Tempest_Knight's page

Starfinder Galactic Ancestries PDF is still missing

The Errata needs errata... there is no Deadly Arms ability on page 105, presumably it is supposed to be Ready Arms

Drone Mechanic issues still outstanding...

Advanced Companions are still not a defined term... the rules don't cover that it means.

Superior Customization still requires a non-existent feat (Superior Drone) as a prereq.

So, only half of the major Drone feat issues have been addressed...

So the intention realy is to copy D&D 5e Adventurer's League?!?

SFS 2.0 seems to be getting worse with each announcement...

We keep seeing growth in PFS2 from players abandoning Adventurer's League...

Since we don't have an official fix of the hot mess that is the current feat chain...
(Based on the descriptions in the Customization section and the Druid Animal Companion feats)

KEY (Prereq) [Animal Companion equivalent feat]

Lv 1) Commercial Customization (Drone Exo)
Lv 4) Tactical Drone (Drone Exo) [Mature Companion]
Lv 6) Tactical Customization (Tactical Drone)
Lv 8) Advanced Drone (Tactical Drone) [Incredible Companion]
Lv 10) Advanced Customization (Advanced Drone)
Lv 14) Superior Drone (Advanced Drone) [Specialized Companion]
Lv 16) Superior Customization (Superior Drone)
Lv 20) Ultimate Drone (Drone Exo)

Note: Given that neither the existing Advanced nor Elite Drone feats allow for being taken multiple times, I would assume the 'fixed' Superior Drone feat would not either.

Currently, the Drone feat chain is filled with undefined terms and impossible or missing prereq feats...

Lv 14 Advanced Drone has itself as it's prereq...

Lv L16 Superior Customization and Lv 18 Elite Drone have the non-existent Superior Drone as their prereq...

The other main assumption is that the Customization feats are placed in the following Class feat level to the Upgrade feats...

Hopefully, Paizo with fix this soon with official errata... but until then, it might help to be on the same page while trying to test the Drone Mechanic...

So the plan is to turn SFS2 in to D&D Adventurer's League... a system hemorrhaging players... a fair number who have been joining PFS2...

Why make SFS in to a Quest only system?

It really does look like it is continuing the 'Starfinder is an afterthought' appearance it has had since inception...

Playtest page is up, PDF is there

Direct PDF Link

* updated with direct link to PDF

... Built and played at level 1 a Stress test... the only real difference to my original Skirmisher build was weapon choice.

Using a Seeker Rifle (Range 120ft.; 1d10 P) and a bit of luck on initiative and attack rolls, the 1st critter died when it moved towards the party...

Got 2 Aimed shots off on my turn, both hit, 1 crit, and hit on the Hair Trigger AoO when it moved...

I am seeing the potential issue now... and will continue to try to Stress Test is at the higher levels...

I am definitely leaning towards the 'Hair Trigger needs to be limited to Pistols' camp...

The more limited range/damage from the 'Pistols' greatly limit the overall power of the Ranged AoO, imho...

The in-universe base is a rice grain of polymer... the UPB...

So you must either spend 10 times the value to make a CP equivalent item if the UPB = 1 SP... or reset the UPB to equal 1 CP...

Would have been easier to just value set the Credit to equal 1 CP...

It would give you the bigger numbers people would expect for modern/future costs...

PF2 Adventurer's Pack costs 1.5 gp... that would be 150 credits... $150 would be a steal for a good backpack and basic camping/adventuring gear in the modern world...

It would also, generally remove the need for fractional credits...

The meta for Starfinder is Ranged combat, not melee... the argument that Multiarms grant you the 'benefit' of swapping weapons without provoking ignores that AoO's are not as ubiquitous as they were in SF1e...

The 3-action economy and Multiple Attack Penalty already stop the 'more weapons = more attacks' issue that people seem to keep jumping on...

The only other issue I have seen, and that I personally agree is an issue, is fixed by Ungainly/Heavy weapons having a built-in limit of 1 at a time, that can be baked into the Traits/Rules for such weapons/items...

Do we have an ETA for the Starfinder Playtest Tracking Sheet?

It is referenced in at least two of the Blogs...
Starfinder Playtest: Demos, Pregens, and Playtest Scenarios!
Starfinder Society Second Edition Playtest

Please provide the alignment requirements of the champion as proof.

So, you are arguing that Alignment is not a requirement for the Champion?

So, I can have a Chaotic Neutral Paladin? (Sarcasm)

If we want to get pedantic, you could be a Champion, you just can't follow any Tenet or Cause...

