Ogre

trollbill's page

******* Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne 2,741 posts (2,751 including aliases). 29 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 43 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,741 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for all the replies. My first game was a success.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

I am trying to set up my first online game on Roll20 and don't have much of a clue about what I am doing. I recall seeing an Ad on Paizo.com a week or so ago about free aids (tokens, etc) for Roll20 and now can find the Ad or the info. Can some direct me to that and tell me how I upload it to Roll20? I am sure I will have more questions, but for now, that is what I am working on.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratorin wrote:

I feel like whenever a question like this comes up, there are some people who ignore this rule because they find it more fun to argue for an overly strict and obviously not intended interpretation.

Quote:

Ambiguous Rules

Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Aratorin,

I agree with you, and if the was a Home Game issue, I wouldn't have even posted it. But I also run PFS, which requires running the rules by RAW in order to avoid table variation. Nothing like building an effective healer only to play under another GM and have them rule you are only a mediocre one.

Grand Lodge

So the text of the Chirugeon Research Field says:

"As long as your proficiency rank in Medicine is trained or better, you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses."

By my reading on this, this ability only allows Chirugeons to use a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for untrained and train uses only. This would mean you could not use it for Medicine checks that have Expert, Master or Legendary requirements, such as voluntarily taking a higher DC to heal more damage. This would be true even if you were an Expert, Master or Legendary in Medicine. By the wording, you would have to use your Medicine check to do this, not your Crafting skill, which kind of defeats the purpose. This therefor mostly becomes useless at higher levels. This is very disappointing for the only other dedicated healer in the game outside of Cleric.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

I am still waiting for my second Nova to show up on my Avatar since I have 33 SFS GM credits.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

I am still trying to train myself to give them out.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

- 2001 Unbreakable Goblin
- 2002 Gutsy Halfing
- 2003 Versatile Human
- 2004 Versatile Human

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

After some initial stumbling, I find the system easier. Especially when the mod actually uses the point spread in the side bar rather than the level adjustment indicated on the table in the Guide. It's just one less step.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
You ran two 7-player scenarios? Isn't the policy still that those should happen only as a last resort?
If there's not a lot of GMs running the new system yet, it's bound to be the rule rather than the exception until enough players gain the game mastery to be able to GM.

The game has been out less than 4 months. NO ONE has system mastery. And if everyone waited until they did, no one would be playing. If you wish to help the community, I strongly urge you, and others with similar reluctance, to gain your system mastery through experience GMing, just as I am doing. No one is going to fault you for getting a rule wrong, and most should be willing to help you with the learning process. Frequently, if we have a rules question while playing, I may have a player who isn't currently doing anything look it up while we move on. Sometimes we go back over a rule on Facebook after the game. So far the only one I have killed due to a rules mistake was an Animal Companion, because I thought if you were at Dying 2 and got healed, then you went to Wounded 2, but you only go to Wounded 2 if you had Wounded 1 when you got the Dying condition.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
You ran two 7-player scenarios? Isn't the policy still that those should happen only as a last resort?

I would say half the games in my area seem to be either 7-player tables or 3-player tables. It just seems to work out that we can't quite get the right numbers.

But the story behind this one is too sadly funny not to share.

So, I had scheduled 2 tables on Warhorn for my Saturday gameday running of Lost on the Spirit Road. We had one GM already signed up and only 5 players, including me. So, I was looking forward to playing that week instead of running. However, by Wednesday there were 7 players signed up. Now, one thing I have discovered is that players tend to not sign up to play if they don’t see enough GMs to run everyone. So, I switched from playing to GMing.

That was when I noticed that a group in Orlando (50 miles away) I am familiar with, was running the same mod on Friday night. And they only had 5 players signed up. I could take off a little early from work, drive over, and still get to play. So, I signed up, then prepped the mod Thursday night, since I wasn’t going to get to do it Friday. But by Friday morning there were 8 players signed up. So, I sighed and bit the bullet, and decided to sign up to GM. After all, I had already prepped the mod. Besides, Dawn, the other GM signed up, ALWAYS seemed stuck running 7-player tables. So, I thought it would be great to give her a break for once. It would also give my wife a chance to play since she had avoided signing up due to too many players and not enough GMs.

