Search Posts
Hi, Victoria. I’m the Venture-Captain in Atlanta, and the Columbus/Fort Benning area falls under me. We used to have a group there a few years back, but the Venture-Officer who oversaw it for us was transferred to a different military base. Hearing that you are wanting to bring Organized Play back to the area makes me glad to hear. I would like to talk more about it with you when you have time. If you email me using joel@atlantapfs.org, we can start the conversation and bring Org Play back to Columbus.
Extremely fair feedback, so let me address what I can here. There are a number of VO committees/task forces that exist on a volunteer basis (the list was under Volunteer Opportunities on the old OPF website). Each committee has a specific directive they work on. The tools we'd be talking about are community tools to help bring in new players, GMs, VOs, and Lodges. Whether the tool is to point to existing things in the world by compiling links in one place or by the creation of a guide or handout that can be used to help navigate through PFS/SFS. One item that was being worked on of late was an update to the GM 101 document. I hope that helps. If not, feel free to reach out to me and we can talk through it.
Because of some of the answers given on the survey so far, I need to make clear what we're asking is what the Onboarding Committee can offer as far as tools. The Onboarding Committee is a group of Venture-Officers putting tools together to help bringing new players, GMs, Venture-Officers, and lodges into the Organized Play program. Asks for specifics from Paizo regarding product offerings/pricing/VTT support are not within our scope or our ability to provide.
Happy New Year to all. As we start the new year, the Onboarding Committee is asking for your help. Specifically, we need your feedback. We're asking that you think about what would help you onboard new players, GMs, VOs, or lodges today to PFS/SFS and what tools would have been helpful to have when you first started with PFS/SFS. Our focus currently is on PFS2, but we will be using this feedback and what we learn to guide us in creating tools for SFS2 as well. To that end, please take a moment to fill out the anonymous survey we're using to capture feedback. This community input is crucial to giving us direction on what we should be working on in the eyes of the people for whom these tools are being created. We thank you in advance for your time and for participating in this community survey.
Running this (finally) on Saturday and there's one bit at the end of B6 about "as the blade disappears" a wounding fusion seal coming out of the wound. But, what level is the fusion seal? Is it the same level as the sword or is it a different level based on the room breaking down items?
I'll freely admit to not having read through the entire book yet, but I've found two items that will likely need an errata entry at some point. The first is on Titanic Momentum under Solarians as it calls it out as a graviton revelation but later indicate the benefit lasts 1 round or until you leave photon mode. The second is in the section on the specialized uses of Resolve points. Quick Fusion does not take into account the errata to CRB that already changed the fusion seal activation time from 24 hours to 10 minutes. There could be more I haven't seen yet, but, that's what I've seen so far. On the whole, I'm happy with what's in this book and have already purchased the boon for the additional specialized Resolve use for my characters and will probably get one to make a Novian while I'm at it!
Thanks, Doug. I've added a subdomain to the AtlantaPFS website and spent some time making updates based on what's in the ticketing system. The subdomain with updated content can be found here
Thanks, Doug. I'm taking this copy and making the same updates I've recorded in the ticketing system since this version was made public and will also host a mirror as a subdomain on the AtlantaPFS website once those updates have been made.
I've been thinking about this for a bit, and there was some discussion around it last night on the lodge Discord server. When a player builds a character in SF1, they're not necessarily always building a character optimized for a Starship role. During sessions as a GM, there's normally a "well, you've got the best bonus in this skill" or "I don't have any relevant skills for any role but Chief Mate or Gunner" moment. As a result, players can sometimes feel stuck. This is where I started thinking about the change to the rules to more closely mirror how PF2 does things. It would be helpful, though I understand it would likely be a major undertaking for the development of the system, if skill feats and combat feats worked in both personal combat and starship combat roles, with the feats describing their benefits in each situation vs. having to select different feats based on whether you're attempting to optimize for Starship vs. Personal combat situations. That having been said, not all feats have to work in both situations, but those that make sense to benefit both calling it out would be a step in the right direction.
