfing now, which in my opinion is wrong, but it is a bonus to those who love small races.

You are correct on that, and I do agree it is definitely improved from 1st edition. However, there are several abilities that still only work up to a number of size categories larger then yourself, and things like above, where only on things your size or smaller. Therefore, technically, it is still a negative when comparing races. Is it equivalent value to all the other effects listed above? Absolutely not. It is probably worth maybe a negative half-point, but it is a negative, and shouldn't be purported to be anything else in a thread trying to have accurate race comparisons.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kerobelis wrote:
Size does not matter in the new edition.

size absolutely matters in this one. Just in much more hidden fashions. I am still making an exact comparitive list. However I can confidently state I have seen far more "only works against things your size or smaller" than 'have this bonus' "against things your size or larger" or even just "larger than you"

Some key examples, is things like the Dwarf Ancestry Feat "Boulder Roll" or the Fighter Feat "Aggressive Shield". Which can only work if the enemy is your size or smaller.

Or the Power "Pushing Gust". Which only works on targets your size or smaller... (This one in particular annoys me. Because this is a power that summoning wind. Since when does my personal size effect the strength of wind I can summon? Especially when the power is a divine power, granted to a Cleric, from a god?)

Also the Alarm Snare only triggers on a "Small or smaller" creature... (So the Elf and Dwarf don't trigger the snare, but the gnome does.)

EDIT: I should state that small isn't a huge negative. Simply that is precludes the use of specific abilities or builds. More so than being Medium does.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Bihalurzakas wrote:

Hello,

Distinguished Decapus wrote:
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.

I think thats wrong because on page 295 you can read:

Pathfinder Playtest wrote:

At the end of each of your turns while you have at least

1 Hit Point and are conscious, you reduce your dying
value by 1. As with other conditions, when the dying
value reaches 0, the dying condition ends.

You are correct by my reading Bihalurzakas. mostly due to the first paragraph in the Recovery Saving Throws section. "Recovery Saving Throws: When you’re unconscious, at the start of each of your turns you attempt a special Fortitude saving throw to regain consciousness, called a recovery saving throw."

As stated, you only have to make the recovery saving throw if you are unconscious. If you are conscious, you just have to keep yourself from dropping to 0 hp, and the dying counter will tick down automatically.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
FLite wrote:

Where does it say the part about having / getting to roll 3 times?

I admit my big concern is it seems like if someone rolls a 17+ on diplomacy before anyone else has rolled, then that counts as a single success and locks out 3 other possible successes, making it *much harder* to get 3 successes.

I'm not sure if this is the intent, but my plan was to have everybody roll and then adjudicate the results from low rolls to high rolls.

So, getting a 15, 12, 10 is EXACTLY the same as getting a 10, 12, 15

That is the only thing that makes any sense to me

I am planning to run this the same way tomorrow night.

However, I will point out that there are technically five separate categories people can make rolls in, each with "new information" when compared to the others. So if the Devs DID intend it the other way. There is still a chance of progression. A weird one, and as pointed out, much harder one though.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:


Actually, if the shield already has 2 dents, it's broken, and CAN'T be raised again - as such, I'm not sure it will ever get destroyed.

while correct. if it only takes 1 dent on attack 1. it could THEN take two more on the next attack, and thus be destroyed. (Also I believe there are shields with more than 3 dents eventually.) This is why I worded it as "do you shield block when only 2 dents from destroyed."

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quote:
If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s hardness, the item takes a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become broken, though it can still be repaired. An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage. Some magical or especially sturdy items can take more than 1 Dent before becoming broken, as noted in their descriptions.

The bolded part of this text is what makes the example useless without another example. "Equal to or greater than." It is saying that even if you took 1 million damage. the shield only takes 2 dents.

This means that an undented shield can-not explode in a single hit. However, if your shield has already taken every dent it can take before being broken, then raising it is a risk of two more dents, and thus, shield-splosion. (totally trade-marking that word by the way.) I like this, as it makes the choice a tactical choice. First you increase your AC and adsorb some damage. Then, after the few hits and it goes to "two-dents-from-death", you have a choice to make. You can simply settle for just keeping the AC boost every turn. or you risk losing it completely, in return for absorbing some damage.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

So, something I noticed as an interesting rules interaction. Specifically the interaction between a Fighter's Attack of Opportunity reaction, and the Delay free action listed on page 307.