It was at this point that I discovered Warhorn had added a new feature that required organizers to manually authorize GMs. While I had GMed many games for the group in Orlando, the organizers hadn’t set me up as a GM yet. So, I got on their Facebook group to make sure everyone knew I would be GMing a second table in case people weren’t signing up because of the lack of GMs. Sure enough, by early afternoon, there were 12 players signed up. By the time we arrived at the game, we had 14 players.

So, in the end I still didn’t get to play and Dawn still got stuck running a 7-player table again.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

So far is seems to be working well. It seems a little on the weak side for small groups of lowest levels, but a little on the tough side for large groups of second lowest levels. I haven't seen a table run with lowest levels with the temporary level pump to judge that.

In a recent running of Lost on the Spirit Road, I ran a table of 7 2nd levels, which pushed things up to high tier with the 5 person adjustment. The final encounter was very tough and ended with 4 of the 7 down with the dying condition and things didn't get worse mostly because the fighter managed to score 2 Crits in a row. This was due in large part to the age old problem of playing up against creatures that have AoE abilities. At the same time, a table of 7 1st levels had no problem, but they were going against a different set of monsters. I have seen this mod run a total of 4 times and run twice with the same set of monsters I ran it with. The other table had 3 3rds and 1 1st. It seems this particular set of monsters is simply more difficult.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Kevin Willis wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Alas my Tien fighter still has to waste an ancestry feat to use a katana. At least he's human. If he's any other ancestry, he's out of luck.
At the moment, your Tien fighter can't get a katana, regardless of race. As far as I know, there's no published source that says "the katana is a common weapon in the Tien culture."

Well, at least as far as Katana goes, there is now a published, legal source that gives access to it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cavernshark wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
Since Lore's are usually more specific than the General Knowledges, I would think the DCs for Lore check's would be easier than General Knowledges. For example, if you are trying to recall knowledge about The Misty Forest, I would think the DC for Misty Forest Lore would be lower than the DC for Nature. But I am not seeing that a lot in mods so far. It's usually just something like, "DC 22 Nature or Misty Forest Lore." In fact, if we are talking about your typical druid here, he would have a greater chance of success with his general Nature check since it is Wisdom based, than he would with his specific Misty Forest Lore check, which is Intelligence based. This just doesn't make much since to me.

For what it's worth, I'd argue that even if the scenario has the same DC for Nature and Misty Forest Lore, the GM is well within their rights to apply a circumstance bonus on the check for a player who has both skills (or who just has the more specific Lore skill). Your hypothetical druid would usually have a better chance at a nature check with the same DC, but a GM could say that because they also have Misty Forest Lore, they get a circumstance bonus on the check.

Special Circumstances, Source Core Rulebook pg. 492 wrote:
The player characters in your group will at times attempt tasks that should be easier or harder than the rules or adventure would otherwise lead you to expect, such as a PC Gathering Information in their hometown. In these cases, you can just apply a circumstance bonus or penalty. Usually, this is +1 or –1 for a minor but significant circumstance, but you can adjust this bonus or penalty to +2 or –2 for a major circumstance. The maximum bonus or penalty, +4 or –4, should apply only if someone has an overwhelming advantage or is trying something extremely unlikely but not quite impossible.
The guide for organized play says that "the listed DCs and results are not to be altered" in scenarios, but applying a circumstance bonus to the check doesn't...

I agree. And as an experienced GM this is something I was leaning towards doing anyway, now that I have a better grasp of the 2E rules. However, I would still like to see authors put this in mods so that less experienced GMs will feel they can do this.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since Lore's are usually more specific than the General Knowledges, I would think the DCs for Lore check's would be easier than General Knowledges. For example, if you are trying to recall knowledge about The Misty Forest, I would think the DC for Misty Forest Lore would be lower than the DC for Nature. But I am not seeing that a lot in mods so far. It's usually just something like, "DC 22 Nature or Misty Forest Lore." In fact, if we are talking about your typical druid here, he would have a greater chance of success with his general Nature check since it is Wisdom based, than he would with his specific Misty Forest Lore check, which is Intelligence based. This just doesn't make much since to me.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Auke Teeninga wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
Steven Lau wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
and new PFS dwarves have a clan dagger as part of their starting load-out.
Lol, sounds like we are playing a video game.

I actually learned how to play D&D during my time in the Army, so I have a tendency to use military terms when talking about characters and tactics :)

One of the first things I ever had published was a 3pp class called the battle lord that had a bunch of military themes and inspirations in it.