Tenets are shared by all Champions based on Alignment(Good/Evil).

Cause is based on Specific Alignment(LG/NG/CG/LE/NE/CE).

Your cause must match your alignment exactly.

With no Alignment, there are no Tenets that match your Good/Evil alignment.

With no Alignment, there are no Causes that match your alignment exactly.

The issue is not with the Class's Rules as Written... the issue is with the removal of Alignment and how that impacts a class specifically built to interact with alignment.

Quote:

If a character option has not been reprinted, characters are free to use the option as previously printed, or to select it at any time.

The champion has not been reprinted, thus you can continue to use the original until it is. So those characters are still legal.

Not without the corresponding Required Alignments... with the loss of ALL Alignments, the characters can no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

Tempest_Knight wrote:

As currently laid out, Champions all become illegal as of November 15th...

see above blog; Specific Rules; bullet #1 wrote:

Alignment: Alignment has been removed from the game. PCs and NPCs no longer have alignment.

This means that all Champions become illegal builds on the 15th, as they no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

Can we please get a fix for this issue?

No. Alignment has been removed, which means all alignment requirements have been removed as well. They are replaced by anathema and edicts.

No where has that assertion been stated as a rule.

There has been nothing removing the Alignment requirements from the Champion.

What is being asked for, is an Official ruling stating that, or however else they plan on fixing that.

As currently laid out, Champions all become illegal as of November 15th...

Alignment: Alignment has been removed from the game. PCs and NPCs no longer have alignment.

This means that all Champions become illegal builds on the 15th, as they no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

Can we please get a fix for this issue?

As I recall... Season 7's Faithless & Forgotten trilogy set the major outlook/goal change...

The only clue that the new art is meant to be Zarta is the rough approximation of the Society Guide clothing...

Is there an Online component?

or from other (arcane/divine/primal) spells you gain access to.

In Society play you have access to all non-Limited/Restricted Common spells... so there was no issue, unless you ignore the second half of the oft quoted 'problems sentence...

The 'fix' created a restriction on ALL prepared casters.

The 'fix(2.0)' for the 'fix' only lifts the restriction for 3 of the 5 impacted classes...

And that is before we get into a discussion about the validity of 'clarification' changing the rules...

Good grief... we're creating problems where we don't have or need problems.

The Witch and the Magus don't need clarification because they say

Witch wrote:

You choose these spells from the common spells of the tradition determined by your patron or from other spells of that tradition you gain access to.

Each time you gain a level, your patron teaches your familiar two new spells of any level you can cast, chosen from common spells of your tradition or others you gain access to. Feats can also grant your familiar additional spells.

Magus wrote:

You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list or from other arcane spells you gain access to.

The whole problem was that Cleric, Druid, and Wizard had 'in this book' in their respective spells section and people got all bent out of shape trying to define what the 'access' definition meant.

The Pathfinder Society (Second Edition) Guide to Organized Play in the Players > Player Basics > Spells entry states clearly that...

Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

There are 5 prepared caster classes... Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Witch, and Magus...

We have an FAQ entry that lifts that restriction for the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard.

We can get into the validity of a FAQ Clarification rewriting a Rule instead of clarifying... but that is a different issue...

The issue has always been people ignoring the second half of the 'problem' sentence...

As defined by the CRB (Glossary and Index, pg. 629)
Common (trait) Anything that doesn't list another rarity trait (uncommon, rare, or unique) automatically has the common trait. This rarity indicates that an ability, item, or spell is available to all players who meet the prerequisites for it. A creature of this rarity is generally known and can be summoned with the appropriate summon spell.

As defined by Merriam-Webster, as there is no Game Term definition...
Access (noun) 1b: freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something
(and before you ask... 1a relates to access to place/person/thing... 1c relates to entering/approaching a place... 1d relates to the verb usage...)

As defined by Merriam-Webster, as there is no Game Term definition...
Available (adjective) 1: easy or possible to get or use; 2: present or ready for use

Any prepared spellcaster can use the Learn a Spell activity to learn any common spells they have access to from tutors at the Grand Lodge. This adds no additional material cost beyond the standard cost for the Learn a Spell activity. Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

The important part is that last sentence...

Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

The Witch and Magus classes are both prepared casters.

The FAQ entry only references the Cleric, Druid and Wizard.

