Thanks, I will forward this on to my venture officer that stated something equivalent to: “I don’t care if the author on the post IS the author of the scenario as well. If they don’t have a dev tag or it isn’t Mike Brock, their opinions don’t matter”. As you can tell this was from a number of years back when the individual was only a VL. And while he and I don’t specifically see eye to eye, I do follow the dictates handed down to me from VO’s of higher rank I fall under. As this counters his mandate I will forward it to him if he ever states this again.
If you had found the official ruling, you would have found me happy, as I am. When the official quote regarding Thurstons ruling was found. I do not feel burnt but rather aided, which is what I was looking for. And I thanked the person whom did aid me. I then forwarded the correct interpretation on to the involved parties locally.
I was not referring to interpretation, but rather to the point accrual being forbade as cited on page 22of the guide. I could have written that better, sorry.
Thanks for that. That was exactly what I (and a few others) spent the better part of eight hours looking for outside of this forum. I am used to legalease an if X then only X. Not really used to if X then only X and sometimes Y, where acquisition of Y is not specifically called out.
This shall be applied forward and retroacted where I can.
As to the comunity “trust us, this is how it works” I have been burned far too many times trusting that approach where something appeared to me to be disallowed, sadly. So, at that point, I start looking until I find definitive evidence one way or the other from an official or one of my upper venture officers. Even then there have been instances of a VO being incorrect on rules.
Gary Bush wrote:
Nowhere in any scenario with a faction tag, which I reviewed, does it indicate that the general rule is voided (the general rule indicating that only the slotted faction can be accrued on p.22). That is an interpretation not supported directly in the text. The interpretation I have provided does not have anyone reading into the text that which is not explicitly stated. I am not saying that this in not ambiguous. I feel that it is. But I am indicating my interpretation does not have me reading into what I feel the developers meant.
I disagree. To me, this is merely a placeholder for the transcription of the faction reputation totals. If it were as you suggest, then there should be one blank for each of the five factions as well as any secondary factions that will come along. There are not enough blanks to track each faction. This, again in my interpretation, indicates that the society does not consider that more than three factions will be purchased to support.
Neither of these objections address why the few scenarios I reviewed would prompt player to slot the faction tagged in the specific scenario. If the players are getting the additional faction anyway during play passively and there is no added benefit for being that faction during play (in the scenarios I reviewed there were no benefits) why prompt the slotting? I have a difficulty believing that writers would prompt the slotting of a faction, which if it is not your original faction, you would have to pay for without reason. What would be the rationale for doing this?
It is not that I cannot see there is ambiguity here. I have an open mind on this. That said, the belief that the additional reputation is automatically accrued requires interpretation which is directly forbade. And there is not explicit caveat directly stated regarding this case. As I recall, at release this was how I was directed to report by staffers. I came here hoping for an official ruling one way or the other by a developer or other member able to provide such.
Gary Bush wrote:
Sadly, this does not help me because of the text in the Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide (page 22) citing:
“FACTION BOON SLOT
So this would imply success indicates eligibility, but accrual only happens when the additional [scenario tagged] point aligns with the slotted faction champion. Further, the indication in several scenarios stating “This scenario is of high importance to the [scenario tagged] faction, and PCs should be encouraged to slot this faction as one of their boons.” makes little, if any, sense if you get the extra point anyway.
As to the scenario bonus button mentioned in reporting, I have not tried it but this could be a faction selective toggle with the intent being only tagged factions receive the extra point.
If that were to have happened, as I understand it, he would have been removed from society play entirely and banned from the stores in the area. Beyond that there are activities which could result in the banning from VO status but acceptance as a player, I am sure. Projecting the unknown sends individuals to extremes. The extremes suggested in your post would have far harsher punishment.
Regarding Ray of Enfeeblement, I would provide the multiplier for critical hits as a GM, though disallow the sneak attack damage.
Page 184 indicates: "A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit... (Ray of Enfeeblement requires an attack roll) ...If a spell causes ability damage or drain (see Appendix 1), the damage or drain is doubled on a critical hit."
Now it has been pointed out to me that the Strength modification is due to a penalty and neither damage nor drain, cited in the Critical Hits section referenced above. However, the appendix 1 (p.555) lumps The "Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain" together. Further, the section indicates "Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect (I am taking this to mean the spell), these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die."
Since the penalty counts as damage for purposes of the spell and due to a roll being required in order to score the critical, it is my take that this penalty should be doubled.
While I can see the argument for hit point damage being associated with it and while I have yet to find a definition of "precision damage" which I understand sneak attack falls under, items which deal precision damage generally have suggested weapons as the means of their addition. So while I cannot specifically find a reference which disallows it, I am not inclined to believe it is in the spirit of the rules to allow this damage. It is not only an ability which does no hit point damage but which also does not use a weapon as its means of inflicting said damage.
I have had multiple discussions regarding "at will" abilities. From Paladin players who would like to Detect Evil as an immediate or free action (followed by the requisite move action concentration) to one gamemaster who decided for his last encounter used all four of his creatures "at will" abilities as free actions before taking it's swift, move and then standard.
I tend to consider "at will" abilities which "function like x spell" to have a casting time and be noticed as if one were casting a spell of an equivalent nature. However, this would tend to hamstring Paladin in battle causing them to loose a standard action along with the move for concentration and for that matter one trying to covertly assess the trustworthiness of an NPC. I am adverse to hamstringing my PC's. At the same time, the Druid Wild Shape ability is very explicit stating the differences in the ability and Beast Shape I regarding ability activation time etc.
The issue with the character class ability is also complicated by monsters who generate spell effects "at will". With the exception of the gamemaster cited, most gamemasters I have run into are fair and consistent. The thing that troubles me though is most gamemasters I have played with tend to use "at will" abilities as though the creature causing the effect is generating the effect both still and silent. There is no perception check to notice casting/point of effect generation. At times, I have played where the source has remained concealed whilst all of a sudden, the party is facing a summoned creature/spell effect out of thin air for single or multiple rounds running.
Usually at worst I give my players a perception check to notice the use of an "at will" power when a spell is being emulated. For verbal spells I use a DC 0 plus distance and circumstance modifiers (equivalent to hearing the details of a conversation). I choose this a for having to "speak in a strong voice" during the typical spell casting which the ability emulates. I tend toward a DC 15 for somatic plus distance and circumstance modifiers (difficulty to notice an average concealed door). This presumes the party is unawares of the creature(s) presence.
Personally, if I think it will come up, before I sit at the table I ask for gamemaster clarification. I would, however, like to be directed to either an official ruling on this or be provided with one. That way if it ever comes up in a society game I can adjudicate the rule and know what to expect consistently and objectively per the rules.
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Certainly Michael. The company is called Spoonflower. You can create n account at www.spoonflower.com. The means by which I do the conversion to get the maps printed are detailed here:
do remember to scale the map correctly (as indicated in the poster advice above) or you will get a map 1/2× or 2× scale. The fabric type I use is the performance knit and can generate a map 56" x 36" at 150 dpi. It took me a bit to get the hang of it, but you have seen the results yourself.