This is funny as Steven is actually still military (If I'm not mistaken). I guess airforce uses different terminology and/or that they play more video games! :-D

I had a Gnome Bombardier Alchemist with the Wings discovery. When asked what my party job was (tank, artillery, medic, etc.), my response was Combat Air Support. Encounters sometimes began with me saying, "Alchemist 1 to Party Leader. Alchemist 1 to Party Leader. I have a full load-out of Snake & Nape. Where do you want it? Over." Followed by me playing "Flight of the Valkyries" from my iPhone.

"I love the smell of Alchemist's Fire in the morning."

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why did the player choose to Power Attack another player anyway? Was he just being a jerk?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

6 people marked this as a favorite.

1) We are currently is a golden age of TTRPGs. There are more people playing TTRPGs than ever before. However, this means there are tons of newbs wanting to play and not nearly enough GMs to go around. A rating system would likely diminish the supply more as it puts additional pressure on GMs (making it a less fun experience for them). Remember, GMs are volunteers. They don't get paid to GM you and you aren't entitled to have them GM for you. They GM because the want to and if you make them not want to, then everyone loses. I suspect GMs that feel coerced are likely doing it because of the lack of GMs. In my 44 years of experience, the number of people who would rather play than GM compared to those who would rather GM than play is much higher of a ratio than the needed 7-1. Especially now.

2) Different players value different things in their GMs. Some value rules knowledge, others value their RP ability, and still others value preparedness and professionalism. Without some way of breaking the rating system down into sub-categories, GM ratings would be very limited in usefulness to the players.

3) Unless we are talking large Cons, the GM is probably going to have a good idea as to who at a particular table is rating them poorly and that can create friction IRL.

4) It can often be easy to confuse a bad GM with a bad adventure, and vise versa.

5) Previous campaigns that have attempted a GM rating system found it to be a bad idea due to the high level of subjectivity. The only one I saw that gave a reasonable result was a rating system that tested GM rules knowledge, and nothing else. And even then, it was only a pass/fail system.

6) People tend to only rate things they have a negative experience with. So unless there is a mandatory rating requirement at every table, most rated GMs will be rated more poorly than their average would really be.

To boil this down, GM rating systems do more to punish GMs than reward them. And when it comes to a group of volunteers that are in short supply and desperately needed in order of everyone to have fun, that is not a good thing.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Lau wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
and new PFS dwarves have a clan dagger as part of their starting load-out.
Lol, sounds like we are playing a video game.

Step 1: Form an entire party of Dwarves.

Step 2: Refer to all adventures as "Raids" and all monsters as "Mobs."

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Jib916 wrote:

I'm curious.

Do people run AP's and 32+ Page longer adventures at conventions?

The 32 page format was great for an all day game at a con. I have ran Ruby Phoenix Tournament and played in Fangwood Keep and Murder's Mark. All were fun. I have not seen an AP ran at a convention however (Though I have not been around past few years, so not sure if that has changed) I have seen people playing APs at the shop in "Campaign mode, however (Over multiple sessions or weekends)

As it stands on the schedule right now, the 2 modules have a page count closer to an AP rather than the 32 page module. Is it even feasible to run (An AP or current module) at a convention without cutting a large portion? Do people run these at conventions?

While running single modules as an all day slot at a Con is more common, I have seen Cons that run parts of APs (usually the first parts). In some cases, when the Cons are organized by the same people and only a few weeks or months apart, I have seen running an entire AP spread out across multiple Cons.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jib916 wrote:

I'm curious.

Do people run AP's and 32+ Page longer adventures at conventions?

The 32 page format was great for an all day game at a con. I have ran Ruby Phoenix Tournament and played in Fangwood Keep and Murder's Mark. All were fun. I have not seen an AP ran at a convention however (Though I have not been around past few years, so not sure if that has changed) I have seen people playing APs at the shop in "Campaign mode, however (Over multiple sessions or weekends)

As it stands on the schedule right now, the 2 modules have a page count closer to an AP rather than the 32 page module. Is it even feasible to run (An AP or current module) at a convention without cutting a large portion? Do people run these at conventions?

While running single modules as an all day slot at a Con is more common, I have seen Cons that run parts of APs (usually the first parts). In some cases, when the Cons are organized by the same people and only a few weeks or months apart, I have seen running an entire AP spread out across multiple Cons.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Ferious Thune wrote:


Yes, that means the story gets broken up, but I don't see that as any different than a 3 scenario arc, which I've had to do similar things in order to play all of them in the past. I've still never had a chance to play City of Strangers 2, and City of Strangers 1 was my second PFS scenario played.