HeroLab online lost my support after 13 years and hundreds of dollars of content purchases, licensing, and monthly fees as well as having been a beta tester for their new offerings. Even though purchasing the content on HeroLab will give you a free copy of the .pdf in your Paizo digital account (which then does count toward OP ownership rules), I have to agree about the promises not being kept, lack of innovation, and the lack of support. When you submit a bug report, it's still open a year later, no one gets back to you, and then the owner whines about the fact they're a small shop, asks you how you'd do it differently and you provide detailed steps on how you'd do it, also indicating a timeline where you'd like to see at least some steps being taken to correct issues and that comes and goes without action, you realize you're on the Titanic and it hit the iceberg.
Thanks for reaching out. We're going to have approximately 32 tables between PF2 and SF, including a number of PF2 Bounties. The table count is much lower than the pre-COVID table counts, however, we were limited by the number of volunteers we had available to run sessions. The DragonCon gaming site should also show which scenarios/tables have available seats, though they're no longer doing pre-sales for tickets and will only be selling them at the event. When you're on the gaming website or in the app, make sure you're looking for Pathfinder Society or Starfinder Society rather than just Pathfinder or Starfinder or you won't be seeing the right schedule. Also, DragonCon does not publish a schedule of Bounties, so those are not visible at all. With that said, this is the schedule I submitted to DragonCon leadership. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me via email joel@atlantapfs.org or on our Discord server
In the Treasure area for Ruptured Hills on p. 13, a rock on the ground is mentioned to function as a "Major T-Quark Crystal" and points to p. 49 of the Armory. Major is not an option for T-Quark Crystals. Per the Armory, T-quark crystals are available in least, minor, lesser, standard, greater, and true varieties. WIth this being a low level range, should this be a least (level 2) or minor (level 5) T-Quark Crystal?
I do have personal theories on who I think is the big bad(or at least joined the bad guy's side) based on starfinder tech and insulting pathfinders repeatably, so it could be just full on spite.This keeps up we're going to need a Second Seeker Datch faction who agree the society needs to be taken down... That was my thought as well.
I'm currently beginning my prep to run this scenario online this weekend and I've run into a hitch. On pgs. 21 and 25, in the Ruined Valley encounters, neither the Skeletal Vesk nor the Skeletal Pahtra show an Initiative listing. Should they be Initiative 0, or was this an oversight?
I ran this scenario twice in the past 72 hours with very different experiences. The party on Saturday was 4 Operatives (one was an Operative / Biohacker) and a Mystic. The APL ended up in the high range at 6.8, making 2 of the operatives play up. The scenario took 7 hours to complete with this party mix after getting bogged down in the first match for about 3 hours of the session. The second session had a greater variety of character classes and completed the scenario in just over 5 hours. One player raised a question as a result of the scenario. Given that the Society is furnishing members for Zo!’s shows, and this scenario in no way required non-lethal damage, not was there a direct mention of the defeated opponents being brought back to life after the show, does this now mean the Society is supporting premeditated murder, and if not, does that indicate that players participating in Zo’s murder games should expect their characters to gain infamy?
Altering my comment a bit after running this a second time today. scenario feedback: The session I ran first was played at high level, but had 2 players using Level 5 characters. Between the arena effects and the combat being more difficult for them, as well as having had a party of 4 Operatives (Operative 5, Operative 5, Operative 6 / Biohacker 2, Operative 8) and a Mystic (Mystic 8), it caused the 3 hour 1st encounter of 5. I ran the scenario for the second time today with a party that had a better mix of classes (Mystic 7, Operative 5, Mystic 7, Envoy 1 / Soldier 6, Envoy 7 / Soldier 1), and it was finished in just over 5 hours. Though I do believe making the encores either optional or have the encore rolls have the possibility of not including an encore would be beneficial in keeping it to the time in which a scenario should run), I also fully realize the 7 hours was caused partly from the party mix and the need to add and create effects in the VTT that may not have already existed, combined with the complexity of the scenario.
