His Mighty Girthness Chief Rendwattle Gutwad

pithica42's page

Starfinder Superscriber. ** Starfinder Society GM. 1,132 posts (1,483 including aliases). 7 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 10 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Starfinder Superscriber

I just found out that there is a direct disagreement in the rules on what the term 'Caster Level' is defined as.

On page 330 (or here ) Caster Level is defined as...

Quote:
Your caster level (or CL) represents your aptitude for casting the spells you know, and it is equal to the total number of levels you have in spellcasting classes.

(emphasis added)

Not 5 pages later on page 335 (or here ) Caster Level is defined as...

Quote:
A spell’s power often depends on caster level, which is defined as the caster’s class level for the purpose of casting a particular spell.

I have always played/run the CL for everything as being the total of spellcasting levels per page 330 and wasn't even aware of this discrepancy until this morning. I tried checking the FAQ (not there), and doing a search here in the rules forum (didn't find anything).

I'm not here to argue for either of them, but these two things directly contradict one another and have a pretty big impact for any multi-class spellcasters, so can we get an official answer added to the FAQ?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah, personally, I imagine the overall population is much larger than I think the designers do, and in my headcanon the society is (or at least was, prior to the start of Season 1) easily in the low six figure range for people. The losses prior to season 1 were both direct and indirect as probably many non-agent employees quit or got laid off after the failure of Jadnura's mission and the ensuing organizational chaos and lack of incoming funding.

To me, the organization is just really really flat and most 'agents' don't have set assignments or daily tasks the way they would in a corporate or military structure. Agents are basically expendable freelancers that show up whenever they're bored and not usually full time employees nor soldiers. The full time employees and actual soldiers are usually too important or busy to go out on missions. So in the Society it's much easier for normal low level agents to work directly for high level leaders because those leaders just grab whoever is in the waiting room of their lodge looking at the postings. (Or dropped a LFW tag on WorkMonster.abs this morning.)

Possible minor spoiler for Season 2:
In my head canon this lack of 'organization' for the wetworks side of the society was historically always intentional on their part, precisely to try to prevent anyone accusing them of what they're being accused of in Season 2. If they act like a disorganized mess, no one's going to consider them a threat to existing power structures. The fact that they got their ish together for 1-99 and 2-00 has a bunch of people scared.

One thing HMM didn't mention about Venture Captains that I think is important. Venture Captains seem to usually be the equivalent of semi-retired 'agents' that have become full time employees of the Society. It seems from reading that every 'lodge' has at least one Venture Captain. This person is at least nominally 'in charge' of the lodge and decides what kind of missions get done there. Larger lodges (like the Lorespire Complex) seem to require several just to keep the places running. The factions seem to be like 'meta-lodges' in that they're not always tied to a single location but instead to a general 'mission'. I can't remember if their leaders are called 'Venture Captains' but they're effectively the same thing. So, while we don't know precisely how many of them there are, we can venture to say that it's probably a lot. Certainly a lot more than have actually been canonically named.

EDIT: I would also love to play a game babysitting Fitch's Kids. Though, in my head canon, many of her children are adopted (orphans of lost agents) and in many ways she considers all Starfinders her children, so that could get really interestingly huge.

⦵⦵

Starfinder Superscriber

I'm pretty sure Joe Pasini posted an 'errata' type post about Drones recently in the Rules forum where those questions were answered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Counterpoint.... Bantrid.


Starfinder Superscriber

That's some wicked kung fu.


Starfinder Superscriber

Dangit... I have what I think is a great idea for a flavor article + theme, but I'll be danged if I have the time to write it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

My new favorite aphorism is, ‘an observed cooking receptacle on a heating unit never reaches its boiling point.’


Starfinder Superscriber

Owen and Rob had said in a previous stream that the difference in the two biohackers was feedback they got, understood, and were addressing in the final version.


Starfinder Superscriber

Wow....

Just...

Wow...

That is my jam.


Starfinder Superscriber

Thank you so much for the clarification.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

John said on the twitch stream that the repeatability was so you could get multiple perspectives on the candidates before placing your vote.

