A PSA for GMs running Season 6 scenarios


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 14 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm sure many of you have already picked up a copy of the new Technology Guide, but I know plenty probably haven't yet or won't. If you're running Season 6 scenarios, I wanted to inform potential GMs of some updates made to skills regarding their use with Technology. All of this information may be found on the PRD as well.

Technology Guide, Skills section wrote:
No new skills are introduced to the Pathfinder RPG to model how characters interact with technology — rather, existing skills are expanded to allow for such interaction. Additional rules for how skills interact with technology are listed below. Without the Technologist feat, a character is treated as untrained in the skill in question when using it on technology.

The part I bolded is important regarding the skills Disable Device and Linguistics. Even if a PC has ranks in these skills, without the Technologist feat they are still treated as untrained when using them with technology (which means, since they are "Trained Only" skills, they can't be attempted at all).

If a PC does have the Technologist feat, they gain the following benefits when using these skills:

Disable Device wrote:

With the Technologist feat, you can use Disable Device to interact safely with explosive devices and disable technological devices and traps.

Arm Explosive: If you possess a detonator (see page 43), you can arm an explosive weapon as a trap. Connecting a detonator to an explosive requires a successful DC 10 Disable Device check. Failure means that the attempt fails, but you can attempt to arm the explosive again. Failure by 5 or more means the explosive is triggered as the detonator is installed. You can attempt to make an explosive difficult to disarm. To do so, choose a target disarm DC of 15 or higher, with a DC increment of 5. This becomes your target DC to set the explosive as well as the DC to disarm the explosive.
Disable Electronic Device: Disabling an electronically controlled trap or unlocking an electronically locked door is easier if you use an e-pick (see page 43). Without an e-pick, you take a –5 penalty on any attempt to use Disable Device on an electronic device.
Disarm Explosive: Disarming an explosive requires the character to succeed at a Disable Device check as if disarming a trap. The DC is usually 10, unless the person who set the explosive successfully did so with a higher disarm DC. A failure to disarm an explosive by 5 or more immediately triggers the explosive.
Special: A character can take 10 when using Disable Device to arm or disarm explosives, but cannot take 20.
Time: Arming an explosive device takes 1 minute or more, depending on the scope of the job. Disarming an explosive is treated as if the explosive were a complex trap, and takes 2d4 rounds to attempt.
Linguistics wrote:
A character with the Technologist feat can attempt a Linguistics check to decipher certain complex messages that appear in Numerian ruins.

Also, up until now, Knowledge (Arcana) was the skill needed to identify the abilities and weaknesses of Constructs. As per the Technology Guide, Knowledge (Engineering) is now the skill you need to identify Constructs with the Robot subtype (though you do not need the Technologist feat to do so).

In addition, Knowledge (Geography) may be used for Astronomy checks, and Heal may be used to identify and understand pharmaceuticals.

In the Season 6 scenarios I've run only some of this information was presented, so I figured I'd make a thread to inform others ahead of time. Feel free to comment about anything I've missed, or advice you may have for other GMs when implementing Technology.

Happy GMing!


I don't have the book yet, but just to clarify: even without Technologist, a PC (say, an inquisitor) could make a K: Engineering check and get the full range of identifying info, powers, and so on? (ie. not cap at 10 per untrained?)

That was one of the big complaints in an earlier thread.

It pretty much just impacts Disable Device and Linguistics, then?

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

That's how I understand it.

The way page 5 of the Technology Guide is laid out, it seems that having the Technologist feat only impacts Craft, Disable Device, and Linguistics checks. I didn't mention Craft in my OP because of its heavily limited application in PFS already.

The other skills - Heal, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Engineering), and Knowledge (Geography) - are in a different section titled "Researching Technology".

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So.. your skills are useless unless you have a feat you can't take?

Two handed Adamantite lockpicks for everyone!

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The Technologist feat is legal for play.

My Season 6 character is taking it at level 3.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Also, up until now, Knowledge (Arcana) was the skill needed to identify the abilities and weaknesses of Constructs. As per the Technology Guide, Knowledge (Engineering) is now the skill you need to identify Constructs with the Robot subtype (though you do not need the Technologist feat to do so).

