|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Available at Additional Resources
Overall, I think its an excellent job weeding out many of the problematic things while still allowing a lot of stuff that will make things interesting at the same.
I do have a couple of issues with what made it in, personally. Not banned bipods and gunner harnesses being a big one. Allowing for shenanigans with summoning grenades and bombarding fusion being another(although this may be dealt with in an imminent FAQ.) But overall an excellent piece of work which opens up a lot of fun builds.
|
A couple weapons still need some clarification.
Mostly shuriken & their non-quantified Bleed damage.
Shuriken, microserrated (Level 10) Bleed (no value)
Shuriken, ultraserrated (Level 16) Bleed (no value)
Dart cannon, paragon (level 19) Range 1500 (should it be 150?)
Perferator pistol, phased (Level 20) Bleed (no value)
|
|
I am a little disappointed about the battle ribbon, I had a neat character concept around it. I understand though, as that weapon introduces a new proficiency requirement and could add confusion.
Oh well, home game for that concept or possibly a con boon will open it up.
Yeah, only the level 1 ribbon is banned. I THINK its because you could pick it up for 1 rank in perform dance , whereas the other ribbons can be snagged that way for proficiency but then you wouldn't get specilization.
|
|
I am a little disappointed about the battle ribbon, I had a neat character concept around it. I understand though, as that weapon introduces a new proficiency requirement and could add confusion.
Oh well, home game for that concept or possibly a con boon will open it up.
Yeah, only the level 1 ribbon is banned. I THINK its because you could pick it up for 1 rank in perform dance , whereas the other ribbons can be snagged that way for proficiency but then you wouldn't get specilization.
I wrote a long post that got eaten when the forums went down (the first time). Don't remember it all but the gist is:
- I don't think there is a level 1 ribbon, the lowest is the level 3 Traditional Battle Ribbon.
- The way the Professional property works you need at least as many ranks in Profession: Dancer as the Item Level of the ribbon you wish to use to gain proficiency.
- You don't have to have those ranks, though. The Professional property is an alternative, not a requirement. You can also get proficiency simply by having the Advanced Melee Weapon Proficiency feat.
- There's no way to get specialization without picking up Advanced Melee Weapon Proficiency first. From the Professional property "This proficiency never counts toward prerequisites of any kind."
- If there is an "exploit" at work here, it's that the (non-plasma) ribbons do more damage dice than any other equivalent item level Advanced Melee weapons with the operative property. Significantly so in the case of the zero-edge and micro-edge varieties.
Since there's no item named just "battle ribbon" I'm pretty sure all battle ribbons are banned, but it would be nice to have that significant "s" in the Additional Resources document.
|
|
Grumble, well thats another character idea put on hold. Hopefully their lore connections made them ripe for chronicle sheet loot.
There's no way to get specialization without picking up Advanced Melee Weapon Proficiency first. From the Professional property "This proficiency never counts toward prerequisites of any kind."
I didn't imply otherwise.
If there is an "exploit" at work here, it's that the (non-plasma) ribbons do more damage dice than any other equivalent item level Advanced Melee weapons with the operative property. Significantly so in the case of the zero-edge and micro-edge varieties.
They're also two handed, which isn't inconsiderable for a melee operative, who get a lot out of shooting someone before getting close to them.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Central Europe
|
Grumble, well thats another character idea put on hold. Hopefully their lore connections made them ripe for chronicle sheet loot.
There's no way to get specialization without picking up Advanced Melee Weapon Proficiency first. From the Professional property "This proficiency never counts toward prerequisites of any kind."I didn't imply otherwise.
If there is an "exploit" at work here, it's that the (non-plasma) ribbons do more damage dice than any other equivalent item level Advanced Melee weapons with the operative property. Significantly so in the case of the zero-edge and micro-edge varieties.They're also two handed, which isn't inconsiderable for a melee operative, who get a lot out of shooting someone before getting close to them.