I am not just talking about the down side to players, but the down side to Paizo, as well. Remember, the whole point of this is to cut down how much resources have to be devoted to sanctioning, which, in turn, benefits the players by having faster sanctioning. Breaking it up into 3 parts would be more work (though how much would depend on the adventure and how it was broken up), and at least partially defeat the purpose.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:


There is no problem except for those who who need a problem.

Now, now. I am trying to de-escalate this, not aggravate it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
It does not make it a PFS mode/Event mode game.

Are you still talking about my "Plaguestone" example? As far as I know there is no Event mode option for that.

Bill Baldwin wrote:
So a GM requiring the players to play with their PFS characters would technically be a violation.
I wrote:
I can say "All PFS rules and guidelines apply to character creation. You may only use sanctioned material."
Please don't distort what I said to make your debate point seem valid.

I didn’t distort anything. You asked a question, I answered it to the best of my ability. I don’t understand what the problem is.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Since it is best to look at both the upsides and downsides of things before making a decision, I will now completely reverse direction. What would be the downside of Paizo simply allowing you to play the adventure in PFS mod with your PFS character and regular PFS requirements, but with no changes to the published adventure?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:


The larger issue is with everyone else at the table. No matter what the players and GM agree to ahead of time, no one is bound to follow those rules. A GM can still decide mid scenario to change statblocks or add creatures, and they haven’t broken any PFS rules. A player can still act like there’s no risk to their own character and do foolish things impacting everyone else, and at the end walk away with their PFS character intact, but having ruined the experience for everyone else at the table. Those are the types of things that lead to the rules being what they were.

This would, or as least should, only be an issue with strangers at a convention. If you have this kind of problem with the local players you play with regularly, your problem is bigger than any PFS rules can save.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:


A campaign mode GM cannot mark a character dead.

Where does it say that?

Quote:
A campaign mode character expends no resources off of the actual PFS character.

Nothing is stopping you from marking that stuff off yourself, or voluntarily retiring your character if it dies in the mod. And if you choose not to do those things, then you didn't really care about playing your actual PFS character in that mod in the first place. If you just can't bring yourself to do those things without the rules telling you that you have to, then the problem isn't the rules.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

CrystalSeas wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
That would be breaking the rules. You can’t impose the restrictions of Event mode on Campaign mode.

I don't understand.

What about my example cannot be done.

By the rule, as so far written, you have to play the module with a non-PFS character. So a GM requiring the players to play with their PFS characters would technically be a violation. That, however, doesn't prevent the players from self-imposing restrictions on themselves that effectively, if not technically, require them to play their PFS characters, or the GM refusing to run the module if the players don't self-impose those restrictions. Both are legal, though the latter might be a bit on the rude side.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Ilmakis wrote:
@Xathos Please explain me how I can play my PFS character (not a copy of one) is this module ?

Could you please explain to me the practical difference between playing an adventure with an identical clone of your PFS character and playing it with your actual PFS character? As far as I can see, the end results would be identical. The only thing you couldn't do 'technically' is claim you are playing it with your PFS character, but why would that matter and who would care? I get this might be an issue if you only play sanctioned content at conventions, as other people at the table may not hold themselves to the same restrictions, but in a home environment or local game group, the players can all agree to these self-imposed standards.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Is it an issue with Tonya & Linda's style, or simply a matter of there is so much to do right now they don't have enough time to be as responsive as they would like? Transparency takes time. Also note that Paizo's message boards are not the only method of communication staff has to deal with. I have noticed most Paizo staff seems to be more responsive to Facebook than these forums lately.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I may get disappointed that any new edition of an RPG is going to limit my options compared to the previous version, I would rather have that than an initial glut of material that dooms the product to a new revision in only a few years.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Ditto. I just reported my first PFS2 event. I emphasized to all the players that it was important to their rewards to legibly fill out the reporting sheet, only to realize it was nearly impossible to put in most players' character number in a legible manner. Come on guys! This is the most important field for reporting and there isn't enough room on the form for it?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Only goblin I have seen so far was a Paladin, raised by a doting mother. Kind of reminded me of Izuku from My Hero Academia.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Because Organized Play means you will likely be playing with a variety of people and characters, in a variety of locations, with a variety of different styles of adventures, and a variety of GMs, players need to show flexibility.