I'm just guessing, but I'm betting that if they plan on doing this again in future, they'll 'retire' this scenario and replace it with a new one.


Starfinder Superscriber

In a setting where there's always a full moon somewhere....


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Grave Knight wrote:
Wait, are there really no Kobold stats? Don't they specifically mention Kobolds in Pact Worlds under Triaxus?

Nope. Unfortunately, Captain Obvious was sick the day they discussed that planet at the Paizo offices.

There is a 3pp book (or maybe 2, now) that has them. But I'd prefer they be like Dragoncorp™ office managers and HR reps on Triaxus, officially.


Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah it would be weird for the non-archaic part of the vesk natural attack to stack but not the non-archaic part of morlamaw natural attack.


Starfinder Superscriber

It's powered armor.


Starfinder Superscriber

Thank you.

Based on your responses above, I think I know the answer to the following, but it will come up...

How does the ring of fangs interact with shields?


Starfinder Superscriber

Oh, I forgot. I'd also really like the 'carnivorous butterflies' from Primoria.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

That's my count, too. (100/112)

Things I want in AA4.

PC Stuff...
Grippli (unless they're going to be in the Near Space book)
Tengu
Kobolds
Bugbears
Platyparians
Playable Bone Troopers/Corpsefolk (All this talk of the 'no Con' and/or Immunities 'problem' ignores the fact that PC races do NOT have the same stats/abilities/et al as NPC races. This can be worked out. It isn't even that hard.)
Copaxi
The intelligent fungii from Primoria in DS5 (same planet as Scyphozoans).
Something actually weird (I'm not saying you haven't already done that, but we need at least 2 or three really weird things every book).

Monsters...
More Kaiju.
More 'generic' stat blocks (I could handle 1 or two of these in every book).
More non-combat Robots (and if you want to make them domestic droids, have at it)
More Outsiders (Angels and Demons, and Devils, oh my)


Starfinder Superscriber

Meh. You're giving up an attack now for a slightly better attack later. That's sometimes worth it, but not enough that I'd put one of my 2 or 3 spells known in it. Maybe at higher level when you have 5 or 6 slots and already have 2nd+ level versions of the multi-level spells you want. Then you can afford it.


Starfinder Superscriber

... Even though they're broke-tastic cheese-monsters.


Starfinder Superscriber
Quote:
Now if Computers aren't a class skill, then I'd have 3 instead of 6. I think you're saying that'll still be enough on a ship (I didn't use Keskodai as a sci officer, so I didn't get to try that).

If you look at the DCs. For most of the roles on a Starship, the target you're trying to hit is either 10+1.5*Tier or 15+1.5*Tier. Two of the three SO actions (scan and target) start at 5+1.5*Tier. That means you can get away with lower total bonuses and still (potentially) be effective in the role.

Quote:

But! when I rebuild, I can make Biohacker my 1st level, trade my Needler Pistol for a Rifle, and trade Skill Synergy for a Longarm combat feat. Then I could make Mystic my 2nd level.

So while at level 1 I wouldn't be the best shot, I'd be a decent shot plus good with Computers.

To be clear, you can rebuild as long as you haven't played the character at level 2 (or higher) yet. You may not be able to hold off between now and whenever COM gets an AR entry.

Quote:
Does anyone have any advice about the spells and/or items in the OP? I'm considering Remove Condition (lesser), Fear, Seeking Shot, and Share Language. I'm also wondering if Daze is useful in combat in tier 1-X scenarios (I can always replace it with something else when I rebuild).

There are several scenarios where Share Language or lesser Remove Condition are very helpful. Fear is okay, I think, but I'm not sure. I can't recall what seeking shot does. I've only seen Daze work once (but I can only recall the attempt a handful of times). I certainly wouldn't build anything around it, though.

Quote:
Lastly - how do I purchase drugs and acids to put in my awesome dart gun(s)? I only see Medicinals in the Archives of Nethys, and acid dart guns as a separate type of gun that don't get the Injection quality for some reason. I could ask the GM to let me break batteries and drip out the acid, but I don't know if they'd let me. It also isn't clear to me if I can put a Healing Serum into a dart and shoot it (not sure I'd want to tho, without a Merciful fusion).

