Ogre

trollbill's page

******* Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne 2,737 posts (2,747 including aliases). 29 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 42 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 632 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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

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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, 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 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

8 people marked this as a favorite.

GM: The constructs you see before you are Data Guardians.
Player: Data Guardians?
GM: Yes. They are similar to Lore Guardians, if you have ever faced those?
Player: Similar? So does that mean the Data Guardians are Lore Guardians with the emotion chip removed?

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John "Trace" Taylor wrote:
RealAlchemy wrote:

A certain scenario started an encounter at ridiculously long range, and the enemies were sniping at us. I was playing a brand new dwarf heavy weapon soldier. I measured off the range - 5 range increments out. I told the GM, "OK, I am full attacking with an azimuth artillery laser."

"The penalty is -"
"You heard me."
The funny part is one of the two shots hit, to the shock of the enemies who were barely within sight.
I believe I recently played this one and the enemies were very caught off guard when someone had just as much* (read: technically more) range as they did and just started shooting them back :P

Yes. I would love to see more encounters like this where Sniper characters actually get to Snipe, and having a long ranged weapon actually matters.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The name sounds suspiciously like Duras...just saying.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Fire Extinguisher L1 ¢15 SCRB: Removes one Burning condition.

Sure, that may seem like a complete waste when you are taking 1d4 fire damage every round from a laser pistol crit, but wait till you get hit with 4 incendiary grenades from mooks in one round and discover that the Burning condition stacks in Starfinder.

Called Weapon Fusion L1 ¢varies SCRB: Teleport a weapon up to 100 ft. away to you as a swift action.

Cheap way to make your weapons magic at low levels, don't need to worry about getting disarmed, stow a weapon in a nearby location to quickly arm yourself when you aren't supposed to be armed (a near-by vehicle, that crate you delivered, the party Ysoki's cheek pouch, etc), can re-use thrown weapons, and is great for action economy for mobile characters that often swap out weapons in combat.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ANY SUBJECTIVE, RIGID, BUT VAGUELY DEFINED PC BEHAVIORAL CODES ARE ANATHEMA TO ORGANIZED PLAY!!!

Seriously. I mean that. The Paladin's Code has been one of the biggest sources of Player/GM conflict I have ever seen in Organized Play in the nearly 2 decades I have been involved. In fact, many people either don't like playing Paladins or don't like playing with Paladins because of this. And now Paizo wants to expand this issue with Anathemas? We play this game to have fun. Not to have morality arguments. Why did anyone think this was a good idea?

Even outside of organized play I have seen it cause major table conflicts, much unfun, and a bias against the Paladin class. Does anyone seriously think anathemas actually add fun to the game? When GMs go from being rules and story adjudicators to morality adjudicators, everyone loses.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I put my ear up to the Tear. Does it hum or resonate or anything?

Okay, you hear this

Could have been worse.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, here's hoping for the Non-Altronus definition. Otherwise, my Solarian will likely never use half of the Revelations he gets. Solarians are already weak enough as it is.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Gnoll Leader: What sort of strange creatures are you? We have never seen anything like you before. You are not the Ghost, you are not a Shaggy One, you are not a Watcher. Are you Orcs. We have heard of Orcs.

Party: No, we are not Orcs. (gives party introduction)

Party: (Explains need for Gnolls to cooperate with the party)

Gnoll Leader: You're words sound wise, but this is not a decision I can make alone. The entire community must discuss this. You will be taken to a local home and given food and a chance to rest while I gather everyone and discuss this.

(Party is given a place to rest and given food. Gnolls check on them periodically to make sure they are doing okay. Several hours pass. Another meal is brought. More hours pass. Finally the Gnoll leader shows back up.)

Gnoll Leader: We have come to a decision.

Party: Yes?

Gnoll Leader: You are not Orcs.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FYI, based on a boon from one of the APs, it appears Paizo is already planning on at least one solution for the Mystic starship combat issue. Namely, the introduction of Hybrid starship weapons, all of which appear to have the property of allowing Wisdom/Mysticism for Gunnery.