2. A player who would stops playing PFS because he/she is not able to play the EXACT character concept they want is representing a very rigid mind set that is not conducive to the type of flexibility and cooperative play that is required for Organized Play.

I realize that it can be hard to fill seats sometimes. I frequently have this problem. But pandering to highly demanding people just makes them more demanding, not just of the campaign in general, but of the GMs and players. Which, in turn, puts off GMs and the more cooperative players. In my experience, pandering to overly demanding players is more likely to drive off more players and GMs than are represented by the overly demanding player base.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Claxon wrote:

Bill,

I don't think I ever recommended baring people from playing combinations of things they aren't. In fact, that would be antithetical to role playing.

But it's a grounds to be cautious around, because too many people can accidentally or intentionally be offensive in their depiction. I don't think anyone in the thread has proposed it being off limits.

I just want everyone to be cautious and mindful.

I am not personally accusing you of suggesting this. It just seemed a direction this conversation might be headed towards and I wanted to steer it away from that.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I will make an additional observation here. Due to the nature of TTRPG role-playing and organized play in particular, it can be difficult to stand out much as a role-player by playing subtle characters. Usually, this means playing characters with exaggerated characteristics that can sometimes feed into stereotypes. Not trying to justify anything, just making an observation into the nature of the game we all play.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
Isn't the entire point of a role-playing game to play someone you are not? Would not trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone you are not create greater understanding towards those that are in those shoes? Is it possible that when you put yourself in someone else's shoes you may occasionally trip on the shoestrings? Yes. But that is how you learn to tie the shoes properly.

The problem is that people make offensive representation of groups of people that exist in outside the game world. Sometimes it's accidental or unknowing, and people are willing to correct it. That isn't a big problem (in my opinion), accidents happen. But some people do it intentionally, or worse are made aware of the problem and refuse to see it or change.

That hurts real people. And that's a problem.

I agree. But this should be handled like every other individual who behaves badly at the table and punish that individual for that behavior rather than limit the entire player base because of a few bad eggs. We should be punishing people for maliciously offensive role-playing, not role-playing in general.

Creating awareness of offensive stereotypes and that intentionally offensive role-playing in unacceptable is a good idea. Creating a rule, official or otherwise, that requires people to not role-play outside their own gender identity is a bad idea.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn't the entire point of a role-playing game to play someone you are not? Would not trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone you are not create greater understanding towards those that are in those shoes? Is it possible that when you put yourself in someone else's shoes you may occasionally trip on the shoestrings? Yes. But that is how you learn to tie the shoes properly.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, certainly if we hadn't moved away from using stone tablets and cuneiform we would have stronger hand muscles and we wouldn't have to worry about the dog eating our character sheets.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

I had HLO for the better part of a year for Starfinder.

1. It wouldn't print anything remotely decently in Firefox. (A known feature, their 'workaround' was 'well, just use Chrome').

I don't know why it took them so long to do this, but they have finally gotten the print feature to essentially print PDF character sheets that look just like the character sheets printed by the offline version of Hero Lab, including breaking it down into Character Sheet, Abilities, Spells, etc. This is a major improvement that makes it much easier to use this on a device when you have no online connection as you can at least pull up a readable character sheet on your device if exported the print file while you had access. Though, again, I don't know why it took them over a year to do this.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I like the boon slotting system, it becomes increasing difficult to manage as you accumulate more and more boons throughout your character's career. We desperately need an electronic tool for boon slotting. Allowing Hero Lab to create such a tool would be absolutely fabulous.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
We Be Heroes won't be reportable, as it doesn't need to be tracked.

So GMs can't get credit for it like they have in the past?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Yeah, I have been doing that. Still kind of shocked that this is the first year I haven't been able to get PFS Special Tickets. Oddly, my friend I was planning on playing with got tickets but I didn't even though I was 2000+ ahead of him in the queue.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Any idea when you will be posting more slots?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ugh! I always hate when they wait till the last minute to release chronicles for stuff like this. Always makes me nervous.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Bob Jonquet wrote:
I knew when I saw that Ninja Division had a booth that it would come up in this thread. I think most of us feel the same way towards them at the moment, but maybe stopping by their booth and asking for an update will help to mend some of the heartache. I just don't want this thread to disintegrate into a ND-hate fest. The hope is that people will share their knowledge of some lesser known exhibitors and give us a reason to stop at their booth to check it out. Its so busy in the exhibitor's hall that its easy to overlook companies you are not specifically looking for.