All five classes are prepared casters... the issue isn't the text in the Core Rulebook... each has, verbatim "or from other <tradition> spells to which you gain access." right after the 'spells from this book' text... (the <tradition> should be replaced with the correct tradition for each class for the full verbatim text...)

According to the PFS rules on Rarity and Access, as long as it is not Limited or Restricted, you have Access to all Common options (in this case, Spells)... Until the rule I quoted above that added a new rarity, at least functionally...

We went from Common(open), Uncommon(minor hoops), Rare(major hoops), Unique()...
To Common, Common-ish, Uncommon, Rare, Unique...

Common-ish being not quite Uncommon, but definitely not Common...

That area where you can't just take the supposedly Common option, you have to jump through an additional set of hoops(Learn a Spell) to take the 'Common' spell...

I sense a disturbing lack of Ramming Prow...

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

So, does this new discretion apply more broadly?

This is in direct conflict with the basic principles, let alone the rules, of Organized Play.

There is one question, if they are legal for the duration of the Playtest they are legal at all Organized Play tables.

If they are not, then they are not legal at any Organized Play tables.

Or you need to add an addendum to the above rules for Organized Play Playtest to allow the banning of some legal options at GM discretion...

No.

We can be respectful of GM boundaries when new rules are being tested. Not everyone is going to be comfortable with that right away.

The GM can ask that no one bring a Playtest Character, but cannot, by the rules, ban someone from playing one.

I'm all for respecting GMs' preferences, but not at the expense of the rules.

This way leads to GMs banning legal options they don't like.

Paizo has a long standing history of the Pregens are Special and don't need to follow the rules...

PF1 examples...
Yoon is just a Small size Human... Amiri has two Combat traits... there are others...

This has led to issues in the past, and will probably continue to in the future, but the Kobold pregens in this case are only usable for 1 module, so not a big issue.

Goblins get an out:

Rough Rider wrote:

You can always select a wolf as your animal companion, even if you would usually select an animal companion with the mount special ability, such as for a champion's steed ally.

And, that's what I get for not checking Rough Rider... ^_^

... now to rummage through the pile of GM credits...

It sure would be nice if this position was taken for PFS2...

~

Thanks for getting the Society Playtest rules out ahead of the actual Playtest document! ^_^

Now to make sure my local GM corps are at least passingly familiar with them...

Michael Sayre wrote:

[lots of stuff]

Thank you for taking the time explain the Organized Play Team's decision not to sanctioning Agents of Edgewatch. I know it isn't always easy to wade into the comments, but I'm glad you did.

... I too thank you for your time and effort... and I do apologize, as I seem to have a tendency to come off as more confrontational than intended...

... any way we could get some reinforcements to help hold off the Smurf invasion?!

Just remember the Bestiary (1) is both sanctioned, and also, not sanctioned...

It is listed under "Legal Sources"

But it is not defined under "Books"

Ergo, it is sanctioned, but we have no directions on how/what is sanctioned...

On Paizo forums, you can only edit or delete your post for an hour after it is posted. After that, it is locked into stone for all time.

... or Act of G...MOD...

Lot's of bad ideas make it through development, what's your point.

People were voicing complaints against it the moment it was announced so drop the "Socio-Political Current Events" and "socially mandated" catchphrases.

So, you are saying that that has had nothing to do with the decisions and statements Paizo has made about the AP?

It was just coincidence that the timing coincided with just about every business making their "socially mandated" statements of solidarity because of the "Socio-Political Current Events"...

~

I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of the position that we(Paizo) will develop and publish objectionable content but we will also claim no ownership for it...

We will publish it, we will profit from it, but we will feel bad about it...

~

The AP could have been developed without the objectionable content, and still been a 'you are the (Good) Cops' theme...

Simple things would have needed to been changed...
> Don't base the economics of 'confiscating'(Stealing) things from the people...
> Set up conflict resolution as social interaction and compromise, not combat...
> Set up a system of checks and balances for the PCs actions...

Adam Yakaboski wrote:

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

*<Uncomfortable Truths...>
The 'objectionable themes' in Agents of Edgewatch were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

The Objection has come since it has become socially mandated that companies loudly and visibly object to the 'objectionable themes'...

Those 4 issue Pirate Robb highlighted in his SPOILER were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

Current(2020) Socio-Political Current Events are the only real issue behind not sanctioning the AP... If the AP was truly objectionable to Paizo, it would not have been developed, let alone published.

No actually if you go back and read the original post not everyone at Paizo was happy and one person pushed the idea.