Just make sure that the construct in question actually has the robot subtype. Just to confuse things even more, there's one construct in a season 6 adventure that's clearly technological, but it still uses Knowledge (Arcana), because its subtype isn't robot. It makes no sense whatsoever, but that ruling has been confirmed by John Compton.

Silver Crusade 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Haller wrote:

I don't have the book yet, but just to clarify: even without Technologist, a PC (say, an inquisitor) could make a K: Engineering check and get the full range of identifying info, powers, and so on? (ie. not cap at 10 per untrained?)

That was one of the big complaints in an earlier thread.

It pretty much just impacts Disable Device and Linguistics, then?

That is seriously unclear to me. The feat says :

Technologist
You are familiar with the basic mechanics of technology.

Benefit: You are considered to be trained in any skill used against a technology-based subject. If the skill in question requires training to use even against non-technological subjects, you must still have ranks in that skill in order to gain the benefit of Technologist.

Normal: You treat all skill checks made against technology as if they were untrained skill checks. This may mean that you cannot attempt certain skill checks, even if you possess ranks in the skill in question.

And in the skills section knowledge engineering is listed in the research section.

Certainly when I read it I assumed that "all skill checks made against technology" included knowledge skills.

And its not as if this is the first time that important rules are buried in feats.

For what its worth I really, really want you to be right. So. Please convince me that your reading is the only correct one.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think it's clear if you read the actual page from the book.

The only skills you're using "against technology" are Craft, Disable Device, and Linguistics.

The skills you're using for "researching technology" are Knowledge and Heal.

Does anyone have a link to the other discussion? I seem to have missed it.

Scarab Sages Venture-Agent, Washington—Ballard aka WiseWolfOfYoitsu

We really need an official verification to the ruling on how this feat interacts with Robot subtyped creatures...It's causing many games to be no interaction murderhobo-fests, as many GMs are interpreting this to apply to creatures as well as traps and Numerian languages.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Nefreet wrote:

I think it's clear if you read the actual page from the book.

The only skills you're using "against technology" are Craft, Disable Device, and Linguistics.

The skills you're using for "researching technology" are Knowledge and Heal.

Does anyone have a link to the other discussion? I seem to have missed it.

There really wasn't any discussion of what the feat covered. I asserted that it covered knowledge checks (that is how I read the feat) and nobody disagreed. John's post implies he interpreted it that way too.

The whole discussion is spread across 3 threads in the PFS/GMs forums.

If technologist only affects these skills then the whole thing becomes way less important. And the feat WAY less useful.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I plan on using my Barbarian with Knowledge (adamantine longhammer) for much of Season 6. So this shouldn't be a problem.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Well, furthermore, if you take a look at page 5...

Craft wrote:
Without the Technologist feat
Disable Device wrote:
With the Technologist feat
Linguistics wrote:
with the Technologist feat

You'll notice those are the only 3 skills with a disclaimer about having the Technologist feat.

None of the other skills, which are also in a different section, do. I think that's telling.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
pauljathome wrote:
If technologist only affects these skills then the whole thing becomes way less important. And the feat WAY less useful.

I disagree.

Without this feat you cannot use Linguistics to discern Numerian writing (since Adroffan is limited to a Chronicle boon). This makes discerning any writing in Numerian ruins impossible.

Without this feat, a Rogue could have 11 ranks in Disable Device, with a +30 something to the check, and be completely unable to disarm a DC 15 technological trap.

And, if any Season 6 scenarios incorporate the need for Craft checks regarding technology, only those PCs with this feat can even attempt them.

I think those 3 applications make it worthwhile. I thought so enough to build a character around it (though I recognize that not everyone will).

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Well, furthermore, if you take a look at page 5... You'll notice those are the only 3 skills with a disclaimer about having the Technologist feat.

None of the other skills, which are also in a different section, do. I think that's telling.

I think that's an unfortunate reading of the section.