I also had one player in the session on the 26th ask (in character) if the Starfinder Society was now condoning the murder of sentient beings, having signed up the PCs to participate in a competition that did not require the use of nonlethal damage the way the final encounter in 2-01 Pact World Warriors did. They also mused, out of character, about what this may mean for the Society and its reputation.
I ran this today for the first of two sessions I'll be running (second is tomorrow), with a party of 4 Operatives and a Mystic. Based on that, it took nearly 7 hours to finish the entire scenario (encounter 1 bogged them down and took approximately 3 hours to finish). scenario feedback: Marking the encores as optional, or giving a random chance for there to be no encores could help cut down on run time. I did warn the players this one could run long, after my reading and prep work, but they wanted to complete it, in spite of it going long.
I'm running this scenario on Saturday in Fantasy Grounds Unity, and in the course of my prep work tonight, I came across something I have to question. Enemy: When it comes to the Unliving Magefire in each level range, EAC is higher than KAC (vs. the standard of being the opposite). Is 19 EAC/18 KAC accurate for the low range, and is 23 EAC/20 KAC accurate for the high range?
As a GM you can audit the character yourself. That piece, I do know, though I have seen nothing that calls out specifics on audits, other than that they are permitted. The reason I approached the VC about it was for guidance on an “official process”, should one exist, and so the VC can have other GMs in the area also keep an eye out for inconsistencies and issues with this players characters.
I need some feedback on this as it’s a touchy subject. There is a player I GM for who’s nerfed their character to be the best at everything, and, quite frequently at the table, they will announce that the auto succeed at either an aid another action or at specific skill checks. As high as the bonuses on the character may be, however, I am of the mindset that you don‘t take an action at all unless you roll (or announce taking 10 or 20, when permitted to do so). This came up in a big way when running SFS 2-12, when they announced an auto success where their maximum roll would have been below the scenario stated DC. With that said, how would you handle this? Am I right to force the roll or to announce taking 10 or 20, especially if there is suspicion the player may not be being honest about die rolls?
Disregard.... I found the answer when I grabbed my book late last night. Repair Item You can use Engineering to repair a mechanical, technological, or hybrid object or piece of equipment, as long you have access to it. The amount of time this takes typically depends on the complexity of the object. You can repair an object or piece of equipment you crafted in half the usual time. The DC of the check is determined by the GM and based on the complexity of the object. If you succeed, you restore a number of Hit Points equal to the result of your Engineering check. If you fail the check by 10 or more, you damage the object further, dealing 1d4 damage to it; this damage can’t reduce an item to fewer than 1 HP. If the object or piece of equipment is damaged but not broken, you can repair it at no cost. If it is broken but not destroyed, you must spend 10 UPBs per item level (assume a simple item has an item level of 1) each time you attempt to repair it. A destroyed object or piece of equipment can’t be repaired with the Engineering skill. You can’t take 20 on an Engineering check to repair an item or object. The DC for an Engineering check to repair an item is based on the complexity of the object. The following chart provides base DCs by complexity and examples of such items. The GM may adjust these DCs and times to reflect other circumstances.
Starfinder already does an excellent job of feeding players the ability to play a number of non-standard races through play and that's wonderful but if you don't hold something back to be given as a reward then its really hard to reward people who provide the services that make this campaign function. I have a thought on this. If Paizo were to go down the "if it's listed as a playable race, it's open to everyone in SFS" road, then a GM race boon would still be viable, if it were for a race that is not open to all to plan. Or, if it were open to GMs, Con boons, etc. a number of months in advance of other players (3 - 6 months, for example, to have players nearly salivating, wanting these new races to play). Incentives will always be needed to get people to GM. Far too many are reluctant, not only for con GM duties, but for any GM duties. I can't tell you how many people have been asking about me giving them my now unlocked Uplifted Bear at the share with another level of check boxes. It also gives those who get that early release of a race the chance to playtest it while showing it off to everyone else who then wonders how they got it and will possibly follow the same path the GM did to get the new toys sooner.
|