"You bide your time, waiting for the right moment to act. The rest of your turn doesn’t happen yet. Instead, you’re removed from the initiative order. You can return to the initiative order as a free action triggered by the end of any other creature’s turn. This permanently changes your initiative to the new position. You can’t use reactions until you return to the initiative order."

The above is the first part of the Delay free action, (bolded is mine.) What this means to me, is if the Fighter wants to delay for any reason (lets say he wants a buff from the cleric,) and an enemy has a turn between them. The enemy can move completely freely, cast a spell, fire a ranged weapon, etc. All without reprisal from the Fighter.

As this may be entirely intentional, and thus a tactical choice that fighter needs to make, I am putting it here in general discussion. I, personally, like the tactical choice inherent in this. However, I was never a fan of AoO's as a general rule. I suspect those who were a fan of them will dis-like this facet even more.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Darkwood71 wrote:

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but I'm having a hard time determining where Alchemists get 8 starting formulas (as stated in the class preview).

The Advanced Alchemy class feature (pg. 45) states "You gain the Alchemical Crafting feat (see page 162), even if you don’t meet that feat’s prerequisites, and you gain the four additional common 1st-level alchemical formulas that feat grants."

This makes it sound like you only get the 4 common formulas from the feat. It seems like this should read "and you gain four additional common 1st-level alchemical formulas beyond the four that are granted by the feat." Or, "and you gain four additional common 1st-level alchemical formulas along with the ones that feat grants."

Just my thoughts.

I had a fun couple times re-reading the Alchemist's number of starting formulas. Because the Formula Book on the bottom of page 46 also states "The formula book contains formulas for your choice of 4 common 1st-level alchemical items."

Until you pointed out that the preview shows 8 formulas, I was starting to wonder whether they get four. Or if both class feature's stack and make 8.

After the preview, I am certain they are supposed to stack. It is just a very wordy way of having them both stack.

EDIT: Read over the Alchemical Crafting feat, and realized its again, just 4 common ones... I still think the two effects stack.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Squiiddish wrote:


Echoing this because I didn't see any replies in the thread. I'm especially concerned about the Senate basement itself- are the PCs meant to be able to rest either before/after dealing with the Walcofindes? Arcane casters like Wizards are effectively still level 1 for this entire dungeon if not, they can't rest for their new spells.

My party of four (Dwarf War-priest, Human Bard, Kitsune Sorcerer, and Half-Elf Spiritualist) managed to push the entire dungeon and past Dagio. It was at that point that the party ran out of spells finally. (To be fair, I did give them the extra health from leveling up when they hit that experience mark.) They only rested then, for fear of how much farther the dungeon was going to go. (I ran mine on roll20, breaking up the map into smaller pieces myself... So my players never know just how big a dungeon is going to be.)

This did include the bard failing to resist a certain ooze's very tempting suggestions about his fellow PCs.... Which essentially left the spiritualist to deal with a raging griffon construct on her own. (Although, that griffon I couldn't roll to safe its non-life.)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
grandpoobah wrote:

Do the PCs have an income source from the land? Although I can't imagine local peasants contributing more than a few silver pieces a month.

I am personally planning to go and pull some of the kingdom building rules for this. Especially since the PCs put so much effort into building the place up, and I don't see anything in at least the next book, taking the ownership of Stachys away, as it were. So, since what they can do is very limited, the income they make will be limited. However I intend this to become literally a form of permanent income award.

Also, I intend to give the players opportunities for some profession checks along the way. it's not a lot, but it will help. I am also considering some kind of "fund-raiser" type activities Agents can take for them... Cus house rules and all.