Technology Guide p5 wrote:

Skills

No new skills are introduced to the Pathfinder RPG to model how characters interact with technology--rather, existing skills are expanded to allow for such interaction. Additional rules for how skills interact with technology are listed below. Without the Technologist feat, a character is treated as untrained in the skill in question when using it on technology.

The list of skills includes Craft (mechanical), Disable Device, Linguistics (Androffan), or research skills like Heal, K:Engineering, and K: Geography.

Looking at the coloring of the setting headings clearly indicates that Researching Technology is under the subheading of Skills, just like the other skills. It feels a little silly that we should have to get into questions of section heading coloring to see that my medieval cleric shouldn't know anything at all about technological pharmaceuticals.

The six skills listed deal with technology. The Technology Guide details how skills work with regards to technology unless someone has the Technologist feat.

I think that we as a community have now worked ourselves past Shock and Denial (No, I won't use that feat and no one can make me!) to Bargaining (Okay, but I don't think that language says what it actually says, so I'm going to read it the way I think it should be.). I can't wait until we all just get to Acceptance, because these rules aren't game destroying and work just fine.

If GMs don't like these rules, don't play the Tech scenarios. Or play home games. But if you-the-reader are reading this post right now, then you are aware that there are new rules for PFS. Choosing not to use them isn't the right answer. If you don't understand them, figure out what they are and use them. I've outlined the most important ones in the GM Discussion Forum. I think it's unfortunate that these rules aren't in the Guide, but every one of us who has read this (or any of the other three posts!) knows there is a rule change and should be spreading those rules to their communities.

((Sorry, threadjack. I've just been having this argument for a week now (in three other posts!) and I'm reaching my limit.))


pauljathome wrote:


If technologist only affects these skills then the whole thing becomes way less important. And the feat WAY less useful.

Like crane wing?

5/5

Will Comprehend Languages still decipher Numerian writings?

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

andreww wrote:
Will Comprehend Languages still decipher Numerian writings?

Comprehend Languages don't care about no secret languages!

PRD wrote:
You can understand the spoken words of creatures or read otherwise incomprehensible written messages. The ability to read does not necessarily impart insight into the material, merely its literal meaning. The spell enables you to understand or read an unknown language, not speak or write it.

Also, most Numerians speak Hallit. Androffan is the secret language of the creatures and constructs that crash-landed in Numeria, plus the Technic League.

The Exchange

So season 6 is looking pretty dumb.

Shadow Lodge

This topic is still being discussed over here.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

*Tinkers with a Numerian robot unsuccessfully as he doesn't have the necessary feat, breaks off a node, activating a shimmering blue hologram of an annoyed Season 6 PFS gamer*

"Please Mike & John, you are our only hope."

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Holds a pair of dinner rolls over the newts ears

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone suggested that instead of treating people as "untrained" for these skill checks (when they don't have the Technologist feat) that the DCs are simply 5-10 higher for these checks? I think a +10 DC to decipher technology hundreds of years more advanced than your own is a a pretty appropriate modifier. If a PC is the Golarion equivalent of Leonardo da Vinci, she should at least have a chance to figure out the rudimentary working bits. :-)

5/5

It's been suggested - but that's not the rule the developers went with when they made the book.

Da Vinci spent a long time working on technology - which is likely how he got the "technologist" feat to be able to make those skill checks. ;)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Having reflected on this, I'm fine with the Technologist requirement.

If you ever use a very, very advanced toilet in Japan, and you experience the mystification of how do I flush this?, you will know that even full mastery of one's own technology does not necessarily prepare you to use another's!

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those concerned about fitting the Technologist Feat into their build, one option would be to play or run

Spoiler:

Refuge of Time

Success should provide you the means to deal with this for the duration of Season 6.*

*Provided your character is level 7 or higher**

**And there may be a price.***

***A terrible price.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know, I'm pretty much in the group of people who views knowledges as a "nice to have," so I'm not going to be up in arms if I can't make knowledge checks against the BBEG's death ray. And ultimately, I'm pretty sure most of the murderhobos out there will still smash it to bits anyway with the rest of the robots they run into.