There's usually a point early in any scenario and another at the end where you can go shopping. The intent is for you to do this in a formal manner, have the GM mark everything you buy on the chronicle sheet (or at least the total spent) and go from there. In practice, I tend to see most people meta that and use a tracking sheet of one kind or another to keep track of purchases rather than keep it all on the chronicles. YMMV.

I don't think you can buy acid darts, and you definitely can't make them unless you can buy them (there's rules for crafting). You can put a healing serum in a normal dart and shoot someone in the butt with it, though. There are injection rifles that don't do any damage and I believe Biohackers can choose not to do damage with injections (which would include these), but it's been a while since I looked at the playtest document.


Starfinder Superscriber
Hmm wrote:
2) Does the Dawn of Flame AP have rules for all four elemental planar scions?

The answer to this one is no. The AP has rules for all five of the elemental planar scions.


Starfinder Superscriber

So it's basically just a way to use a Zenith early? As (at least currently) all the others grant extra abilities if you're attuned or fully attuned.

That sounds like what you're saying, just trying to confirm.


Starfinder Superscriber

You had me at, "Anonymity was for cowards."


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Obligatory re-request for the new development team to not forget about the 90+ FAQ requests and 278ish posts on this thread.

[cough]FAQ, Please.[/cough]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Quote:
What is there in SFS outside combat, that is valuable to do as a PC? What are my options to be actually useful? Or is it a bad idea to try to be decent at anything besides shooting, healing spells, and science officer?

SFS scenarios are designed to fit inside of a 4 hour window and appeal to as broad a base of players as possible. In general, you can expect in any given scenario to fight between 1-4 traditional combats (though, these can often be avoided or mitigated with creativity or skill use), 0-3 traps, 1-4 'roleplaying' or 'social' encounters (though, these can often turn into combat if handled poorly), 0-2 Starship combats, 0-1 vehicle chases, and 0-6 'skills challenges' (where something hinges on one or more skill uses but doesn't fall into one of the other categories). There's often a 'moral conundrum' thrown in for good measure, usually at or near the end, which is entirely on the player and not really the character (though, many players react to them how they see their characters as reacting, it's still always a player decision).

Personally, since you can be playing these with any random group of 2-5 other yahoos, I tend to swing more towards generalist characters than specialists. I think it's okay to specialize in one thing, but after that, I try to cast as broad a net as possible to try to contribute to as much of the scenario as possible. This is generally what makes Operatives and Envoys such strong SFS characters, because it's very easy for them to do that.

Quote:
To have a useable level of Computers, I need Skill Synergy, which prevents me from having any combat feat until level 3 at the earliest. Without Computers I can't do anything in a spaceship. Even if I made Ts*eki useless on a ship, I can't give zir 3 combat feats at level 1. And Slow is a level 3 spell that I can't get until Mystic 7, or never if I focus on Biohacker. I can get a combat feat at Biohacker 1, but it has to be Longarm Proficiency. (I get the impression weapon focus/proficiency/specialization is a tax that everyone has to take).

You don't have to take skill synergy. You can take a rank in the skill and use it even if it isn't a class skill. You can also switch your theme to one that grants computers as a class skill. Even with it not being a class skill, the DC's on Science Officer actions are overall the lowest of any of the roles, so you can make it work. You can also avoid scenarios with the Starship Tag (a lot of people do) until you get your level of Biohacker and have it as a class skill.

To be clear, you won't get another feat at level 2 if you take Biohacker 1, though. I'm not sure where you got that.

Quote:
Can I make this concept viable at level 1 without replacing the class?

I have seen some really 'bad' builds out there at level 1. They all survived. There's only a handful of level 1 scenarios where there's any serious risk of death unless you Leroy Jenkins your way through it. You'll be fine.

Quote:
So I assume that means I need a gun that isn't nonlethal?

I tend to start every character with either a pulsecaster rifle or pistol and then switch after a game or two using the rebuild rules to let me just trade out the full credits rather than selling. Yes, you'll eventually want a weapon that does nonlethal, but it doesn't necessarily need to be immediamente.