And in fact Eric Mona expressed regret that he had let the idea go through and didn't listen to the people expressing their reservations, and all but stated that if it wasn't essentially financial ruin for Paizo at that point, he would have pulled the product.

... Did it make it through Development to go on to be published?

.. it wasn't 'objectionable' enough to be deemed a no-go until Socio-Political Current Events mandated it be objected to...

Since then, it has been given the 'can't touch it with a 10-foot pole' treatment... as socially mandated for anyone who doesn't want to be labeled as pro-(Bad)Cop and/or racist.

~

You can argue semantics, but that is the simple truth...

I'm not trying to callout anyone or accuse anyone of anything, but pointing out that if it was 'objectionable' enough to warrant the 'untouchable' treatment it is currently receiving, it was 'objectionable' enough to warrant it not making it out of development.

TOZ, the point was it was retired for bad Scenario/Encounter design, not objectionable themes...

Thus not proving the point of retiring/un-sanctioning because of things that have become* objectionable themes.

~

*<Uncomfortable Truths...>
The 'objectionable themes' in Agents of Edgewatch were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

The Objection has come since it has become socially mandated that companies loudly and visibly object to the 'objectionable themes'...

Those 4 issue Pirate Robb highlighted in his SPOILER were ok with Paizo during development... (proof: It was developed.)

Current(2020) Socio-Political Current Events are the only real issue behind not sanctioning the AP... If the AP was truly objectionable to Paizo, it would not have been developed, let alone published.

The APs are all 'Campaign mode'...

There is no Society option... so any argument that it isn't 'Society friendly' is an argument in bad faith.

~

PF1 APs had an option between Society and Campaign modes of play, so an AP not being 'Society friendly' was an issue...

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

We also have access per the Character Options blog to take non-CRB common spells as starting options...

Please keep that discussion in that thread. Don't need two threads blowing up.....

I'm just pointing out that Jared's point is true in both, even though his position is inconsistent between the two...

Gary Bush wrote:

Jared Thaler wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

Mathieu Lalancette wrote:

Another question has been bothering me. When you say all characters have access to Atone and Raise Dead rituals, does that mean that we can find and buy them or that we can have someone perform those for us? I would be leaning on the second side, but I just need ta make sure.

I don't every see PC getting access to rituals. We will be able to have the ritual performed for us but we will not get access to the actuallly perform the ritual.

Remember, rituals are different and takes multiple people to preform. Not easy for a PC to pull off.

But easy for a party, and only the primary caster needs to be trained if I recall.

Yea, but rituals are downtime activities and are uncommon or higher. So I guess it is possible one could be opened by a boon.

I just don't see it happening.

Per the character options blog, we have access to raise dead.

We also have access per the Character Options blog to take non-CRB common spells as starting options...

Lucky Slicer wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

So a question about the Talisman Cord (page 117). No where in the description does it limit the item level of the talisman that can be attached. But in the description under Type for the level 10 and level 16 items, it says "..since it's higher level, it can hold higher-level talisman."

Should I take this question to the rules forum?

It's in the text of what the talisman does:

Talisman Cord wrote:

When you activate a talisman threaded through a cord with the same magic school trait that's also the cord's level or lower, attempt a DC 16 flat check. On a success, that talisman is not consumed and can be used again.

Wow.. I read that 5 or 6 times before I posted and twice more before I finally saw it..

Thank you!

You are not alone... I spent entirely to long reading and re-reading that trying to figure out how it worked too...

Then the 'I feel stupid' moment of 'how did I miss that?!'

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Disclaimer: I continue to not see the Learn a Spell for non-CRB divine/primal spells rule adding anything to the game.

Since this is something that was given by the designers and not OP, are you also active on the rules forum? I am not trying to be snide or anything and I have not gone to look.

Citation needed.

So far we only have hear-say.

Playing in Paizo's Organized Play we are required to follow the rules and rulings as handed down by the Organized Play Team.

Whether we like or agree with them or not.

~

Also, it might have missed notice, but, technically no ruling has been made as to access, just an allowance to Learn a Spell from the vast Pathfinder Society libraries...

We are, technically, arguing about an implied ruling...

If you are playing PFS, you MUST follow this new rule... to do otherwise would be defined as cheating by the Guide...

I'm all for a forum campaign to get this ruling changed or at least written up where it is more likely to be seen by casual players, the Character Options blog.

~

The other issue this ruling creates is that the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog has been invalidated.

Why? According to the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog, if an option is common and of Standard availability you "can take it as-is".