I am not sure I will ever fully understand why Paizo elected to not have spells, class abilities, and feats (with one exception) that could have at least some effect in starship combat. No Solarian Photon Revelation they could use to supercharge a beam weapon, or Graviton Revelation they could use to deflect an incoming torpedo; no Technomancer spell that could heal a small amount of hull damage or temporarily enhance the ship's computer; etc. I realize it would be a bit tough as no one would take those options unless they did other things like the Sky Jockey feat. But the lack of these greatly reduces options in starship combat that allow for effective use of characters (unlike normal combat). It drives me nuts that only your skills matter. I can only guess that the starship combat rules were new enough they didn't want to accidentally screw everything up without giving more time to understand potential repercussions, and/or would have made the core rules too big so they decided to save them for a supplement. Well, here's hoping for that supplement.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

3 people marked this as a favorite.
"Dr." Cupi wrote:
I seem to disagree with most people's sentiments. I can accept this. I clearly get enjoyment out of this game in a different way. I will crawl back into my hovel and disturb your rants no more.

Sorry if I came across as a bit harsh. But I do really believe that if the best tactical choice for a party member is to not participate in a battle, then there is a design flaw.

And to be clear, I am not trying to be too harsh on the designers either. Starship Combat is a completely new element to the system, one I really want to enjoy, and I think there are some true sparks of genius in its concept. But it doesn't have the 19 years of playtesting the standard combat system essentially has had.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

4 people marked this as a favorite.
"Dr." Cupi wrote:
Grossly inaccurate? How many characters in your play group have higher dex/int than their other stats? I can tell you that a majority of my personal characters do. That makes me fairly unimaginative. The statement of unimaginative is a non-opinion claim. Based on the limited information, I understand x to fall into the definition of.... You can be insulted by that I suppose. I'm not and I directed it at myself, so...

If being 'imaginative' means you have to create an ineffective character, how is that not a design flaw? Why should the players be faulted for choosing to make effective characters instead of imaginative ones? Shouldn't they be able to do both?

Quote:
How good are you at fixing your own car 100%? How about your electronics? How about your plumbing? How about your....I could go on. No I don't believe it should be all of them. All classes have things that they are good at and things that are unrelated to things they are good at.

If I were 100% effective at real life I wouldn't be playing an escapest Science-Fantasy TTRPG. Real life should not be the issue here. I am talking about player enjoyment, i.e. the reason most people play the game.

Let's look at it this way. If I had a character that sucked at standard combat, I can still shoot a laser for 1d4 or aid another a player. Even though I sucked I would be contributing and participating without hindering the combat effectiveness of the remaining players. But Starship Combat doesn't work quite the same way. Both Enginner and Science Officer require being trained in the skill to even be a secondary Engineer or Science Officer who could aid the primary (assuming you had spare crewmen). And while anyone CAN pilot a ship or shoot a ship's weapon, the positions are too critical to allow someone who can't do them well to do them. So while in standard combat, there is always something the player can do to be helpful, it is actually possible that the best tactical choice in Starship combat is for a player with poor starship skills to do nothing while those that can, do. You can say that's how real life works as much as you want, but that isn't going to make the player who sits out an entire combat twiddling their thumbs any happier. This is, from a game design perspective, why every class should be capable of building an effective starship combat character without having to make large sacrifices.

As another example, I recently played a mod with starship combat with an all first level party of 5. I was playing my Solarian who I purpose built to be good at the one position he could be good at, Captain. But the Envoy was better at it even though I had been purpose built for it. And since you can have only 1 Captain, I got bumped out of the one thing I could do well. Science Officer and Engineer were out because I didn't want to put any of my piddling skill points in non-class skills that I would have sucked at anyway. And with only a +1 to piloting from Dex, that left me out as Pilot, as well. The only reason I even got to take a gunner position was because my chance to hit with a single weapon was the same as the primary gunner's chance to hit firing 2 weapons. Had that not been the case, the most effective thing I could have done with my character would have been NOTHING. Could that sort of thing happen in real life? Absolutely! Does that make for a fun game? Nope.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

5 people marked this as a favorite.
"Dr." Cupi wrote:

I can see the validity of the argument that starship combat causes specific character builds. I would strongly disagree however that it is majorly because of starship combat. Or that somehow starship combat is affecting things negatively.