Quote:
Are any of the ranged injection weapons good enough to be worth buying? Do any of them (or any poisons or acids) work on Undead or Constructs? Is there a way to use such a weapon without wasting tons of money? (SFS scenarios don't have any item loot.) It looks like I can choose Needler Pistol or Needler Rifle. (I'm thinking I have to limit myself to Small Arms, after reading this:https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uwto?Are-there-any-good-multi-classing#1 6) The Pistol does as much damage as Keskodai 1's weapon, so hopefully that isn't sucky.

In order...

With Biohacker yes. With any other class it's dubious if injection weapons are 'worth it.'
Acid works on lots of stuff. I can't think of any poisons that work on undead or constructs, but that'll likely change at some point.
There are ways to save money on the build. The conserving fusion is a way to save money. Using expendables found within a scenario first is another way to save money.
Biohackers get proficiency with any weapon with the injection property, that includes the longarm and sniper ones. Once you get biohacker, you aren't limited to the pistol if you don't want to be. (Assuming they don't change that about biohackers when the book comes out.)

Quote:
guess I could switch to Dex 14 and Int 13, and give up a rank in Survival, Profession, or Mysticism. Then I'd also lose 1 from Computers, Culture, Life Sci, Medicine, Physical Sci, and Profession. Would that be better than what I have now?

Of the 3, survival comes up the least often, but it still comes up. I'd definitely drop it before the other two. Or drop computers and avoid any scenarios with the Starship Tag until you can up your Int later. You would lose 1 from those other skills (except Profession, there are Wis based Profession skills, you should probably pick one of those), for now, but unless they change something in the final release, if you go intuitive Biohacker, you'll get your Wis to those skills instead once you get that level.

Quote:
What "other things" does Medicine do? Does it work on poison or disease before level 3?

Medicine Skill. In addition, there are a number of scenarios where succeeding on one or more medicine checks will mean the difference between partial and full successes. Yes, it can be used on poisons and disease at level 1, but it only provides bonuses to the saves (always), not an outright cure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Yes, Thank you so much, HMM. I remembered I had questions about it, but I just got out of a test and can't remember anything right now.

⦵⦵

Starfinder Superscriber

As they go up, they definitely approach more mainframe or VMHost style systems than PCs. They can have 10 user interfaces per point of bulk, and the bulk goes up with the square of the tier. So even a Tier 1 computer is normally a 'server' with up to 10 client interfaces on it. The ones with a bulk of 25 or more (so Tier 5+ by default) aren't portable unless they're built into a vehicle or something.

You could, in theory, at least, make an actual PC (or even a smartphone sized or watch sized) that was a Tier 10 computer, but you would be spending the entire price again (320,000cr) just on miniaturization.


Starfinder Superscriber

I'm pretty sure that Gary's reading is the correct one, even though I can't remember seeing it actually run that way as a player (though, I honestly mostly pay attention just to my part, and when I play SO, I usually spend actions targeting power core). As a GM I usually only see balancing in rare situations. Usually, when I see it, the Engineer will divert earlier in the round and put the points wherever needed and then the science officer will balance to whatever facing needs the shields after movement. This only works, though, if the pilot goes second and/or if there's no way for the enemy to flyby. I can only recall seeing this tactic a few times. Most groups I run tend to go all out on offense rather than turtling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

In addition to Dracomicron's mentions, which are where I'd start, Soldier + Drone Mech using a combat drone that focuses on heavy explode weapons could work. Mystic + Soldier or Mystic + Solarian could give you a sort of Paladin or Ranger type build, if you planned for it. Operative + Envoy, while having a bunch of stuff that steps on one another's toes, could also be made to work, if you went the sniper operative route and paired it with envoy's unwieldy happy abilities. Same for Technomancer + Operative and the gun magus type abilities under TM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
That wasn't true of the rider in pathfinder 3.5. The only thing a rider could not do was full attack in melee, but only because they would have to wait for the mount to get where it was going and then attack. An archer could full attack, a caster not worried about the concentration check could cast etc.

... You are correct. I have been wrong about that for 19 years. That explains a lot about why people have been running it that way. So, thank you.

