Venture-Agent, Georgia—Atlanta
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you can apply the "existing Race Character' option to that same character, per Thursty.
Disclaimer: his post is in the middle of a GM Discussion Thread and the rest of the Thread contains spoilers.
Wei Ji the Learner had the link, but his other post was deleted. Sorry, that was Nefreet. I have trouble telling Tengu apart.
Venture-Captain, Illinois—Fairview Heights
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question about the "race admittance" boons. I tried searching for it on the forums and don't see an answer.
If I play a scenario that granted a race admittance boon. Create a character that is that race using the 'personal' boon I get from it, then run that scenario scenario and apply the chronicle to that character, do I get the 'Existing race character' boon?
The line that is tangling me up is the part about "that you earned from another source" in the boon. I read that as being "any source that granted you the race boon, but not this particular chronicle" but some others have told me that it must be a completely separate boon (like one granted to a GM at a convention).
You can absolutely stack the GMing and playing version. Source: This post by Thursty.
*Edit* I should have read page 5 before replying. I would have seen that someone already answered your question and saved myself a lot of Paizo style Google-Fu. I am immensely terrible at that particular style.
|
I have a question about the "race admittance" boons. I tried searching for it on the forums and don't see an answer.
If I play a scenario that granted a race admittance boon. Create a character that is that race using the 'personal' boon I get from it, then run that scenario scenario and apply the chronicle to that character, do I get the 'Existing race character' boon?
The line that is tangling me up is the part about "that you earned from another source" in the boon. I read that as being "any source that granted you the race boon, but not this particular chronicle" but some others have told me that it must be a completely separate boon (like one granted to a GM at a convention).
You can absolutely stack the GMing and playing version. Source: This post by Thursty.
*Edit* I should have read page 5 before replying. I would have seen that someone already answered your question and saved myself a lot of Paizo style Google-Fu. I am immensely terrible at that particular style.
So there was a facebook post about two weeks ago when Thursty (the same Thursty) said you can't stack the GMing and playing version. See comments from Thurston Hillman on: https://www.facebook.com/groups/120115198524924/permalink/308142599722182/
One of the other comments pointed out this appeared to contradict what he said in Jake's linked-to thread, to which Thursty replied, in part, "...I am at a convention and will give this serious thought later". This is the last update that I've seen on the matter.
|
This is both disappointing to learn that there has been a recent contradiction of the original ruling, and frustrating to follow. I hope that it works out in the Yes direction, but I do honestly understand if Thursty ultimately says no. But since you're only applying the Boon, I think there's argument for it to be allowed to be applied the second time.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's something I'm looking at. Generally, Facebook posts aren't the best place to get commentary from me and I'll try to avoid it in the future.
So current note: Ruling to come in the future.
One positive side effect of allowing each version (create/enhance) of the boon to be applied to the same character is increasing desire to both play and GM.
Player A GMs a scenario for six players, so they can now all create a Nerfoid character, but Player A wants to play the scenario, too. Plus, Player H didn't get a chance to play and would like to both play the scenario and make a Nerfoid character.
Players B-G have their ability to create a Nerfoid character already and may not be altruistic enough to GM the scenario out of appreciation for Player A's efforts.
However, since GMing the scenario after playing it lets you make your Nerfoid character stronger, Player C decides to step up to the plate and now Player A, H, and two walk-ins get the opportunity to play the scenario.
|
|
One positive side effect of allowing each version (create/enhance) of the boon to be applied to the same character is increasing desire to both play and GM.
And a negative effect is it even further reduces the value of RSP GM#1 which was one of the major ways we could qualify for the enhancement. It also reduces the value of boon trades for the gifted RSP GM#1 benefit.
|
|
One could argue that with the rumored freeing of legacy races to be chosen for character creation sometime after Gencon, that all of these boons are going to heavily lose value in rapid order. If that is actually coming down the line, that is. And if it does, all the better for people who are able to get a little boost to their legacy race characters.
Also, thank you Thursty. I know you have a ton on your plate right now, and that you'll get to this when you can.
|
|
One positive side effect of allowing each version (create/enhance) of the boon to be applied to the same character is increasing desire to both play and GM.And a negative effect is it even further reduces the value of RSP GM#1 which was one of the major ways we could qualify for the enhancement. It also reduces the value of boon trades for the gifted RSP GM#1 benefit.
1. These dual create/enhance boons exist for non-Legacy races (now), so for some people, this is the only way they're going to get to apply the 'enhance' aspect of the boon.
2. Allowing them to stack has no effect on the value of legacy race boons, positive or negative. That certain legacy race Chronicle boons exist--and thus allow never-GM to gain legacy races--is not the discussion. You can have 2 GM Convention boons granting legacy races and chose X for both because you really love playing Xs, and you both played and GMed the scenario that grants a create X/enhance X Chronicle boon, so you apply them to both your Xs, as you always could.
So if I have a GM Con boon and a RSP GM boon, I can apply two enhances instead of a local player/sometimes-GM who can only make one and enhance one or make two with no enhancement. If they can't stack, then the local player/sometimes-GM can only create two and never enhance.
|
|
One could argue that with the rumored freeing of legacy races to be chosen for character creation sometime after Gencon, that all of these boons are going to heavily lose value in rapid order.