Operatives are good at practically everything. Not always the best, but definitely good. Ranged soldiers are and should be among the best in combat.

Your statement exemplifies the point you seem to be completely missing. Yes. Almost every SF class can be effective in Starship combat without even trying. The ‘almost’ is the problem. Mystics and Weapon Solarians actually HAVE to try and they usually have to try more than just a little.

Quote:
All of that said, I would venture to say that, though starship combat plays a part, it is unimaginative optimizers that causes the similarity in builds.

I find this statement to be grossly inaccurate and insulting.

Quote:
Players whose desire to "win" supersedes their desire for a creative or unique character.

You say “desire to win.” I say, “desire to be an effective contributor to the party.”

Quote:
"Solarian's are cool in concept but because Cha is a key stat and Cha means nothing in combat, they are just too MAD." Those players.

Have you ever built a Solarian? They get 4 skill points per level, have no use for Int outside of skills, and the only class skills they have that can be used in starship combat are Diplomacy & Intimidate, i.e. Captain only. This means, at the very least, they would have to take a Background that gave them a more useful starship combat class skill to be even useful in a non-Captain position. Sure, if I tried, I COULD build a Solarian that could be useful in starship combat. But he will never be as useful an Engineer as a Mechanic that didn’t try; never as useful a Science Officer as a Technomancer that didn’t try; never as useful a Pilot, Engineer, Science Officer or Gunner as an Operative that didn’t try; never as good a Gunner as a ranged based Soldier that didn’t try; and only on par as Captain with an Envoy that didn’t try. And all this would come at the cost of effectiveness in standard combat so that he would never be as useful as a Soldier, Mechanic or Operative that didn’t try. So, sure, I could build a character that would NEVER get a chance to shine at the table because every other class could outshine him, but why? Just so I can live up to some notion of being ‘more imaginative?’

As an aside, thanks to the Soulfire Weapon Fusion, Charisma does actually matter for weapon Solarians in combat now.

Quote:
To be clear, I am not saying that such players are playing incorrectly.

You may not be saying it, but you are definitely implying it.

Quote:
People can play how they want to. But if there is a complaint that builds are bland, or too common. You need only look to the builders.

Sorry, but I 100% disagree. This is a design problem. Five out of the seven classes can be effective at starship combat without trying very hard. But why only five? Shouldn't that be true for all of them?

Quote:
P.S. Maybe it is just my play group that noticed this, but the penalty of losing starship combat is never death. There have been a couple times when the players just said, "We surrender, let's move on."

I don’t disagree with this point, but PFS players have been programmed with the idea that all combats SHOULD be winnable, so if they lose, it is a failing on their part. And in most cases, it would be incorrect to make your assumption from an RP stand point. This discourages the type of metagame thinking you are suggesting. As a case in point:

On the Trail of History:

Our group was good, but not great, at starship combat. But we were totally outclassed by the enemy here. This appeared to be by design and the author no doubt fully expected a fair number of people to lose and gave an out for it if they did and the only penalty was not getting a boon on the chronicle sheet. Fair enough. Except that we, as players, didn’t understand that until afterwards. As a result, we tried our darndist to win, because we thought we were supposed to. So, we burned several boons to fight a 3+ hour grueling and ultimately depressing starship combat that, had we understood the pointlessness of it, we could have ended in ½ an hour without the pain, suffering and resource expenditure.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:

Too bad they didn't do that for the Efficient Bandoleer.

Description
This bandolier fits over any Medium creature and contains five compartments, each corresponding to a specific type of weapon: melee weapons, small arms, longarms, heavy weapons, and explosives.