Finally, as pointed out above, my players whoa re nearing the end of book one have earned a couple thousand cash from the nobles etc. Not a lot to go off of. However they found both relics in the first book, and the Relics have a rather hard-to-quantify value. Considering how awesome they can get. (one of my characters is a Spiritualist who already wanted to go for a crossbow, optimization be darned... So Dignity's barb works well for them. And the ring is the Bard's best friend.)

Dark Archive 1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Cangaceiro wrote:

Can you clarify that sir. I really dont understand why in the Additional Resources says first that Nothing from (...) Merfolk, (...) are currently legal for play. But than after some lines there is "Merfolk: All alternate reacial traits, favored class options, racial archetypes, racial feats, equipment, and magic items are legal for play." but in red.

Whats the red text stands for? ITs new stuff that's now avaliable or just stuff that isnt yet avaliable.

What it means, is that unless you have a boon saying that you can be a merfolk or gillman. You can't be one. If you DO have a boon giving you access to the merfolk race for e.g. then all the alternate racial traits, etc. are available to you as well. Red just means that line has been changed since the last update.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

To elaborate from Andy's statement.

The pulsecaster rifle now defaults at capacity 20/ use 1. You can later upgrade to a high (or super, or ultra) capacity battery later. This increases the capacity, not the usage of the pulsecaster. (So the ultra-capacity would give your pulsecaster 100 shots.) This has not changed the base battery size, usage, etc. of any other equipment.

This change was put into place, because the rifle was cheaper than the high-cap battery. Meaning people were talking about just buying the rifle instead, and ripping the high-cap out of the pulsecaster to use in their other guns.

Dark Archive 1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

I am a big fan of generic chronicles in some areas, but I am not sure if this might not have unintended effects. It would certainly be neat for organizers, but I fear that there are downsides you are missing.

One potential downfall is that it is IMO quite healthy for GMs to see the player side of the system they are running. Without regular input from both sides of the screen, it can be easy to lose perspective.

I can fully agree with this statement. However I still see the potential merit of a cross-system chronicle. Perhaps something akin to the SFS Alien Archive? One where it requires X games as a GM in one system, to gain Y benefit in the other system. As well as T games as a player in one system, to gain V benefit in the other system.

Now, I know that would be pretty complex, and probably end up being two chronicle sheets minimum. (One for the Gm/Player of Pathfinder for benefits in Starfinder. One for the GM/Player in Starfinder for benefits in Pathfinder... I might even argue a third/fourth relating to the adventure card game if we REALLY want to get cross-platform compatible here.)

Dark Archive 1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
roysier wrote:

Best Starship combat in Starfinder so far. The look on players faces when the first shot from from the enemy did 47 points of damage was a classic(I rolled high). I still can't stop laughing at the reaction. Things got serious for the players. They were so used to easy starship combats that They took them all for cakewalks. They really worked together on strategy and pulled together and won but not before burning the boon that lets your starship recover 30 hit points when it reaches 0.

I played this one also and the winning ship only had 10 hull points left.

NOTE: not GMed yet, but wanted to post experience from point of view of a player, now that I've played it low tier.

Yeah, that starship combat was pretty brutal, didn't help that one of our four player party (soldier) was a strength build, and thus couldn't shoot worth a darn. Otherwise, we kept the other solider as the pilot (full ranks, dex build, etc. for the highest chance at passing those rolls,) the operative pretty much never left engineering to keep creating new shields, and my Envoy wound up in the other gunner seat.

We ended up winning, (partly because using the boon which slows missiles 50% for a round, caused the first shot to miss entirely.) However we didn't expect the surprise ending... Our GM was making it clear something might be worth noting, and in true Vesk spirit, the soldier suggested we board the enemy ship after it was dropped to 0 hull points... The resulting surprise finished off our ship, and we too had to burn the "not dead yet" starship boon and get hull points back from 0.

@Illeist: For the Megzoloth encounter, at four players, we only ended fighting one of the Megzoloths... the other was distracted by the locals... and each of us killed our beasty in the same round. The truly rough fight for us was the final big bad duo... At one point 3/4ths of the party were spending resolve to stabilize, and the remaining guy was a melee soldier on the opposite end of the map from the rest, having just finished off the flyer of the duo. (To be fair, on this particular fight, our GM missed the four player adjustment until this exact point... so that might have had something to do with it.)