There are races with more than 2 hands, and there are multiple options in armory to get ranged attacks that don't need hands (like integrated weapons). And even if you ignore all this an operative built to do melee attacks will rush into melee as quick as possible so there is no need for a lot of shooting.
|
|
I apologize for casting animate dead on this thread--I meant to write this back before the site went down: I'd really love to know the rationale behind what does and does not get sanctioned in the Additional Resources documents. The DCI for Wizards of the Coast often publishes lengthy explanations of its updated banned lists for Magic: The Gathering, and while Paizo isn't running a multi-million dollar competitive scene, it would still be nice to hear some of the reasoning behind why all battle ribbons, for instance, are not permitted in organized play. (Given my own mathematical understanding of how grappling works, I can understand why garrotes aren't permitted, although I can't say I'm not disappointed since now my Ghost Operative can't super-spy his way through an enemy compound.) Speculation is good and fun, but I'd rather hear the explanation straight from the horse's mouth.
For my part, I'd love to know why the computer interface didn't get approved - that was one of my favorite parts of Armory. If it was because of the action economy, why couldn't it have been bumped from a 1/round non-action to a swift or move? Even a standard would have been cool, though it would have made the upgrade mostly flavor. But it's really cool flavor - very Jarvis / Iron Man. Make a computers check to talk to your armor, get readouts, etc. I hope it shows up as a boon at some point.
|
|
For my part, I'd love to know why the computer interface didn't get approved - that was one of my favorite parts of Armory. If it was because of the action economy, why couldn't it have been bumped from a 1/round non-action to a swift or move? Even a standard would have been cool, though it would have made the upgrade mostly flavor. But it's really cool flavor - very Jarvis / Iron Man. Make a computers check to talk to your armor, get readouts, etc. I hope it shows up as a boon at some point.
People linking weapons to the armor and then trying to get the control module to fire the weapon automatically with the trigger "when i shoot the weapon" would be my guess.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really love to know the rationale behind what does and does not get sanctioned in the Additional Resources documents.Horse's Mouth
With all due respect, this is not a rationale, but it is a helpful explanation of the process and individuals involved. To clarify, I'm wishing Paizo would publish the explanation as to why a certain decision was made to disallow an option, since the reason may not always be readily apparent.
For example: Why can't I buy an Aeon Guard Rifle (from Alien Archive)? I'd be looking for an explanation like "The Azlanti Star Empire keeps a tight reign on its military technology, so the only way you could feasibly obtain one in-universe is by looting it from an Aeon Guard soldier," or "Because it's primarily meant to be in the hands of antagonists, the Aeon Guard rifle would be too strong if the players could simply buy one, and must earn it through defeating a challenging encounter."
I recognize that providing such justifications for 64+ pages of content monthly is a bit much to ask of a company as small as Paizo. But this is a wish, not an expectation, and wishes don't have to be grounded in reality. I'll continue to support PFS/SFS because I rather do enjoy the experience, I'd also just like a balm to soothe the ache of not being able to be a six-armed purple space hamster that strangles her enemies to death.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here’s what I’ve posted a few times in answer to that question about PFS material.
When a player option (archetype, equipment, feat, etc.) is not allowed in PFS it is generally for one of four reasons. Sometimes it's multiple reasons
1. It is being held back as a special treat and will appear as a unique reward on a chronicle later.
2. The mechanics are confusing, rely too much on GM fiat, or conflict with established rules. It will be allowed once errata is available (either in a published book or the Campaign Clarifications document).
3. The material is not a good fit for either the Pathfinder Society or for the structure of Organized Play (such as evil archetypes or feats that allow you to betray your allies).
4. The material is too powerful in relation to existing material.The fourth reason is by far the most debatable and most contentious. In a large part "too powerful" is in the eye of the beholder. Unless the new material gives added advantages but otherwise is exactly identical to something previously published it is not possible to make strict comparisons. Even then there is a sizable contingent of messageboard posters who do not consider any Paizo-published material "too powerful.”