Take a rank in profession freelance sayance performer ?

I was seriously flummoxed that my Ysoki Soldier could not use one of these. His cheek pouches are already full of grenades.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Bramnik wrote:

An odd perspective that I hadn't thought about, mentioned to me by one of my players when I mentioned this thread today after running #1-16. To him, the fact that it's harder to make PCs who are good at ship combat is actually a good thing in that it encourages more well-rounded characters versus singleminded min-maxing.

I found that to be a rather novel way of looking at the whole thing, so I wanted to present that here.

I have always tried to make my characters capable in starship combat. I have succeeded with most but my Mystic and Solarian would have had to sacrifice too much of their non-starship combat effectiveness to this. This is because both use Strength instead of Dex for their attack stat and both have relatively low skill points and a poor selection of Starship combat skills.

The more I think about it, the more it seems the primary problem is that what class you are just doesn’t make ANY difference in Starship combat outside of how it effects your skills. There are no spells, Solarian revelations, or class abilities that would help you with Starship combat. I understand part of the problem with this is that an ability that would be useful in Starship combat would normally be useless outside of that, and since Starship combats are uncommon, this would be a waste. But, again, I will point to one of my favorite feats, Sky Jockey, as a way to go. This feat gives you usable benefits in standard, vehicle, AND starship combat. Giving players a choice of feats, spells and class abilities that did this sort of double (triple) duty should have been a core element of the game, but sadly isn’t.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
roysier wrote:
If the majority is happy with no challenge combats keep them as they are and since I'm one of the only ones who views things different then who really cares. I drop out and it doesn't matter.

It's not that we don't want a challenge. It's that those starship combats I have been in that were challenging took up 3+ hours out of a 5-hour slot and were a stressful slog fest that essentially had us waiting for a 2-round lucky streak. The first round to take down the enemy shields, the second to do serious damage to the unshielded arc. Given that experience, "challenging" starship combat translates to "unfun time-sink" starship combat. I think what most people want is "challenging fun". But until things change, people are going to choose easy fun over challenging unfun.

Unfortunately, starship combat is even more party makeup dependent that normal combat. Which makes balancing it in SFS nearly impossible. My Envoy was purposely built to be good at any ship position and great as captain or pilot, plus she has a boon that lets her mount nukes on ships. If she's at the table, starship combat is usually a breeze. On the other hand, even though I have purposefully built my Solarian to be good at the one job he could be good at, i.e. captain, since that is the least important job on the ship (the opposite of real life) it really only works with tables of 5+ where everyone else has the other positions covered.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been toying with the idea of making an Elf Technomancer with Profession (Cosplayer) who dresses up as her favorite fantasy characters. That would make it easy to find a mini.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
roysier wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
roysier wrote:
I should add that it is very rare in the scenarios I've run or played where the player side Pilot loses the roll off. In almost every turn the players get to choose what facings both starships are firing from.

My Playtest group lost the roll-off three out four times. It was the first three times, so it felt like they were always losing the initiative roll-off. Interestingly, their poilot and the Xeros pilot were evenly matched -- it was dice luck doing them in.

Hmm

I'm re-thinking since I'm going from memory. I'd say on average the players will lose 1 pilot roll off per space combat. So they would win around 4 of 5. My area has a few maxed out pilots. One always seems to be at every table I play.

We had one player as an operative take skill-focus pilot. There is an Operative ability you get around level 6 that you can always take a 10 in any skill you have a skill focus. His take 10 in piloting when he first pulled this out was 31. That was around level 6. Most enemy pilots could not beat his take 10. The few that could needed a real high roll. (18+ at least)

This also means he could take 10 on all Pilot maneuvers. Auto making just about anyone he wanted to do and thus further breaking Starship combat.

This highlights the difference between characters optimized for Starship Combat and those that aren't. But since this is SFS, you never know what you are going to get at the table. It also highlights another problem. I built an Operative exactly like this and added the Sky Jockey feat as gravy. But an Operative is Dex based, has tons of skill points and is effective enough in non-Startship combat it can afford to split focus. Classes like Solarian and Mystic don't work that way.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

*scratches head*

I'm very curious where this thought of "the majority of our customers/players hate this game mechanic but if we implement it we'll make more money" comes from.