This ruling says you cannot... if you are a Cleric or Druid, and the option is a spell from any source other that the CRB.

...

They *cannot* change core rules of the game.

...

If no rarity appears in the traits of an item, spell, or other game element, it is of common rarity. Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training, grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world. Rare items are almost impossible to find and are usually given out only by the GM, while unique ones are literally one-of-a-kind in the game. The GM might alter the way rarity works or change the rarity of individual items to suit the story they want to tell.

Standard: Standard availability just means that the option’s rarity for Organized Play is unchanged from the rarity printed in its sourcebook. If the option is common in the sourcebook, that means it’s common for Pathfinder Society, so you can take it as-is (assuming you meet all the usual prerequisites). If the option is uncommon in the sourcebook, that means it’s uncommon for Pathfinder Society, so you need to gain access to it somehow (see below for more on that!). Almost all options are standard availability unless otherwise stated.

According to the 'core rules of the game', Clerics and Druids have access to the common spells...

We have literally had this explained to us.

Now we have a ruling that it is in violation of that explanation.

A common spell of Standard availability, according to the Character Options blog and the Rarity and Availability in Organized Play blog can be taken "as is."

~

That said, since the Organized Play Team has made this ruling, we MUST abide by it. It is part of the 'price' we pay to play in the Campaign.

~

I will continue to request that this change be added to the Character Options blog so that new players and those that don't spend their time digging through the blogs/forums will know of this change and be able to abide by it.

... seems like the solution is to have the boons on the chronicles...

I still don't understand why they changed to this...

Do we finally get Guns...

If nothing has changed with how you assign Chronicle earned boons, it makes even less sense to remove them from the Chronicle sheets...

HumbleGamer wrote:

I totally disagree, and the way it is written doesn't prove what you say.

I see no reason, apart what I pointed out before, to deal with flat-footed in a so difficult way ( they would have just said it in a more simple way).

Trying to shut it down, ignoring it, wouldn't solve the problem either.

Ps: instead, if we want to consider that they intended something else, well... Anybody could guess what he wants.

I'm confused by what you mean.To me it takes more difficult interpretation to reach a point that says flanking doesn't apply to ranged attacks, if you also have a melee weapon or unarmed strike that you're able to make attacks with.

The majority of the rules of flanking deal only with establishing what is required to be flanking, which can easily be done while also wielding a ranged weapon. Nothing in the rules for flanking remotely hints (IMO) that it's restricted only to melee weapons, merely that melee weapons are required to achieve it.

If they wanted it to be clear, they could have kept wording that they used from PF1 "when making a melee attack".

Nothing in the rules for flanking remotely hints that is applicable to ranged attacks...

~

Basic English Comprehension exercise...

Read a section of text, then determine the subject and/or scope...

For this exercise, let us use the Flanking rules in the CRB...

The Subject is easy... as the section has a header... Flanking...

The Scope is determined by what is said in the section... The section only ever refers to Melee combat, Melee weapon, and Unarmed (Melee) strikes... Therefore, the Scope is Melee...

~

Is this the intent?

We don't know, we can not determine it through just the written word... it is unclear... It is silent on Ranged combat...

To expand it to apply to Ranged combat, would be expanding it beyond the explicit Scope...

That said, since it is unclear, it requires just a simple statement of intent...

Do we have an ETA for the Season 3 Guide?

Season 3 will be the first season of SFS that does not grant Race boons from scenarios...

~

So, the intention is to force the players to continually refresh the boons tab to see if they unlocked any 'secret' scenario linked boons?

It seems to me that there is an easier way to link boons to scenarios... like, putting them on the sheet...

I fully agree that not all scenarios need boons, but this 'fix' just makes things worse... those of us who primarily play in person will now have both the scenario chronicle sheet AND the unattached boon sheet(s)...

I hope this will have a boon on the chronicle sheet...

I would love to know the reasoning behind the death of chronicle boons...

~

If, as has been suggested by some, it is a matter of on-boarding... then moving to AcP would make things worse... X games for Y option...

A benefit of scenario boons is you can immediately gain an option, or start earning an option.

~

Anyone starting SFS with season 3 or PF2 with season 2 are going to be much worse off then people who have played earlier season scenarios... again, bad for on-boarding new players...

Neither of the Free RPG Day adventures have really compelling items, without scenario boons they are going to be disappointing to a lot of people...

~

I fully support the idea that not all scenarios need boons, but no boons on any scenario seems worse to me...