I also think I see in the mounted combat rules in the AA3 how it works similarly for creature companions (you still spend the move as the character per the Survival skill, but that counts as granting the mount a move action per AA3 p.141 which it spends on movement per AA3 p140).

I still think this is unfair to drone mechanics that don't take the riding saddle, but I understand the rules argument now. They still get extra (effective) actions compared to drone + mechanic without it. But apparently this is intentional.

So, you're right, I'm wrong, and I withdraw.


Starfinder Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't see how the mechanic is getting anything extra there . The mechanic uses a move action to tell the drone "go over there" (move action) Then gets their standard action.

A horse rider uses his move action to tell the horse to go over there, makes an easy ride check, then gets their standard action.

You're ignoring the actions available to the mount in your math. In the case of every other mount (now actually defined, but this was also true in PF/3.5), both the rider and mount have to spend their move action for the mount+rider to move. If the mount has limited actions (and the creature companions do, same as drones), it can't then also spend a standard action to attack if it has moved.

A mechanic normally gets one move, one standard, and one swift. A drone (with limited AI) normally gets one move OR one standard (not both). With the control action, a drone mechanic can give up a move to grant a move to the drone or a move+swift to give the drone a full round action. This is not the same as the move action (under the ride section of the survival skill or defined further in the rules of AA3) to move the mounts land speed.

By treating the two move actions as the same move action, you end up with the mechanic getting one move (for control+ride), one standard, and one swift and the drone gets one move (for the movement) and one standard (rather than the normal OR). By treating them the same, at level seven, a drone could potentially move AND full attack at the end of it (I don't know of anyone actually playing it that way, but it's the same action economy math).

This is inherently superior to every other drone mech option (at least on any turn in which you might want yourself and your drone to move). I don't think it's intentional. I had hoped that the AA3 rules on mounted combat would be for all mounted combat and would fix this. They didn't.


Starfinder Superscriber

It does. But again, only for Creature Companions.

The rule (to simplify) is that if the rider is encumbered, the mount inherits the condition. I'm AFB but I can quote the full rule text later if needed.


Starfinder Superscriber

FAQ'd. And thank you.


Starfinder Superscriber

Muchisimas gracias a ambos!

⦵⦵

Starfinder Superscriber

And in this corner....


Starfinder Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Hmmm?

What i Usually see is

mechanic on mount uses their move action to give their drone a move action

readies an action to come into range/ their drone moves to a more favorable position

drone moves (bringing the mechanic with it)

drone attacks. Rider attacks.

yes there's an "extra" move but only because the rider didn't need to spend a move action to move, which is ... kinda the whole point of a saddle.

That's exactly what is happening, and that's an extra move action. To ride a mount in combat (per the survival skill) costs a move action on the part of the rider. To ride a non-drone mount (per the rules in AA3) also requires a move action on the part of the mount. This is entirely separate from the move action to control your drone under limited AI. People have been conflating the two, as nothing in the description of Riding Saddle says it does anything to the action(s) needed to ride a mount (just the checks), and it screws up the action economy for drone mechanics in a way that's fundamentally unfair.

For example, if you have a Drone + Mechanic want to move to point X and attack.

Without the riding saddle, the mechanic has to either sacrifice their own attack or movement to have the drone both move and attack. They can either both move and get one attack between them, or both attack and only one of them move. You can literally never do both in one turn.

With the riding saddle, as it's currently being run, both the mechanic and the drone get to move and attack in one turn. So instead of getting the intended '1.5' turns, they're essentially getting 2 turns (well, just short of it).

I've had this argument numerous times, and I've let it go because A-everyone else is running it the other way and B-we kept being told rules for mounted combat were coming in AA3. AA3 is out, and the rules don't seem to have anything to do with drone mechs, so now I want a FAQ (again). If it's intentional for riding saddle drone mechs to be superior to all other options, then I'd like that stated. If it's intended for drones with riding saddles to work under the same limitations as other mounts, I'd like that stated.


Starfinder Superscriber

I'm not so much worried about the checks part of it, as the action part of it.