It's only a speedbump for the scenarios in this season, and for some creatures or content.

But please, don't change the rules to suit your needs by increasing DCs instead. Save it for a home game.

Like pageant of the peacock all over again, just the opposite complaint. (I CAN'T MAKE ANY KNOWELDGES!!!! vs THEY CAN MAKE ALL THE KNOWLEDGES!!!")

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Its just really poor design when essentially the solution for everything is going to come down to adamantine weapons smashing through because you don't want to take a feat for the whole 6-7 scenarios in S6 that contain technology that requires it to make checks.

Not to mention the fact that this is supposed to be a joint game where the rogue spots the trap, and the wizard elaborates using knowledge on what it does, we now have a situation where only the one who invested in this feat can interact in a meaningful manner rather than, great, I smash it now.

I GMed first steps the other day for 3 barbarians and 2 level 1 pregens who were new players to PFS. The barbarians made the rest of the table somewhat moot in every combat by stating "I power attack, dealing X+12-15 damage, which was more static damage than the rest of the table could deal with their attacks, and more than the number of HP of anything in the scenario (at least with the minimum damage rolls, not necessarily just from static).

We should really be careful about invalidating players who want to contribute in a meaningful manner beyond "I power attack it".

Shadow Lodge

David_Bross wrote:
I GMed first steps the other day for 3 barbarians and 2 level 1 pregens who were new players to PFS. The barbarians made the rest of the table somewhat moot...

How many GMs are seeing a lot of PCs making level 1 barbarians that suddenly morph into something completely different upon reaching level 2? As some form of "my concept isn't good at level 1, so this Barbarian with 2d6+13 Power Attack and 26hp Tribal Scars is what I'm playing until I start my 4th scenario?"

And the same barbarian is then used again by the same player for their next ##,###-? before it morphs again into the "real desired PC". I think I've seen at least 5-6 people do this in the past 6 months now. Technically, they can do this, even if it gets a frown from the GM/coordinator. And, it's very true if 2 or more people are doing this in the same scenario, it really throws off the experience of the subtier 1-2 scenario for everyone involved (by marginalizing their respective contributions).

Now where's that level 4 bard BBEG with a scroll of Dominate when you need them?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because John is aware of the problems presented by the Technologist feat, I'm trusting that our campaign coordinators won't screw people over by having every creature or obstacle in every scenario this season involve technology. It sounds like we won't be dealing much with technology anyway most of the time in this season based on John's previous blog posts. So this problem isn't going to matter most of the time.

It'd be a different story if it was more than a minority of content that required this feat. I'm still not concerned.

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

wakedown wrote:
David_Bross wrote:
I GMed first steps the other day for 3 barbarians and 2 level 1 pregens who were new players to PFS. The barbarians made the rest of the table somewhat moot...

How many GMs are seeing a lot of PCs making level 1 barbarians that suddenly morph into something completely different upon reaching level 2? As some form of "my concept isn't good at level 1, so this Barbarian with 2d6+13 Power Attack and 26hp Tribal Scars is what I'm playing until I start my 4th scenario?"

And the same barbarian is then used again by the same player for their next ##,###-? before it morphs again into the "real desired PC". I think I've seen at least 5-6 people do this in the past 6 months now. Technically, they can do this, even if it gets a frown from the GM/coordinator. And, it's very true if 2 or more people are doing this in the same scenario, it really throws off the experience of the subtier 1-2 scenario for everyone involved (by marginalizing their respective contributions).

Now where's that level 4 bard BBEG with a scroll of Dominate when you need them?

The tactic is really stupid, but seems legal, I feel sorry for the other players.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
David_Bross wrote:
I GMed first steps the other day for 3 barbarians and 2 level 1 pregens who were new players to PFS. The barbarians made the rest of the table somewhat moot...

How many GMs are seeing a lot of PCs making level 1 barbarians that suddenly morph into something completely different upon reaching level 2? As some form of "my concept isn't good at level 1, so this Barbarian with 2d6+13 Power Attack and 26hp Tribal Scars is what I'm playing until I start my 4th scenario?"