You are very prescient, Bob.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Hobbun wrote:
Leg o' Lamb wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
Tempted to stop by the Ninja Division booth just to give them a piece of my mind. Normally I wouldn't bother, but they have a lot of nerve showing up at GenCon this year after all the bad feelings they caused with the Starfinder community.

Wait. Wut?

They have the money for GenCon but not to produce the minis? That's not just nerve; that is brass testicular fortitude.

So what has happened with Ninja Division and Starfinder minis, exactly? I have seen some of their minis on the shelf, and bought one of the sets for a friend for Christmas. Are they not making them anymore?

It's very complicated. As far as I have been able to piece together, the Starfinder minis you can find on the shelf were a separate deal from the Starfinder Kickstarter Paizo allowed Ninja Division to do. Short answer is that Ninja Division had lost big money on a previous kickstarter and had been borrowing money from future kickstarters to pay their debts. Even though the Starfinder Kickstarter exceeded its stretch goals, this 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' finally caught up with them and the company actually doing the manufacturing, Archon, stopped shipping product because Ninja Division wasn't paying their bills (and may actually destroy what remaining product they have in storage to avoid paying taxes on it). This means, of course, that not only are the Kickstarter supporters probably out their money, but, except for the small number of Starfinder minis Ninja Division did get released (8 months?) late, we won't start seeing a full line of Starfinder minis until sometime in 2020 when the WizKids Starfinder line comes out, i.e. 3 years after Starfinder was first released. Paizo, to their credit, is still trying to work with Ninja Division to get this sorted out and get the minis actually delivered, but Ninja Division has a history of being long on promises and short on delivery.

For a more in-depth answer, check here.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tempted to stop by the Ninja Division booth just to give them a piece of my mind. Normally I wouldn't bother, but they have a lot of nerve showing up at GenCon this year after all the bad feelings they caused with the Starfinder community.

Grand Lodge

Arc Riley wrote:

Looks like this is going to be awesome!

Can we get the pregens and chronicle sheets PDFs a bit earlier this year? For those of us running this as demos for Free RPG Day it was a bit of a scramble last year.

Getting PDFs of the Maps would be really great too!!!

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

8 people marked this as a favorite.

GM: The mine cart rolls down the tracks with your quarry onboard. Everyone of the tracks, give me a Reflex save.

Me: I rolled a ‘1.’

GM: Okay, everyone else jumps out of the way but the mine cart slams full force into you at the end of its movement this round, doing *large amount* of damage, it throws you against the wall of the mine, doing *more damage* and knocking you prone.

Me: (realizing I only have 1 HP left) Ouch!

GM: It’s your turn and you’re prone. The mine cart is still hurtling down the tracks with your quarry in it. It is heading straight towards you but the track curves just before they get to you, so you don’t need to worry about the cart running you over.

Me: Well, we can’t let this guy get away. I pull out a Sticky Bomb Grenade and throw it at the wheels of the mine cart. I get an ‘21’ to hit.

GM: Okay. The front of the mine cart comes to a sudden halt causing it to flip into the air. The guy in it manages to make his Reflex save and jumps out, but the mine cart is now flying straight towards you. Make a Reflex save.

Me: I get an ’18.’

GM. The mine cart flips into the air and lands upside down on top of you, covering you but doing no damage.

Me: (in a meek voice echoing from inside the flipped over mine cart) I’m…I’m okay, guys. It’s alright. Just get the bad guy.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

pithica42 wrote:

Really? I mean, I don't think it's a hard one by any stretch but I have almost killed PCs in it a couple of times.

Of course, now that I think about it, one of those times was when I didn't realize that I had linked the wrong tokens to the wrong character sheets on the Boss in roll 20 at the end and instead of the group fighting the level 1-2 boss they had to fight the level 3-4 boss and even though it was close, they still won. So, yeah, maybe that one is too easy.

Spoiler:
In my experience, Ashes of Discovery, especially the Starship fight, was far easier than Fugitive of the Red Planet. When playing Fugative, my wife's Ysoki Technomancer came within 2 HP of outright dying from going negative her HP value from the Shobhab's mind thrust, and my Envoy got nailed against the wall by the mine cart. When I ran it, the Soldier and Mechanic's drone both went down and two others were severely damaged in the boss fight. Never came close to anything like that the 3 times I played/GMed Ashes of Discovery
1 to 50 of 2,741 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>