Dark Archive 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Duiker wrote:
Awesome. So for all you know he was removed for multiple sexual harassment complaints, but the fact that you have less tables to play at really is the only thing that matters here.

No, I operate under the assumptions that someone is innocent until shown guilty. As such, I try to make an informed decision based on the facts I have at hand. Especially when we currently only have rumors as to what occurred, which have no way to be verified, and run as rampantly spread as your provided extreme, to the one provided by Suede.

As such, I am forced to work with only the following.
1) Whatever occurred was not so egregious as to cause Michael to be banned from the venue, or organized play. Only removed from office, which makes extremes seem unlikely.

2) Individuals who know more about the situation than myself seem generally to feel this was an over-reaction, and even the people who made the decision seem to feel it was a tough call based off posts from Del and Tonya. (Although that could simply be my interpretation of their writings, and others could feel very differently about the same text.)

3) The resulting attendance at the events is something I can provide the hardest evidence for, and as the prior two points sit as they do, leaves me to the decision I made to sign the petition.

Now, that is my reasoned response based off the few facts I have, and the assumptions I made from them. You are well within your rights to make different assumptions, and by extension, different conclusions.

Fromper wrote:

I don't know Michael Eshleman. From the way he's described here, he sounds like a good guy.

But I do know Paizo. I've been a PFS player and GM for 7 years. For the first year I was a player, the area where I lived had no venture officers. The first guy who applied for the V-C job got it, but he was a jerk who drove female players away, and he was quickly removed from the position. I've known several good venture officers who have never been removed by Paizo, though some have stepped down over the years, as life got in the way. So from what I've seen, Paizo does a pretty good job at deciding who needs to be removed from V-C positions when something goes wrong.

So who do you expect me to side with?

That is a completely reasonable stance, and one I can imagine myself taking in your position. However, you and another asked why we who signed the petition felt it should exist. As such, I provided my reasons. (Perhaps not as eloquently as I should have, based off the first response to me.) In the interim, I have no expectations that it would sway your opinion. I simply wanted to provide what facts I can, so that everyone who reads the thread can make as informed of a decision as they can.

Dark Archive 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fromper wrote:
Secane wrote:

Sorry, but what is going on exactly?

All I am reading is that a well respected VC has been removed from his position?

Why was he removed and why does it require a petition to bring him back?

Agreed. Since the rest of us don't know why he was removed from the position, we have no basis to judge whether or not it was the right decision. So why would any of us support a petition? And what's the point of this thread?

So, your very reason for not wanting to sign the petition, is the very reason I did so. I am from the region this directly impacts, and yet I know little to nothing more than you yourselves do from reading the starting post here. All I know, is that the pillars of the local Organized Play were removed from their position (or stepped down in response to that removal.) The result of which, is that organized play is suffering drastically for it.

The local venue/retailer used to have 2-4 tables of PFS every week, and 1-2 tables of SFS every week. As a sign to just how much work Michael and Pete put in, now that they have stepped down those numbers have dwindled. Going forward I see 1-2 tables of PFS every week, and (as of this writing) SFS has its final table listed for a week from tomorrow.

In short, while I am directly affected by the choices of the powers that be. I have absolutely no reference for what has happened, yet myself, the local community, and the venue are clearly suffering the fall-out of the situation. As such, I see no reason not to sign the petition, and if it helps bring balance back to area, then I have every reason to do so.

Dark Archive 1/5

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

From my point of view, the local Venture Officers are practically the public face of organized play, and almost the entirety of the hobby from paizo in general. I work in a Customer Service department where I am employed. Michael show's so much passion and enthusiasm for the organized play structure,(both in PFS and SFS). Has such a friendly, charismatic and charming personality; and is so openly willing to dedicate such large amounts of his time to ensure everyone is enjoying themselves. If only half my department had that same passion, I could sleep easy knowing every single customer we work with, would walk away happy.