And the same barbarian is then used again by the same player for their next ##,###-? before it morphs again into the "real desired PC". I think I've seen at least 5-6 people do this in the past 6 months now. Technically, they can do this, even if it gets a frown from the GM/coordinator. And, it's very true if 2 or more people are doing this in the same scenario, it really throws off the experience of the subtier 1-2 scenario for everyone involved (by marginalizing their respective contributions).

Now where's that level 4 bard BBEG with a scroll of Dominate when you need them?

Hasn't anyone told these people that skipping 1st level is what GM credit is for?

Dark Archive 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fromper wrote:
wakedown wrote:
David_Bross wrote:
I GMed first steps the other day for 3 barbarians and 2 level 1 pregens who were new players to PFS. The barbarians made the rest of the table somewhat moot...

How many GMs are seeing a lot of PCs making level 1 barbarians that suddenly morph into something completely different upon reaching level 2? As some form of "my concept isn't good at level 1, so this Barbarian with 2d6+13 Power Attack and 26hp Tribal Scars is what I'm playing until I start my 4th scenario?"

And the same barbarian is then used again by the same player for their next ##,###-? before it morphs again into the "real desired PC". I think I've seen at least 5-6 people do this in the past 6 months now. Technically, they can do this, even if it gets a frown from the GM/coordinator. And, it's very true if 2 or more people are doing this in the same scenario, it really throws off the experience of the subtier 1-2 scenario for everyone involved (by marginalizing their respective contributions).

Now where's that level 4 bard BBEG with a scroll of Dominate when you need them?

Hasn't anyone told these people that skipping 1st level is what GM credit is for?

If only I could lower the gold on my GM credits so they could apply to 1st level characters regardless of tier.

4/5

There are so many replayable and regmable level 1 credits.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread went off-topic fast. wakedown - you should talk to those players, and tell them that if they continue it will likely result in free retraining disappearing - Campaign Management made it clear when it was introduced that it shouldn't be abused. It was meant for trying out concepts, and fixing broken ones/mistakes. Not for making L.1 a breeze.

Arkos wrote:
If GMs don't like these rules, don't play the Tech scenarios.

Done! - Thanks! :)

The Exchange 5/5

David_Bross wrote:
There are so many replayable and regmable level 1 credits.

there are judges out there (NOT ME!) who don't like to run the re-playables... I don't understand them, but there are...

perhaps CigarPete is one of those.

I, myself, will jump at the chance to run First Steps & Fallen Fortress & Crypt of the Everflame & ... so many others!

The Exchange 5/5

wow... just thought of something...

how about someone who creates a PC with the techonoglist feat, and then at 2hd level swaps it out. So you would have a 1st level guy the team of 5s & 4s are dragging along as a "subject matter expert", realizing that he is just going to be re-written later.

The player would be "taking one for the team" and playing up tier (so getting more gold)... and everyone would be trying to keep him alive... and he would be filling a very useful role!

edit: I could see it when the group of players sit down to play the Tier 1-5 game, and they all have higher level (5s and 4s) PCs... "ok, who's playing the Nerd?" - and switching out to play a 1st level Techie...

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crypt of Everflame is fun to run. Last time I ran it was for a group of 0 XP PCs. I had to break out the Starvation rules because their only healer was a War Priest and they spent so much time resting they had gone through all their rations and eaten every edible critter in the dungeon by the time they were done. It's been a long time since I had run an adventure where no one had a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.

The Exchange 5/5

trollbill wrote:
Crypt of Everflame is fun to run. Last time I ran it was for a group of 0 XP PCs. I had to break out the Starvation rules because their only healer was a War Priest and they spent so much time resting they had gone through all their rations and eaten every edible critter in the dungeon by the time they were done. It's been a long time since I had run an adventure where no one had a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.

that sounds Cool!

"Frog legs again?!!"
"Shut up, it's better than 'bone soup!" shudder!
"Yeah,... wish we could find another of those big bugs... there was some good eatin' on that thing..."