As it is currently being played (at least in all the online lodges), Drone Mechs with rideable drones are getting to move both themselves and their drones without the drone spending the move action to move. This gives the drones, effectively, an extra action beyond what is described under Limited AI and makes riding saddled drones the default best option to pick.

Those two bolded parts, above, signal that with non-drone mounts that definitely isn't the case (since the mount has to spend their move action and cannot end up with more actions than are allowed by the companion feat(s)). I've always argued that it shouldn't be the case for Drones, either.

That rule (and in fact that whole section of AA3) doesn't have anything to do with drones. It's a specific set of rules that only (apparently) applies to creature companions.

I'm really just trying to restart the discussion of drones/riding saddles in the hope that we can finally get a FAQ about it.


Starfinder Superscriber

All of the rules in that section refer explicitly to creature companions used via the feat chains and purchased under the rules for purchasing them. There's literally no reference, that I can find, to drones in that entire section. The companions have a fairly similar action economy to drones, but similar != equal.

I'm pretty sure that the 'intent' was for drones to work the same way (wherever drones have lacked clear rules, thus far), but it never explicitly says that. And I'm loathe to turn a specific rule into a general rule without text that tells me to do so.

That's the only ambiguity, to me. These rules are specific to creature companions, so they aren't necessarily applicable to anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you know how they're going to go crazy sure, but when do we ever get that kind of notice?

1. You're going on a mission to this moon where civilians are rioting. It's going to take a few days to get there via Drift, but it's important that if things go south, you don't murder any of the civilians, so we are providing you with merciful fusion seals.

2. One of the local predators on the planet you're heading to is a swarm of insect like creatures that migrate and eat everything in their path. We're providing you with some AoE fusion seals to help you deal with them should you run across them.

3. This mission is covert and it's important that you can get in and out of the embassy without being noticed. Here are some glamour fusion seals to help you sneak your weapon past the guards. You leave tomorrow.

4. I'm not going to lie to you here, maggots, the brass are sending you into literal honest to Weydan hell. But they want you to be able to hurt the devils when you get there, so here are a bunch of holy fusion seals. The armory will expect you to bring them back, dead or alive, at the end of this mission.

In a well run organization with actual intelligence and planning, there are a lot of mission briefings where giving out fusion seals would make sense. Not all of them, certainly, but enough that there would be a market for the seals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Ooooooohhhhh.....

Sucks that I'm in class during the live showtime. But I can't wait to catch the re-run.

If you don't mind, I'd love to have the following questions asked.

1. When can we expect the Izalguun always available to start?

2. Will we ever get another 'Alien Archive' boon? (Obligatory)

3. Any spoilers or hype you have for the upcoming Sangoro's Bulwark scenarios?

4. When will 2-00 be allowed for the online region?

5. Goblin Boon when? (Obligatory)


13 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Starfinder Superscriber

And if so, how?

((I'm asking this, because I expected it to be explicitly stated somewhere in the mount rules, and I can't find it.))

I'm most interested in how this block of text may or may not apply to a Drone Mechanic riding their mount via the Riding Saddle drone mod.

Alien Archive 3 wrote:
Speed and Movement: While you’re riding your creature companion, your mount’s speeds replace your own speeds, and you use them in place of your own when moving your speed, including when using abilities that allow you to move your speed (such as the operative’s trick attack). When you use an action that includes movement, your mount uses the same action (even if it couldn’t normally take that action otherwise). This counts as granting your creature companion an action. If you can grant your mount additional actions (such as with a creature companion feat), it’s still limited to its maximum number of actions per turn (see Actions on page 138).

I'm mostly concerned specifically with the bolded phrases. I've always assumed that the intention for Drones with the riding saddle is for those two phrases to apply, but literally no one is playing them that way.

It'd be nice if after two years we could finally get a FAQ on that.


Starfinder Superscriber

Cue gif of spongebob rainbow...

Magic!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

It's not 7 GMs, it's more like 30. I just counted 7 different interpretations. He's one of the GMs in the lodges I play/run in, and, as far as I can tell, the only one with his interpretation. Every time it comes up for discussion he accuses people of being irrational or unreasonable for daring to disagree with him.