If this is true, this is a true conclusion. If there are any plans to open up legacy races to Always Available at some point, then the Chronicle boons should definitely stack.
How crummy would it be to earn two versions of the Chronicle boon but not be allowed to use the second to enhance the first? Because now you'll use that boon to create two legacy-X characters and then six months later that legacy-X race becomes Always Available, and if you had just waited, you could have applied 2 enhancements to those two characters.
|
|
If we're getting an answer on the boon stacking, we may also want to go ahead and pre-answer what happens to these boons when the races become open to everyone. Does the boon automatically convert to the 'existing race X' boon? And if so, and if we do get to stack the Player/GM boon, do we get two of the 'existing race X'?
I don't really think it's that big of a deal to have the stacking since they're limited to stats < 14, personally. I mean, it obviously makes the character better rounded, but it doesn't (in my opinion) fundamentally break the game.
|
|
And as has been quoted as a point of concern before, it incentivizes GM-ing scenarios more often by then giving GMs a nice little buff to one of their legacy race characters.
Edit: I also think that Nefreet's situation is something that should take paramount consideration. They are certainly not the only one who has taken Thurston's words as gospel and developed a character on the idea that it's allowed. That second boon and its accompanying chronicle sheet are now part of the series of chronicle sheets attached to a character. If this ruling is overturned, it could be a nightmare for those players who have had new chronicle sheets afterwards to rearrange things, not to mention the loss of experience, credits, fame, and rep earned through the second sheet that won't be easy to take out of accounts in most cases. It will invalidate many characters created under one interpretation.
|
|
Wouldn't it though? If I made a halfling using the 1-10 boon, then GM-ed it and applied it to that same halfling for credits, xp, fame, and rep, and this decision was overturned, I would then no longer be able to count that entire chronicle sheet towards my halfling, correct? Since the ruling that would overturn this would be saying that you can't apply the chronicle to the character because it's already been applied throught he halfing admittance boon.
|
|
No, you wouldn't be able to apply the 'enhance' function of the boon from the chronicle to your halfling, but you could easily 'un-apply' the 'enhance' function and use the boon to make a second halfling, leaving the Chronicle and associated xp, credits, fame on the first halfling.
The boon is not locked to the character to which the chronicle is applied.
EDIT: Unless there is significant difference in the wording of the halfling boon. I only have access to two of those kinds of chronicles, and the halfling one isn't one of them.
|
|
Oh ok, I misunderstood then. So right now, I could GM 1-10 and earn a chronicle for my halfling that I made with the 1-10 boon? And then depending on the ruling, I could just apply the +2 to my halfling once it's ruled yes or no.
Correct
@ Glen: That is an issue, though it could be handled with lots of scribbled notes and print outs of the conflicting rulings (if the final conflicts). Still an issue, I agree.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Central Europe
|
In 1-09 there is an item on the sheet (red star plasma kukri) that you are given a statblock for that says it is a level 4 item that costs 2450 credits, but its gear listing says it is item level 5 and 3,200 credits. Which one is the correct listing?
This was answered here :http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uxtd?SFS-109-Live-Exploration-Extreme#10
The higher price and higher item level are the correct values. I'll be seeing about updating this as soon as we can.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please stop putting fusion seals into scenarios as if they were a solution to a problem in that scenario? Whenever I am running a table of relatively new players through an adventure where a fusion seal is found that seems perfect for whatever issue they are facing, the game grinds to a halt as I have to explain that it takes 24 hours for the fusion to take effect, which in turn leads to at least 10 minutes of arguing and griping and really drags the players out of the fun.
For instance
Both 1-14 Star Sugar Heartlove! and 1-15 Save the Renkrodas! present the PCs with a merciful fusion seal moments after they are asked to avoid dealing lethal damage. I'd thought that 1-14 was just a misapprehension on the part of the author, but seeing the same situation in 1-15 seems to mark a trend
I understand that the fusion seal rules are not the most intuitive, and that authors want to give players the chance to succeed in their adventures, but I always end up feeling like the bad guy when the players get excited about finding the solution to their problem and I have to deny them.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon Fusions and Weapon Seals seem to have been written backwards. It's currently easier, cheaper and faster to transfer Fusions, even though the text tells us it's more expensive and difficult.
Since we as GMs don't exist in a vacuum, I look at this contradiction (and the ad nauseum debates online) as meaning that Paizo goofed and the text will be errata'd eventually.
I tell this to my players (as I just did at a local Convention), and I allow them to use Seals immediately, with the caveat to keep an eye out for a future ruling that will hopefully clarify the issue.
Because, as you mentioned, it doesn't make sense to offer the perfect tool to overcome an encounter when you can't use it (and to do it across multiple scenarios).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Star sugar heart love also solves the problem with a no lethal damage field accross the entire temple of sheylyn.
Which.. played raw, would result in a LOT of TPKs as the thing shouldn't take any damage at all
I had to fix this on the spot and decided to apply the clause from PF Merciful that weapons still do lethal against things that are immune to nonlethal damage.