I had been gone from Organized Play for several years. When i decided to give it a shot again, Michael made it an extremely pleasant experience. Not only did his GMing lead to an awesome adventure. But he also remembered my name and welcomed me back warmly the next time we spoke in person, three weeks later. I cannot put into words how welcoming that feels. He has taken the time to calmly answer several questions I have fielded him in person and over PM here. I don't know that I would still be playing in the Organized play at my local store, if it wasn't for that level of welcoming attitude and willingness to help.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gibo Auja wrote:

Here's a dumb question that I'm obviously over looking.

Increasing your towns attitude. I see one static point it increases (10000) how else do you increase the attitude. Is there a chart somewhere for x amount of loyalty increases attitude?
I tried searching the pdf for "one step" but no luck.

You can increase the attitude of Stachys by One Step in dealing with Portimer - The Poacher, "correctly" (Dismissal).

So, it IS possible to get to improve the town by two steps. However I see no other way of doing so. (Which means doing nothing to annoy the town at the same time. (or having a Festival after any annoyance, and hoping your GM does the positive options as a retro-active benefit.) if you want it to get to Friendly.)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
GM PDK wrote:
What weaknesses and discovery skills did you use with the extra Senators? did you grant XPs for those? did you invent boons or in-game effects to go along with them?

The honest answer for the weaknesses and Discovery skills, is I looked at what was provided for other characters, and borrowed ones (and similar DCs [usually within 1 or 2 in either direction of the given DC]) that made sense for the blurb provided . (I don't have my exact breakdown with me at the moment. An example of this that I do remember, was that for an Influence on Duke Georgi Backus Talbot, I used Sense Motive or Stealth for Weaknesses (matching Abrielle Pace's Bluff and Stealth) representing carefully following/listening to him speak with other Senators, and getting a feeling for his love of trade. His hatred of Adventurers, etc. Then I used Know [Geography] matching her Know [Nobility] to represent knowledge of trade routes etc. As well as Diplomacy and Sense Motive (matching Okerra's in this case) to represent understanding of dealing with merchants, traders, etc. to represent understanding how to handle one-self in situations such as unexpected Tariff and tax changes, unruly port-masters, etc.)

As for experience, I instead have it planned out for my game for my players to level up at specific points (matching good "pauses" for the suggestions in the books) and thus XP didn't matter to myself or my players.

Influenced characters of this sort will likely provide the senate benefits listed in the back of the book. Should my PCs maintain good working relationships/opinions of them... After they escape the dungeon crawl. Exactly how relevant those bonuses are going to be in the AP... Well... we'll see. I have a group more concerned about plot and interacting with NPCs (even ones usually without names. ) So they won't mind either way.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
JetSetRadio wrote:
So if you look back at my posts I was heavily against the operative. I said a bunch of stuff that looked at the operative very narrowly. After actually seeing the operative in action at multiple levels I changed my opinion. Before judging the class and assuming I would challenge you to make an operative. Think of a theme, skills, and class features and post it here. Then we can break down what the operative is good at and if it consistently stays a top tier class at all levels.

I noticed you back-pedaled on your opinion, and it gives me hope for that. If you want a sample Operative build, then at what level? Also, what shall we compare it to? Someone who built a character specifically to be better at one or two skills? Or characters people built without the Operative present, for a standard campaign (or even organized play)?

In the interest of truly pushing boundaries, perhaps we choose the levels before-hand, make a party of say, 4 other characters without an Operative, then see if an Operative can be built that can challenge all four of them. (Challenge will of course need to have an agreed upon definition.) Bonus points if said Operative can match or beat a specialist, and still provide a challenge to the others.

Outside of actually playing an Operative (which I sadly don't have time to play more than an occasional SFS game, and one never knows what classes they are going to get in those. I'm a tad too attached to my only character right now to play another.) this would truly be the only way to put a test for the Operative in my opinion. Anyone else up for this bit of communal pushing?