Being called stupid over this item has made me want to quit playing/running more than once. It's what led me to start the thread in the OP forum that led to this one. I know of at least two people that left the online community over the argument. It's hurting the game to leave it in limbo.

So, again, FAQ.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

I don't know which of the many positions you're referring to, but I, for one, am not on team 'pointy fists'. I am on team, 'this item doesn't give you anything it doesn't explicitly say it does.'

It doesn't say it removes the archaic tag, so it doesn't.
It doesn't say you're always armed, so you aren't.
It doesn't say it gives you the 'Natural Attack' racial trait or that it works like the racial trait, so things that apply to that racial trait do not apply to this item unless they apply to all unarmed strikes.

It says it gives you a bite attack. It says how that bite attack works. It uses completely different language to describe that bite attack than any of the 'Natural Attack' racial traits use. That makes it its own thing.

Even without the stuff the racial traits give, it's a heck of a lot for a 315cr level 3 item and still one of the best items in the game. Certainly the best item for the price. I'm not going to also give it a bunch of other stuff on your word. If someone managed to convince all (or even a plurality) of the other GM's to read it that way, sure.

But since no one has done that. FAQ.


Starfinder Superscriber

In case this isn't meant to be common knowledge.:
Someone talked about it in a QnA at one of the Gencon panels on twitch. That's where I got the timeline and my answer. I just can't remember if they said they definitely would or wouldn't have the 'encounters' stories on top of their 'meet the iconics' articles. I'm pretty sure it was Rob that answered the question and I *think* it was in the 'Paizo 2019 and Beyond' panel, but may have been the 'Secrets of the Pact Worlds' one. Those twitch panels are awesome.


Starfinder Superscriber
Skedge wrote:

Expected to ship in 12 business days

So I should see the order completed and shipped by the 27th since I got the first notification on the 15th.

12 Business Days from August 15th is September 3rd (or August 29th if they count Saturdays as Business Days).

I don't think that's when they plan on starting shipping. At least, I hope not, since I have the exact same message from the exact same date.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Oh, and to that point. The 'silly' sub-plot in 1-1 - 1-14, and the one in 1-9 are actually pretty heady.

Ziggy's Story:
His obsession with the pop band is about dealing with pain and trauma, both physical and psychological. He's using music as a coping mechanism for both. It's actually a pretty sad story once you see the subtext.

Live Exploration Extreme:
This is actually a pretty amazing critique on modern media and 'reality' culture. The fact that it's a literal 'Ghoul' acting as the director is straight up genius. This scenario is high art masquerading as silly. It is the reason I started playing SF.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
True. I will have to read those ones you mentioned to get a feel for more serious sci-fi (except for TMIAHM, I heard that was one of Heinlein's worst, or at least most obnoxiously libertarian).

All of Heinlein's work is complex and multi-layered and as often as not used to critique his own positions as support them. That's part of why he has won so many awards. It's unfortunate that it is also the target of a lot of reductionism, especially by people that want to use it to push an agenda. While that particular book isn't my favorite (I prefer Stranger in a Strange Land), it's pretty dang 'serious', as is much of his work. (Despite the pulp-sci-fi cover art.)

I mean, there's seriously a lot of serious sci-fi out there. Even the silly stuff is often meant to have a point. Space Opera isn't just about weird looking aliens having a singing competition.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I'll be honest, part of me wonders if it's a matter of genre convention as well...like fantasy as a genre just appears to have more gravitas than sci-fi from my perspective. When I think sci-fi, I think of Star Wars, which has a whole lot of cheese, but when I think of fantasy I think of Lord of the Rings.

Two words... "Tom Bombadil"

Fantasy, as a genre (even with the 'serious' ones) has a whole mess of silliness. Only some of it is intentional.

To each their own on their preferences. I happen to like Dr Who and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Space Opera both for their serious satire/social commentary on the real world and their silliness. I also happen to like Dune and the Expanse and Old Man's War and Neuromancer and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

You can find what you want to find in any genre. It's not the genre, it's the preconceptions you're bringing to the party.

1 to 50 of 1,132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>