And the hp and proficiency progressions... putting them at fastest armor progression in heavy armor. Not to mention the save progressions.. and feats... really, as mentioned. I can easily see an argument for the loss to be an "only" instead of a "ton"... thus, I must agree with Hmm, and prefer this not be done purely for roleplay
That is a fair response. I was mostly responding to the question about starting higher level, and what I feel is a better start point. It didn't take into account, at all, the release schedule. Which does make the entire thing make more sense.
As I don't see it showing up in book 3 either. I've decided that this is a previously unlisted Kaiju. With that, I DO like the name. Taking the kanji for the three sounds, and common readings from them, I get "The Wing of Bitter Time". Which, to me at least, combining that with negative energy screams of some flying Kaiju, with a power to rapidly age things/creatures. It could even, in theory, age away all legends of itself. As everything that has it's name written on it rapidly ages and crumbles to dust. Leaving him a mystery kept only in verbal legends... (Could even make it so those who know the tales of him ALSO rapidly age...)
Just my fun thoughts on it.
I like starting higher... but 12 is a very BIG jump. Maybe starting closer to 5 or 7? Enough for plenty of "takes several levels to get to" concepts to come online, and that much closer to those that need even more time, while having less of an extreme jump.
Especially since the higher your level, the less you can really define the previous adventures, which can make it harder to connect with that character’s past
Frustration of an Aeon wrote:
To answer your question form game-play tab. yes, hero points allow you to spend 1 for the ability to re-roll a d20 roll (but you cannot spend another to re-roll the re-roll) and you take the new result, even if it is worse.
Also, when down and dying, but not dead, you can spend all your possessed hero points at that time, to automatically stabilize, and not gain the Wounded condition. (You don;t get rid of the condition if you already had it though.) Here's a place to read the full details.
Then they should have fixed it on the scenario itself and perhaps not deepened on people to read a thread for that information.
While I agree. I also know there are plenty of typos out and about, and they are slowly fixing them... This is one that has been out a long time, but I suspect it will get fixed eventually.
Leg o' Lamb wrote:
Nah, he's a Unique option. Compared to the costs of Rare that exist, seems pretty cheap to me... better make sure we aren't getting jipped.
Watery Soup wrote:
As others have said, they are already increasing the upper cap. Whether that will go all the way to 20 is a good question. However, having run a couple APs all the way to level 20, I found it to be less of a giant hurdle to maintain than expected. It's true, that I went all the way up with a single group, so there was less variation than would be experienced across society play. However, it is not nearly as bad as 1e was. Not yet anyway.
Further, re-playable scenarios do exist in 2e. Which means, as time goes on, I suspect we will slowly diverge from the inverse square rule described by Watery Soup... How far is debatable, but I'm sure the Devs are fully aware that people want to play their beloved characters as high level as they can go. As such, I expect them to get us there sooner than season 36... Not sure where I'd stake it at for, though.
Doc Featherton, Nuoc proxy wrote:
While true... I do not believe that Into the Fray would work to get both guns out. As it specifies a one-handed ranged weapon, and a one-handed melee, and the attached trait calls out the following, bolding mine:"An attached weapon must be combined with another piece of gear to be used. The trait lists what type of item the weapon must be attached to. You must be wielding or wearing the item the weapon is attached to in order to attack with it. For example, shield spikes are attached to a shield, allowing you to attack with the spikes instead of a shield bash, but only if you’re wielding the shield. An attached weapon is usually bolted onto or built into the item it’s attached to, and typically an item can have only one weapon attached to it. An attached weapon can be affixed to an item with 10 minutes of work and a successful DC 10 Crafting check; this includes the time needed to remove the weapon from a previous item, if necessary. If an item is destroyed, its attached weapon can usually be salvaged."
My, personal, reading of that suggests you would draw the attached weapon, not the attaching weapon, to make an item ready. Which would be drawing two separate ranged weapons then.
Into the Fray would, however, let you draw the bayonet, specifically, into your off hand if it is detached. As the bayonet item has a special rule to itself, that allows it to be wielded unattached.
"Bayonet: This blade or spike can be attached to a crossbow or firearm but, unlike other attached weapons, can be wielded in one hand as its own weapon. When used as a separate weapon, it can’t benefit from any runes or abilities that function only for attached weapons."
Bolding mine again. The fact it calls out a detached bayonet as able to be wielded as it's own weapon, suggests to me, again, that an attached weapon is considered part of the weapon it is attached to...
This is, of course, all my own interpretation, and I leave it to table GM to make a ruling in this game... Just something I noticed and figured I'd bring up for people to be aware of in case of future table variation.
I can understand desiring such a clarification. And would welcome it if it arrives.
However I know of vary few companies who would be willing to post the full details of their decision-making processes out in such a place. In case the details need changing in the future. Because if, somehow, an issue arises. We'll people pointing to the post going "But you said this!"
Future-proofing exists in both game-design, and official statements.
The Drunken Dragon wrote:
Just wanting to jump in here and state that. nowhere in the post, does it state such a decision tree DOESN'T exist. Possibly a really, really, good one that has no discrimination in it what-so-ever.
All we do know, is that they adjusted their policy to default to one person per room. Further, some people here have found this to be lacking, in a "side-step the issue" way... However, they ignore the follow-up line stating that if multiple employees want to share a room they may request to do so.
This can be viewed multiple ways.
1) That it allows them to continue to deny such transgender room sharing, under the statement "not our policy".
2) It now allows them to openly allow room sharing of any two, or more, members under the agreement of "You willingly choose to room with this other person, and accept all consequences herein, and we are exempt from any claims of forced discomfort based on perceived gender or sexuality".