Simple. The vast majority of the current player base is heavily invested players. They will not like any dumbing down of the system that may be necessary to attract new players to the system. But Paizo can't survive on a dwindling heavily invested player base that seldom gets new blood. So in order to survive, Paizo is going to have to attract new players. And the need to do that is going to make for rule changes that may be unpopular with the current dedicated based. Losing part of your dedicated base is par for the course with a new edition.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Obsidian Blade wrote:
A company that balances the needs of the business and the consumer to create an amazing product.

Ironically, I think that is exactly what Paizo is trying to do and why there appears to be a schism. To be successful, a system must be accessible enough to appeal to newbs and casual players, and sophisticated enough to appeal to invested players. And you need both. Newbs and casuals to grow the player base, and invested players to ensure longevity. And that is a difficult balance to master. 4E had great initial success with newbs and casuals when it first came out, but eventually failed due to a lack of appeal to invested players. 5E seems to be doing better along these lines, but is only slightly less generic than 4E. Pathfinder 1.0 is failing, in my opinion, as it has become too complicated under the weight of 10 years of supplements, expansions and errata's to the point that it is nearly impossible to get new players into the system. Paizo is currently losing this new blood in mass to 5E. And they won't have a successful product unless they reverse that trend.

Don't get me wrong. I get where you are coming from. As an invested player myself, I usually don't like any 'dumbing down' of a system for the sake of newbs and casuals. But if I have to choose between a system that is somewhat dumbed down that everyone will play vs. a robustly sophisticated system that I can't find anyone else willing to play, I will take the former.

Also, bear in mind that NO system reboot will be as sophisticated as a previous system that has been around for 10 years simply because it will not have all of the available options and refinements the previous system has accumulated over the years.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is the issue I am seeing currently. Several issues combined initially to create a situation where Starship combats became irritating slog-fests:

1) Learning curve: When the game first came out, players, GMs and authors were all learning how a mechanic with no PFS equivalent worked. Naturally, this alone sometimes meant Starship combat took twice as long as normal combats. While this situation has improved, there are always new people that need to learn.

2) GM Requirements: In a normal PFS/SFS combat, the players all have a variety of tactics available to them while the monsters usually only have one boss with a similar number of choices while the mooks only have a few. This makes running the encounter easier on the GM as they don’t have to put a lot of thought into most creature tactics. This is not true in Starship combat. The NPCs have all the same options as the PCs with the possible exception of choices that require Resolve (and then, only at levels 6+). This makes more work for the GM and slows the game down.

3) Building for 2 combat systems: In PFS, you only had to build for combat effectiveness in a single combat system. But SFS has two systems: normal combat and starship combat. This means that, while there is some crossover, you will often be faced with making a choice between the two in a build. And since Starship combat occurs with considerably less frequency in SFS that regular combat, then your starship combat expertise is often what is sacrificed. As a side note, I would love to see more Feats like Sky Jockey that give you worthwhile benefits in normal, vehicle, AND starship combat.

4) Accuracy vs. Shields: The low rate of accuracy for most PC ship weapon attacks (often less than 50%) combined with the relatively easy ability to repair shields means that many Starship combats can turn into battles of slow attrition.

5) Organized play unpredictability: Even more so that standard PFS/SFS combat, Starship combat requires teamwork that assumes people will be able to do effective jobs in each position. This seldom works out well, especially for those builds that are not Dex-focused, have few skill points, or not a good selection of Starship combat skills. Solarians and Mystics especially fall into this category, making them less desirable to play in SFS. While anyone CAN fire a ship’s weapon, the accuracy issue mean you don’t just want anyone doing it. When, if given the choice of having a Science Officer and a Gunner with a +2 to hit, or no Science Officer and a gunner with +5 to hit while someone just sits out the battle, and the latter is the best combat tactic, then there is a mechanical problem.