EDIT: Note, I am not flat out baring torch and pitchfork against the Operative. I am simply stating, that on paper, it seems a little too good at too many things for my taste. However this can also all easily change with feats/theme/equipment in the future, so it's not a deal breaker for me. even if I were to be found to be correct. (Which if I am not, I would happily embrace such.) It is also possible, that with things as smoothly balanced in general that they are. Being "75-80% of the best at everything" could still be well within the "swinginess" that can occur in play. At which point, it's completely fine.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

An Operative is an excellent skill generalist, and likely better at any skills they have than other people who only dabble in said skill, but real specialists tend to beat them out in non-Dex skills unless they utterly handicap themselves in their primary stat (which is, indeed, Dex).

And, again, they lack spells, do worse in combat than either Solarians or Soldiers, and lack the special abilities of either Envoys or Mechanics. They have a niche, which they are excellent at, but they don't actually tend to overshadow other people in their own areas.

While the above statement is true, that is also something of a potential problem from my point of view. (I have not played in a game with an operative yet, so I will preface this with the DISCLAIMER that I cannot say from experience based on an operative in action.)

If a single player can reasonably be better at 66% (or more) of the skills than any other single character in the party. (66% is based off the fact that [outside of certain Profession rolls, which come up semi-randomly, and thus worth 3%] the highest number of skills for any single stat [int] is 6/19 [just over 30%])

At the same time succeeding 60% (or more) of the skill checks that any other (non-envoy) chosen specialist does in their particular check. (60% if the Operative vs the specialist has a total bonus disparity of +5, including scaling +1 in that stat, which is less common in Starfinder from my experience due to the nature of the point buy). [The Envoy gets a special amount of math in it's Specialization skills, due to the extra die-roll, and eventually choice of re-roll or not, which is more complicated math than this "gut feeling" post covers.]

All of the above makes a single character very solid in combat (as mentioned in previous posts) and still managing to match or beat, almost every skill specialist in the party, in their chosen field, over half the time. All at the same time, without needing to specialize in the exact same way. Is pretty rough in my "on paper" assumptions... Of course, on paper and in-practice don't always line up. So again, just a gut feeling, but with math backing up said feeling.

(Envoy's are already skill monkey enough for my taste, and they are noticeably less capable of matching EVERY other specialist on the party at the same time. However, they are, admittedly, kings of their chosen specializations, with some pretty cool options in combat to boot.)

EDIT: For some spelling, grammar, and minor rewording for better clarification of what I'm saying.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
JiCi wrote:

Have you seen a player voluntarily handicapping himself because he thought he was too strong? No!

Unbalanced for the player? Yes, because the player is totally going to complain about it ¬_¬;

Whilst I am uncertain still how I feel about the game design in regards to TWF (or more <.<) This sentence I have to respond to directly.

I am often that person you claim that "doesn't exist." Why? Because I GM and play more games than any of my common gaming groups. as such, I have gotten a better feel for the systems, and often come across combinations that make me stop and go. "Wait... can I really do that?" (find my past post on the Druid Gigantherium shenanigans for one such example years ago. <.<)

This would lead to me constantly out-doing my fellow players, and not only less enjoyable for them. But also make myself feel guilty. As such, i now actively seek out ways to NOT optimize my character. If I come across any idea that I really want to try out, however I feel it's potentially overly-powerful. I flat out build in an intentional weakness, and tell my GM of both the strength and weakness first. That way they know what they are getting into, and can cause situations where I need my party to bail me out. This leads to more fun times for all.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

To those it may concern, my subscription order in the title is still showing as pending, though it was shown as placed on the 8th. I am inquiring simply to ascertain whether or not there is an issue? I understand orders for the subscriptions are listed as posting until the 23rd. However I was planning to start running this for my group this coming weekend. The PDF is all I would require for the first game, however I would need more than a single day to prep it.

This is in no-way a request to "hurry or else," I am simply trying to determine if I will have time to run what was anticipated, or if I should defer to a secondary plan and simply wait until the following week.

Thank you for your time.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Dαedαlus wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Millenniamaster wrote:
Going by Shinigami02's logic, a toothpick has a 5% chance of piercing +5 adamantine full plate
I will say to this, that while technically true, unless you've got strength backing it you won't actually "pierce". This is only true of Adamantine though, because Adamantine Heavy Armor gives DR 3/- and I highly doubt a toothpick alone is going to do more than 1 damage by itself.
Well, did you use power attack?