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:
David_Bross wrote:
There are so many replayable and regmable level 1 credits.

there are judges out there (NOT ME!) who don't like to run the re-playables... I don't understand them, but there are...

perhaps CigarPete is one of those.

I, myself, will jump at the chance to run First Steps & Fallen Fortress & Crypt of the Everflame & ... so many others!

I don't mind running them, but somebody needs to run the higher level stuff, too.

And I like skipping low levels with GM credits, just to get my PCs up to the level where the main mechanical concept of the PC kicks in, which is frequently somewhere around level 2-4. But once the PC is up to the level of doing what it was built for, I'd rather play it, and not skip ahead using GM credits.

So yes, I'd like the ability to apply GM credits from higher level scenarios to level 1 PCs, too. For instance, I just GMed a 7-11 last week and don't want to reduce the number of times I can play my characters at that level by applying the GM credit to any of them. But I have a level 1 paladin that I'd really like to get to level 2 before playing him again, just so he'll have Lay on Hands.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32 aka Netopalis

I've never seen this. Honestly, with most 1-5s, even a suboptimal level 1 is extremely unlikely to die.

4/5

Netopalis wrote:
I've never seen this. Honestly, with most 1-5s, even a suboptimal level 1 is extremely unlikely to die.

I disagree. Plenty of 1-5s have AoE damage in them and if you play a level 1 in the 4-5 subtier you're asking for trouble. I encourage players to play a pregen if everyone else is 4-5 to avoid the potential risk of PC death, although some like that OOT gold and refuse.

Silver Crusade

Even playing at the proper tier, level 1s are kinda squishy. One crit can ruin your day.

The Exchange 5/5

nosig wrote:

wow... just thought of something...

how about someone who creates a PC with the techonoglist feat, and then at 2hd level swaps it out. So you would have a 1st level guy the team of 5s & 4s are dragging along as a "subject matter expert", realizing that he is just going to be re-written later.

The player would be "taking one for the team" and playing up tier (so getting more gold)... and everyone would be trying to keep him alive... and he would be filling a very useful role!

edit: I could see it when the group of players sit down to play the Tier 1-5 game, and they all have higher level (5s and 4s) PCs... "ok, who's playing the Nerd?" - and switching out to play a 1st level Techie...

yeah, I can see this.

The Cleric drops a shield other on him and the other PCs each chip in something to help cover "the Nerd"... then they have him around for those "Tech questions" and it even sort of makes RP sense.

VC: "I'm sending Nerdie Guy along with you for any special Numerian problems you might encounter - try not to get him killed. He's actually more valuable to the Society than the rest of you..."

Kind of like Daniel Jackson in the first Stargate movie...

Silver Crusade

That should be an NPC, not a PC.

The Exchange 5/5

Fromper wrote:
That should be an NPC, not a PC.

maybe... I wouldn't mind being "Dr. Jackson"... or for that matter I can see running one of the "less important" team members. Lots of RP there!

and story wise, I think an main character like that should be a PC. Nothing bothers me more about a scenario than having the main characters being run by the Judge...

and a group that plays together regularly could easily play this up big.

"Ok guys. I get to run the Nerd this week, and Bob, you'll get him next week..."

Dark Archive 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nosig wrote:
David_Bross wrote:
There are so many replayable and regmable level 1 credits.

there are judges out there (NOT ME!) who don't like to run the re-playables... I don't understand them, but there are...

perhaps CigarPete is one of those.

I, myself, will jump at the chance to run First Steps & Fallen Fortress & Crypt of the Everflame & ... so many others!

I don't mind running scenarios multiple times, especially the evergreen stuff, but my regular playgroup would rather see new scenarios/modules than run the same ones over and over again.

The Exchange 5/5

CigarPete wrote:
nosig wrote:
David_Bross wrote:
There are so many replayable and regmable level 1 credits.

there are judges out there (NOT ME!) who don't like to run the re-playables... I don't understand them, but there are...

perhaps CigarPete is one of those.