All of these issues combined early in SFS to make players and GMs dread Starship Combat. I can recall more than one that took over 3 hours for a single Starship Combat. This has caused many GMs to take shortcuts that effect the challenge of the combat. One of the most common I have seen is GMs that simply never attempt to recharge shields. Doing deliberately poor tactics like this speeds up combat, makes less work for the GM and, sadly, often improves the enjoyment of the combat, but it means the combat is easier than intended.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo) 5/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zo! wrote:
Justin-Norveg wrote:
701-Ysoki Mystic Chef and Babysitter (he works for Fitch)
"So... I'm all about finding new and inventive ways to torture sentients in the name of entertainment, but volunteering for something like this is a form of masochism that I never considered! How do you feel about having a film crew watch you while you work?"

Zo! Baby! Don't forget OUR tract. Who pointed out all the cool vids you could get out of the Society at that little soiree we first me at? Who boosted the ratings on that little live show you did? And who had everyone one of your fans 'shipping me 5 seconds into the cast?

Still, I like Ysoki. Their always so on the cute. Maybe if he was really nice to the pups and a foul-mouthed terror in the kitchen, that might work as a hook. I'm already thinking of a fun little game design to promote the show.

Second Seekers (Jadnura) 5/5 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What’s Slapdancing, you say? I am not surprised you haven’t heard of it. I will help educate you. Slapdancing is a traditional Skittermander rhythmic dance that relies heavily on hand movements and can include rhythmic slaps, claps, and snaps, as well as, various small finger-worn percussion instruments. Streamers are also sometimes used to accentuate the movements.

My Great Grammy was a Slap Dancer back in her time. Watching vids of her as a welp always fascinated me. I know not too many Skittermanders are into this form of traditional dance anymore. But I wanted to bring it back. So, I added some newer dance elements and music to it to try to reach the new generation. I call it 'Slap Hop.' It’s just my way of helping. Plus, being able to use my Solarian powers to manifest a giant hand to help with the dance doesn’t hurt any.

Exo-Guardians 5/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have always found fixing other sentient creatures to be fascinating. The fact you can’t even change your own DNA to fix problems is almost inconceivable. That’s why I became a Doctor. Sure, Akiton isn’t exactly known for its online medical schools, but I had to join the military for a year just to pay for that! So what if I barely passed my surgery class and occasionally put things back wrong. I always try to find people to practice on to make myself better, and if I mess up, I can just fix it with magic. So, I don’t know what everyone gets so worked up about.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As soon as my Damaya Lashunta Icon Envoy becomes First Seeker. I am so petitioning SMC to do the Starfinder theme song.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

3 people marked this as a favorite.

DO YOU WANT ANTS? BECAUSE THIS IS HOW YOU GET ANTS!

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I realize there is a perceptual issue from previous systems, Stat bumps are nearly irrelevant in Starfinder. With stat penalties being the only real difference. And if you are planning on bringing any Stat penalty up to at least 0, then it becomes completely irrelevant.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
"Dr." Cupi wrote:


GMing is volunteering. Part of the concept of volunteering is not receiving anything in return.

That depends on how you look at it. Almost every volunteer I have met in various volunteer circles usually expects at least some from of appreciation for volunteering. While that appreciation can come in many forms, many of which may be intangible, to me, boons are one of the ways Paizo shows their appreciation. I don't view it as payment or entitlement, but if Paizo were to suddenly yank their rewards programs like Wizards did with LFR, you would see the same results I did then, i.e. a lot of GMs going, "Well, I guess Paizo doesn't appreciate what I am doing for them anymore. So why am I doing all this work for a company that doesn't seem to care whether I do or don't?"

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the main issue here is having a reward other than just races. The more race boons you have, the less individual value they hold. So it would be nice to have either a choice of race or a choice of something else instead. Even the really unique race boons you can get for GMing PFS at GenCon usually come with an option other than the race boon.

1 to 50 of 632 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>