We have no way of truly knowing which is the case.
Hello, I just now had a chance to come back around to my account and saw that I never canceled my subscription like I thought I had. Please cancel it for me. I know there are two pending purchases on there because my payment method had expired. If it is okay, just cancel those orders too, as I never intended to end up with them.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
You are correct, and I own the reference book. However, that is not incredibly helpful for those who run physically (when that happens again) and need a refresher. Which is why previously they have put the rules IN the module.
Kwinten Koëter wrote:
Technically, I believe you are correct. However doing so also fails the primary success condition. (as it specifically states they must complete all the combat encounters.)
Just came here to note that this is the first scenario I've run, that involves a secondary rule-subsystem from a book other than Core, that isn't explained in detail in the scenario how that subsystem works. Unless all society GMs are expected to have the GMG, (which I took to not be the case) this seems like an oversight.
For those who dislike having both the spell attack roll as well as the normal strike roll. I am fairly certain this exists to make the magus' spell attack modifier matter, while still having an advantage of gaining weapon proficiency faster. If it was just the one roll, the strike roll, then there's very little reason for the average Magus to invest in Intelligence at all. They simply focus spells that don't care about their spell attack/ability mod and flail away.
In fact its also a balance against multi-classing, or gaining innate spells, and not caring about ever getting above trained in that particular spell list.
Draco, you are 100% correct on all accounts... except this one. A sword-board fighter or Champion can raise a shield to get a AC20. Although, that is costing an action every round.(however it could potentially account for SOME of the low damage.) By shield-blocking once each-round. This will tank some of the damage. (not the "only took 4 damage" amount obviously.) A similar affect is if they were both Champions using shields, and, say, liberating stepped each-other out of danger each round. (reducing damage taken, 20 AC versus 18, costing an extra action of the enemy on movement... Still don't see it winning in Champion's favor without some dice advantage here.)
Also, Monks can get to 19 AC... IF they go crane-stance. This also only uses a single action on one round to get.
It should be noted I absolutely agree that the described situation is hilariously wrong, and the two characters will still lose. However I wanted to point out that there are a couple ways they could have done better than 18 AC.
.... and being the Anime obsessed person that I am... I am now stuck with the mental image of "Witches = Magical Girls"... *heads off to reserve a character.*
I, honestly, would go with player discretion or initiative order. As those are equally "fair" to the PCs and NPCs alike. If it becomes GM discretion, then they have the fact they choose order from both the players, AND the beasties, when such situations arise.
Personally, I leave it to player discretion. This speaks well to the narrative of a group of adventurers working together since they should know each-other's abilities, it also makes for the best "feels good" moment for the players. As well as giving them agency, and rewarding tactical play...
Just my 2 cents
Not to mention, some regions specifically designed their shields to chip and break during combat. Because doing so meant there was a solid chance of enemy weapons getting stuck, even if only temporarily, in the shield. Which opened a tactical advantage. Specifically, your opponent being possibly disarmed, or at the least, off balance.
Further, I believe I read somewhere about Romans being expected to go through multiple shields during a battle. However I can't remember where, or during what time frame, so it may have been in later years when they shifted to less well-made arms due to money reasons.
(As a side note, it was also noted in some accounts, to the stability, and re-useability, of a
The humble buckler, was designed with lasting re-use in mind.
You all are right. Reading over the spell sections again it does mention that components and actions are only "usually" the same. So my previous statement is incorrect. It still does remove the interact trait from the spell. Allowing you to cast it in times you could not otherwise, thus improving it. However it is not nearly as improved as I first read it.
Just chiming in here to make a note about the Elven feat, Elemental wrath. it's not JUST "the acid splash cantrip, but with a different element." It's also the cantrip with only a single action to cast.
"You can call to the land to cast the acid splash cantrip as an innate primal spell at will, except the spell has only verbal components and deals the type of damage you chose instead of acid damage;" (bolding mine.)
As you mention in the into, action economy is paramount. Dropping a spell you already rate at 3/4 stars, to one less action, seems to bump it to "great" to me. Further, if one wasn't going Primal, then it's still an innate spell, which scales on charisma anyway, and thus as a sorcerer is better than innate spells for most other classes. Finally, by getting rid of the somatic component, it drastically reduces the number of enemy reactions that it can trigger.
As such, better action economy, bloodline flexible (for varying degrees of value of course,) as well as element flexible so you can get around immunities/resistances (or if lucky, even hit weaknesses,) and reducing your interaction to enemy aggressive reactions? This is about as much as I, personally, could ask for in a level 1 ancestral feat.
Just my two cents.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
Still waiting on mine, so not all have gone out.
I welcome everyone to Atomic Empire in Durham, NC on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday April 3rd-5th, for AtomiCon VIII: Story and Song. Three days of Pathfinder and Starfinder Society gaming for both new players and old alike. We're running fifteen different adventures across seven slots, ranging from rescue missions on Golarion, to corporate mercenary work on Absalom Station.
This event will also feature the newest Starfinder Society, Multi-Table Special, #2-00 Fate of the Scoured God; during Saturday's afternoon slot. Open for character's ranging from level 1, all the way through to level 12; come join the exciting climatic battle in the Scoured Stars.
Players who prepay online can pay $20 for the entire weekend. Weekend passes purchased during the event costs $25 while single session passes are available for $7 at the door. Prepayment can be made by following this link
I look forward to seeing everyone there!
Was said mother, perhaps, a hamster?
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)
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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
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
Mark Seifter wrote:
I went glaive for the forceful, deadly, reach and great/cleave potential fun times. Especially once the +1 2 or 3 shows up
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.)