Chris Lambertz Community & Digital Content Director |
Thurston Hillman Starfinder Society Developer |
Andy Brown |
Many thanks for this. Looking forward to reading it more fully.
Page 16 - Just noticed there are a couple of references to GM Stars still which I suspect should read GM Novas? No big deal but thought I'd point out in case a quick fix is possible?
There's a couple of references to GP that didn't get changed to credits too. Copy & Paste demons are a real pain sometimes :)
Chris Lambertz Community & Digital Content Director |
John Compton Organized Play Lead Developer |
Mike Lindner |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the PCs buy an item using pooled money that they do not use during the adventure, one PC may purchase the item at the end of the adventure, paying the item’s full cost. If no PC wants to purchase the item, the PC must sell the item back for 10% value, reimbursing each PC for half of what she paid into the pool.
The way I read this if no one wants the item one PC is forced to buy the item at full price, sell it back at 10%, then reimburse the other PCs. This doesn't make sense though. Either a) more than the purchase price ends up being paid for the item, if the pooled money isn't refunded when one PC individually buys the item at full price; or b) the money the other PCs is refunded since one PC is paying the full purchase price, but then the language about reimbursing them for 50% doesn't make sense.
The other way to read it that "the PC must sell" is a typo and should be "the PCs must sell", that is, they sell it back collectively. However, this doesn't work because it is impossible to reimburse 50% of what people paid when only 10% is recovered. Maybe this is a typo as a result of copying language from Pathfinder and it's supposed to be that the item is collectively sold back and 10% of what people paid is reimbursed.
Let's do some math.
3 PCs pool money to buy an item with a price of 1000:
A puts in 500
B puts in 300
C puts in 200
The item isn't used and no one wants it. If one PC has to buy the item, someone has to buy it for 1000 and sell it back for 100, losing 900, then in addition reimbursing the other PCs 50% of what they originally put in. Even if that buying for 1000 includes the pooled money it still ends up being an uneven split.
If PC A buys it:
A ends up being out 650 (130% of what they originally put in); spent: 500 original commitment - 100 recovered from sale + 150 reimbursing PC B + 100 reimbursing PC C
B ends up being out 150 (50% of what they originally put in)
C ends up being out 100 (50% of what they originally put in)
If PC B buys it:
A ends up being out 150 (50% of what they originally put in)
B ends up being out 550 (183% of what they originally put in); spent: 300 original commitment - 100 recovered from sale + 250 reimbursing PC B + 100 reimbursing PC C
C ends up being out 100 (50% of what they originally put in)
If PC C buys it:
A ends up being out 150 (50% of what they originally put in)
B ends up being out 100 (50% of what they originally put in)
C ends up being out 500 (250% of what they originally put in); spent: 200 original commitment - 100 recovered from sale + 250 reimbursing PC B + 150 reimbursing PC C
This seems like a bad rule to me. If no one wants the item it shouldn't be forced onto one PC to buy it then reimburse the other PCs because that can result in them being out even more money. No one is going to want to be the person to take the financial hit of reimbursing the other PCs. This is only going to create confusion in understanding the rules due to the uneven result, and strife between players as arguments erupt over who should have to pay more than their original commitment.
Mike Lindner |
Is the Pathfinder conversion section of the core book being written off for Additional Resources, or just omitted in its entirety? It seems weird that it would be out and out ignored as it is in the current document.
Hopefully any conversions will be done by the adventure author or developer. In the same way that PFS scenarios now include the stat blocks for the creatures within the scenario, I am hopeful that they will continue that practice with SFS. So you shouldn't need to do Pathfinder to Starfinder conversions yourself for society play (I hope).
Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer |
Phylotus |
In the guide it talks about being able to make a naturally blind/deaf character, and in the CRB it says characters who are blind/deaf for extended amounts of time can become acustom to them and can ignore some if the penalties, but it doesn't discuss what they can ignore. So for the purpose of SFS, what penalties do naturally blind/deaf characters suffer?
Also, I apologize if this is the wrong thread to disuss this, I am willing to post elsewhere if need be.
Belafon |
Is the Pathfinder conversion section of the core book being written off for Additional Resources, or just omitted in its entirety? It seems weird that it would be out and out ignored as it is in the current document.
Check various other threads for more official words to this effect, but it is deliberately omitted.
Starfinder Society is a completely different campaign from Pathfinder Society. You can't use feats, spells, classes, or anything else from Pathfinder in SFS. There's no "conversion" of characters, everyone is starting with a new Starfinder character.
Grimm13 |
Not a fan of the star-ship combat in Organized Play. The game mechanics are clunky, slow running and quite frankly off putting. I would rather see and spend my four hours of time in a quality scenario that is off ship that is engaging for all.
Yes we use star-ships to traverse the vast distances but we do not have to play that whole aspect to understand it. For me it's more about the destination than the tedious journey it took to get there.
Chris Lambertz Web Product Manager |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Updated to version 1.1. Changes include:
- A new playable faction has been included: the Second Seekers loyal to First Seeker Jadnura. This includes a table of associated boons, including numerous new boons unique to this faction.
- The list of always available playable races has been expanded to include the legacy races included in the Starfinder Core Rulebook.
- The required resources necessary to create a character of a new race have been clarified to accommodate special rules reference handouts included in certain scenarios.
- The rebuilding rules for characters and personal boons has been clarified.
- Numerous faction-associated boons have been clarified or expanded, including hirelings, basic purchases, and improved faction champion boons.
- Details are now available for the Exo-Guardians and Wayfinders capstone boons, providing playable statistics for a new race and starship hull.
- The instructions for filling out a Chronicle sheet have been updated, including when a PC can purchase and sell gear.
- Rules for applying credit have been relaxed slightly when using pregenerated characters in adventures that require the use of such characters.
- Information about the Vehicle scenario tag and the Vanity boon descriptor has been added.
- GMs' Chronicle sheet rewards have been clarified.
- UPBs are now purchasable in single units rather than only in lots of 1,000.
- The Tier 2 and Tier 6 Drake starships' shields and armaments have been updated to better match the hull's intended function.
- The list of Regional Venture-Coordinators and regions has been updated.
Please refer to the Paizo blog for more information.
Dennis Muldoon |
For the Alien Allies boon for tier 4 Wayfinders, the wording says you must apply it to a character that has 0XP. This seems to block someone from building a ghibrani in a character slot with GM credits. Is that intentional?
Dennis Muldoon |
I get not wanting people to play through first level then rebuild into a race boon. Writing it this way, though, says that it's fine if I apply it to a new slot, then apply two GM credits before I play, but if I have a slot that already has two GM credits when I get to Wayfinders tier 4, I can't apply it. I don't see the functional difference between the two, and doing it this seems needlessly restrictive to those of us that do a lot of GMing.