I approve of this statement.

Speaking of, a brownie with that toothpick get as much bonus damage from a power attack, as a giant with a long sword

Dark Archive 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I dont think players care what DMs have to put into things.

While I can attest to the opposite, at least in my area. You sound extremely burnt out on this Terevalis. I agree with the others that you are probably best served stepping back from being a GM for a little while. We would hate for you to get so burnt out to leave the game entirely.

Dark Archive 1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

Non-PFS GM's have similar struggles. Sometimes you get a good bunch of players, and other times you don't.

As for being appreciative, most of the time you will get more "thank you's" from players who have also GM'd.

Until someone does it, they don't really know what goes into it.

For them the game just happens, but when they have to prep their own games they realize that it doesn't just happen.

This right here. A lot of players, especially newer ones, simply do not understand the effort that goes into GMing. I have even experienced some who think that if your are running a scenario/module that there is even less work. Because "all the hard work has already been done." They don't realize that in some way, pre-made missions can be harder when the players "go off the rails."

PFS can cause this to happen more often than home games, as you can get new players more often. However as someone who GMs many games and systems every week, I can say that you will slowly get a group of players who have come to fully respect your work and show their appreciation openly.

Dark Archive 1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ferious Thune wrote:
At the very least, THIS FAQ still applies. It was actually opened up farther than when this thread was created.

Ah yes, thank you. Can't believe I didn't think to look in the FAQs.For some reason, I got too hung up on the OP mentioning the guide.

Dark Archive 1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

So, as this is sticky'ed I read the statement on the first page thoroughly. However, the current version (version 9) does not mention the ability to upgrade items anywhere in it. (At least, not that I have seen. I would be most willing to be shown otherwise.)As such, is this thread still accurate? Could I, say, still upgrade a +1 Longsword to a +2 Longsword, as long as my Fame makes the cost available? Or will it being sticky'ed just confuse new players?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Due to my earlier discovery of Druidic potentials, (a quick search can likely find the thread for those curious), I decided to delve further into Druidic powers and came across another little tid-bit of rules questions I want confirmed/denied.

The Set-up: Druid wild-shapes into an Air Elemental, we'll assume one who's reached the end of the wild-shape "tree" per se. (In other words, a level 12 Druid shifting into a Huge Air Elemental). The special attack has been discussed elsewhere multiple times, but a question I have yet to see be asked...

If a Druid such changed to a Huge Air Elemental uses its Whirlwind ability. The start-up costs a Standard action, maintaining it from that point on until his rounds-per-use end. (6 rounds for the level 12 Druid). In the mean-time, I find no-where that suggests maintaining the WhirlWind is anything but entirely free (not even the cost of a "Free Action" per se). And while the ability specifically prevents the character from gaining his normal attacks or threatening the squares around it... No-where have I found it saying the Druid cannot cast spells during the interim turns. (Assuming, of course, he took the Natural Spell feat, and many cases the Eschew Materials feat aswell).

This allows the Druid to effectively use his move action to "suck up" any character who threatens him, move out of range of anyone who doesn't fail their save, without incurring any AOOs, and cast up to level 6 spells (including healing spells to handle that pesky damage those picked up creatures are hitting you with). Am I correct so far?

If so I must ask another question. Do the creatures allready caught in the WhirlWind get AOOs on him if he doesn't cast defensively? While this seems entirely reasonable since they still get to make attacks (at a -2 to hit, and against DR 5/- all-beit, not to mention the -4 to dex. {However as it's only a negative, and not a complete "loses Dex bonus" can't call them flat-footed}) it also seems strange that a creature so caught in a whirling mass of wind, unable to extricate themselves without flight, and thus carried any such way that the Druid wishes. Can pin-point the portion of the Caster that is actually casting a spell. Especially since the creature did not recieve an AOO against it when first yanked up into the vortex. (Where the creature had more stable ground and view of what all was happening.)