If you want mercy you better be ready to receive it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tell this to my players (as I just did at a local Convention), and I allow them to use Seals immediately, with the caveat to keep an eye out for a future ruling that will hopefully clarify the issue.
I would strongly discourage breaking the rules, especially since it creates a situation where players will cite your breaking the rules as precedent and encouragement for other GMs to break the rules.
As written, fusion seals take 24 hours to attune. Until there is a FAQ or erratum, that is how the rules work whether it makes sense to you or not.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ascalaphus, it says nowhere that Merciful weapons still do lethal against creatures immune to nonlethal. You have to turn it off before you can actually do damage. I've played with a Merciful weapon, I found out the hard way. >_>
Hmm, you're right. I must have remembered wrong.
In any case, faced with a choice of making the scenario unwinnable, I chose not to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody play 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons? Did you own the Complete Barbarians Handbook?
It included two new ranged weapons options for Barbarians: the "Boomerang, Returning" and the "Boomerang, Non-returning".
The returning version dealt only 1d4 damage, but if you missed you could throw it again. The non-returning version simply dealt 14+12 damage.
Typos and contradictions exist in every game. Some are more obvious than others. So you'll have two groups of people form: those who notice the typo, and those who don't. But for those who notice the typo, you'll then have two further divisions: those who question the typo, and those who don't.
Those who notice the typo, but don't question it, are the ones tossing boomerangs that always deal 26 damage. Those who question typos are more likely to toss something that does 1d4+1d2.
I see the issue of fusions and seals as no different.
|
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.
Sometimes you'll come across a character option that's missing a key piece of information
This is not one of those cases.
I agree that the language on fusion seals is counterintuitive (at best). In my home games of Starfinder, I rule that they can be moved from weapon-to-weapon and become active immediately.
Starfinder Society is not my home game.
No matter how many people agree that the language seems wrong or that the rules for weapon fusions vs. fusion seals seems to be backwards, it is not "missing information" that the GM needs to come up with a solution for on the fly.
This is also not the 1980s-90s, when a typo in the rules was unlikely to be fixed for years (if at all). Paizo's developers are fairly active answering and posting FAQs, and are more than willing to make changes to major components of their game systems if errors are brought to their attention and they agree that a fix is needed.
If you'd like to start a (or point me to a popular) thread/petition on the rules forum for the language governing fusions/seals to be changed, I will lend my voice in support the moment I am made aware of it, but until an FAQ or errata is posted regarding these items, please do not encourage GMs or players to ignore or break the rules. Thanks.
|
Weapon Fusions and Weapon Seals seem to have been written backwards. It's currently easier, cheaper and faster to transfer Fusions, even though the text tells us it's more expensive and difficult.
Since we as GMs don't exist in a vacuum, I look at this contradiction (and the ad nauseum debates online) as meaning that Paizo goofed and the text will be errata'd eventually.
I tell this to my players (as I just did at a local Convention), and I allow them to use Seals immediately, with the caveat to keep an eye out for a future ruling that will hopefully clarify the issue.
I tell my players the exact same thing, at least for the first two paragraphs. But I tell them the exact opposite for the third.
"It's really annoying when you find a seal in a scenario that you can't use, but that's the way the rules currently stand. Keep an eye out for a future errata that will hopefully fix the issue."
|
|
I tell this to my players (as I just did at a local Convention), and I allow them to use Seals immediately, with the caveat to keep an eye out for a future ruling that will hopefully clarify the issue.
My reading and as I've applied it, is it takes 24 hours for a fusion seal to "unattune" to a previous weapon, but a new fusion seal or one found on its own (not currently attached to a weapon) can be used immediately.
I interpret the 24 hour rule to stop players from swapping fusion seals on weapons as if it was ammunition. But obviously if you find one in an adventure, the authors clearly intend for it to be used immediately.
|
|
I interpret the 24 hour rule to stop players from swapping fusion seals on weapons as if it was ammunition. But obviously if you find one in an adventure, the authors clearly intend for it to be used immediately.
At least one author has explicitly stated that he was aware of the limit and did not intend for the players to use it immediately; he put it in as a long-term nudge and to have it on the chronicle sheet.
|
|
SFS #1-27 has an error regarding a hazard on the map. I don't know where else to put this so I'm going to write it here. Maybe the author will see it and provide clarification. See spoiler tag for details.
"Chilled mist from damaged atmosphere piping gulfs the blue-tinted watery regions of this map [Urban Sprawl side 1]."
Except, there are no "blue-tinted watery regions" on this side of the flip-mat. This description would work if we were using the other side of the flip-mat, but that side is not featured in the Scenario. Please advise where this hazard is supposed to be located.
Starfinder Society Developer
|
SFS #1-27 has an error regarding a hazard on the map. I don't know where else to put this so I'm going to write it here. Maybe the author will see it and provide clarification. See spoiler tag for details.
** spoiler omitted **
The map includes blue areas, though they're more gray/brown because of the murkiness. I'd just mark out associated squares that do a bit of a U from the enemy starting positions.