I, myself, will jump at the chance to run First Steps & Fallen Fortress & Crypt of the Everflame & ... so many others!

I don't mind running scenarios multiple times, especially the evergreen stuff, but my regular playgroup would rather see new scenarios/modules than run the same ones over and over again.

or perhaps he's not.

:-)

Shadow Lodge

Thumbs up for Everflame.

I've run it twice and would gladly run it multiple times in the future. I honestly am fairly tapped out on any more PC concepts that I'd need and have enough level 2s waiting for some sort of epiphany at this point to put them to paper.

We're way off topic now, and it's not all entirely my fault, which is good.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

wakedown wrote:

Thumbs up for Everflame.

I've run it twice and would gladly run it multiple times in the future. I honestly am fairly tapped out on any more PC concepts that I'd need and have enough level 2s waiting for some sort of epiphany at this point to put them to paper.

We're way off topic now, and it's not all entirely my fault, which is good.

On the level 2s: I use PFS for playing the stuff I don't know so well, or likely wouldn't want to go near in a home game; so, as a way-too-prolific GM, I have a bunch of 2nd level PCs I have never played, built with classes and/or archetypes I am weak on.

And, now, I am thinking of building a PC who will never see play before he gets retired, just as a credit dump for a complete GM run of Emerald Spire... Heh.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Sorry for my absence. I just now noticed that this thread had gotten moved. Let's get it back on track, shall we?

Arkos wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Well, furthermore, if you take a look at page 5... You'll notice those are the only 3 skills with a disclaimer about having the Technologist feat.

None of the other skills, which are also in a different section, do. I think that's telling.

I think that's an unfortunate reading of the section.

Technology Guide p5 wrote:

Skills

No new skills are introduced to the Pathfinder RPG to model how characters interact with technology--rather, existing skills are expanded to allow for such interaction. Additional rules for how skills interact with technology are listed below. Without the Technologist feat, a character is treated as untrained in the skill in question when using it on technology.

The list of skills includes Craft (mechanical), Disable Device, Linguistics (Androffan), or research skills like Heal, K:Engineering, and K: Geography.

Looking at the coloring of the setting headings clearly indicates that Researching Technology is under the subheading of Skills, just like the other skills. It feels a little silly that we should have to get into questions of section heading coloring to see that my medieval cleric shouldn't know anything at all about technological pharmaceuticals.

The six skills listed deal with technology. The Technology Guide details how skills work with regards to technology unless someone has the Technologist feat.

I think that we as a community have now worked ourselves past Shock and Denial (No, I won't use that feat and no one can make me!) to Bargaining (Okay, but I don't think that language says what it actually says, so I'm going to read it the way I think it should be.). I can't wait until we all just get to Acceptance, because these rules aren't game destroying and work just fine.

If GMs don't like these rules, don't play the Tech scenarios. Or play home games. But if you-the-reader are reading this post right now, then you are aware that there are new rules for PFS. Choosing not to use them isn't the right answer. If you don't understand them, figure out what they are and use them. I've outlined the most important ones in the GM Discussion Forum. I think it's unfortunate that these rules aren't in the Guide, but every one of us who has read this (or any of the other three posts!) knows there is a rule change and should be spreading those rules to their communities.

((Sorry, threadjack. I've just been having this argument for a week now (in three other posts!) and I'm reaching my limit.))

I addressed that quote in my original post. We're reading the same section and coming to different conclusions.

I don't see different coloring in my PDF. And I think the 6 skills being divided up into two sections is telling. If it didn't matter, then they wouldn't have been separated.

You say you've been involved in three other threads. Do you have any links or quotes you can provide as evidence that your interpretation of these rules is accurate? Nothing you've said here convinces me, though I am open to being shown otherwise.

I dislike your categorization of "Shock and Denial", "Bargaining", and "Acceptance". I fall under none of them. I am simply going off of the words written on page 5, and interpreting them to the best of my ability.

If you have anything further to say, I'd love to hear it (honestly, that isn't snark).

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / A PSA for GMs running Season 6 scenarios All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.