EDIT: had a few spelling errors, cleaned up for ease-of-read

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

It IS still possible for the Druid to gain Vital Strike at lvl 8. At that level, he takes a single level of Fighter, problem solved. Especially since a Druid going the wild-shaping route has probably already focused his stats for melee instead of casting, so giving up a single caster-level to gain an additional 8D8 on his primary form of attack, it's something I know I would do.

Truthfully, for a melee wild-shaper, I would probably forgoe gaining any more Druid levels after it reaches 12 levels in Druid (for max versatility in wild-shape) and simply go Fighter from then on. 6th level spells are nothing to scoff at, you're getting all the wildshape, and you're getting the BAB plus feats to round-out your strengths. Especially with taking the Fighter's Weapon Training in Natural Attacks.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

ninja'd,
twice

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Parka wrote:
Part of the damage might be from the Powerful Charge ability. As an animal companion, its base Gore damage appears to be 2d8 with "Powerful Charge" listed for another 2d8. In its monster entry, the 4d8 damage has the description of "Powerful Charge," which seems to indicate that the extra damage has been factored in.

Actually, check it again. normal attack in its offensive is 4D8+12. Powerful Charge is 4D8+24. As for comparing against an animal companion, it has allready been FAQ'd elsewhere that Animal Companions do not progress ability-wise the same as their monster blocks. (In many ways they actually progress better, but often attacks are slightly weaker. This was something I allready looked into just in case.)

@Archaiek Ah, yes, forgot the BAB req for Vital Strike, based my level off the wild-shape+spell needs. (so, 8D8 at lvl 7, 16D8 at lvl 8... that's a damage jump that'll make any GM's eye twitch.)

@Concerro's first post. Thank you for making it simple to find. I was basing the Natural Attack progression from the stat blocks I most commonly find. (Which usually only shows the common stats,where a Colossal creature usually does 4D6 or less.)

Dark Archive

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

Okay, I know the title seems strange to show up in a rules question thread, but bear with me here, it'll all make sense soon.

First off, the set-up:

Druid Wild-Shapes into the Megafauna, Arsinoitherium from bestiary 2. (entirely legal rather early on in the beast-shape chain actually.)
This creature allready has an attack off the "damage by size" scale. 4D8... more than natural attacks of collosal creatures... but it's only one, so we can live with this (more or less).

Next piece of the set-up, the level 4 Druid spell, Strong Jaw. Here's a copy-paste of the descriptive part I'm about to question. (Bolding mine) "Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is. If the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized, double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead."

And now we get to the question at hand. Clearly, the actual size of the Arsinoitherium is less than Gargantuan or Colossal, however it's one and only attack deals damage in excess of the Colossal so, my interpretation is to treat the Arisnoitherium under those rulles, and deal double of 4D8 damage . (Which, usually when you're doubling damage dice like this, I believe you get to roll twice as many dice? Or do you simply roll the 4D8 and then double that total? Either way, pretty harsh as it stands...)

If I'm wrong, please, tell me now, otherwise this is about to get even more rediculous.

Vital Strike.... You all know what it does by now... combining that, with this creature, with this spell.... Ouch.... Doubly so if my first interpretation of this is true. Cus that would mean for your one attack per turn, at 8th level, you get to roll a total of 16D8 + Strength without even getting a critical hit.

If my second interpretation of the doubling the damage is true, then I must call into question whether or not the dice provided by Vital Strike also gets its final rolled total doubled in this case, (which I would assume would be the original intention of Vital Strike in such a situation... Though this situation is most defiantely out-side of the original intention/balance of these class-features/spells) not that I could honestly complain if the double damage doesn't apply to vital strike.

So, in short, my question is this.... Did I read all this correctly and the Arsinoitherium get's to double that whopping 4D8 attack? And if so, how, exactly, would it, and Vital Strike, get doubled.... oppinions and/or points towards FAQs referencing this are both welcome.

EDIT: went back and fixed the minimum level for Vital Strike, so we don't keep getting responses about that mistake on my end.

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>