The fourth reason is also the reason Paizo almost never comments on “why?” Arguments about power get ridiculously heated. From the company’s perspective it’s a no-win situation when that breaks out. It’s been suggested that they could identify only the non-power reasons, but unfortunately that doesn’t work because it leads to identification by omission. (If there’s no reason listed it must be power.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
while Paizo isn't running a multi-million dollar competitive scene
This statement made me curious, so I did some research.
In 2017 it looks like Paizo posted $9.9 million revenue, so they are indeed operating a "multi-million dollar competitive scene".
WotC posted $36.4 million revenue, but I couldn't find how that's broken down. Magic: the Gathering is a large chunk of that, whereas Paizo's cardgame can't be much (but I am just guessing).
So although we can't discern an exact dollar for dollar comparison, both companies are fairly successful in their products. But Paizo is for sure leaps and bounds ahead of WotC when it comes to the Organized Play scene. I can't find the exact language now, but I remember reading something about PFS either being the longest running Organized Play system or the most members worldwide. Maybe someone else can correct me.
Regardless, each company has decided to operate their respective systems differently. I don't think it's appropriate or fair to ask one company to take after the other. They have competent decision makers at their helm who don't need to copy their direct competitor.
If anything, maybe WotC could learn something from Paizo ^_^
|
|
In 2017 it looks like Paizo posted $9.9 million revenue, so they are indeed operating a "multi-million dollar competitive scene".
That's not what I meant when I said "competitive scene." Perhaps I should have used the term "tournament scene," since I was not referring to market competitiveness but rather competitive play.
Regardless, I'm not advocating that Paizo should copy the DCI (I think I make that point explicitly in my original post). I know that comparing PFS/SFS and MTG is comparing apples and oranges. I brought up the DCI as an example as to how companies choose to explain their decision-making to consumers. Perhaps I should have chosen a different example, such as balance patch notes from League of Legends. At any rate, all I was trying to say is it would be nice to know why.
|
|
Why?
I can see nothing good coming from knowing, and in all the times this came up in the PFS Forum (or the Rules Forum) nothing good happened, either. Just negative publicity, angry rants, upset players, and conversations that never died. Imagine just the following situations:
Scenario A: leadership believes Option X is "too powerful".
People argue what "powerful" means, to no effectual end. A negative talking point arises that is repeated and referred back to forever going forward. Players view they can't be trusted unless they're handed kid gloves.
Scenario B: leadership believes Option X is uncomfortable for sensitive groups.
People insult, berate or attack said "sensitive groups", the sensitivity itself, or said people get drawn into an online debate defending the decision. SFS becomes viewed as both an environment not suitable for said groups, and an environment catered for said groups.
Scenario C: leadership is holding the option as a restricted reward.
Players build characters in anticipation of said reward eventually being leaked, or hold off on playing characters until they can benefit from the released item. Spoiler culture increases, and regular items aren't as exciting any more.
Scenario C2: leadership announces they're holding an option, and never releases it (or changes their mind).
This happened at least twice in PFS, and resulted in some upset players who had been doing exactly what I suggested in Scenario C.
Scenario D: leadership believes Option X would become ubiquitous.
Starfinder is all about the Cantina effect, and I think it's worked well so far. But imagine a race was published called "Human Squared". This race is identical to Human, but gets Option X as an added bonus. While not "too powerful", as mentioned above, it's enough to upset the Cantina effect. Everyone playing Human Squared coincidentally comes up with some non-meta reason for playing Human Squared, growing into a sore spot of a joke about Paizo's development abilities (this has actually happened before).
Scenario X: you can probably think of several more scenarios where the player base disagrees with a decision, argues futilely, and results in stress for everyone involved.
|
|
No nerve struck.
I'm just explaining why it's likely done the way it is.
It wasn't always handled this way. There used to be much more player/Developer discussion in the earlier days of the forums. A lot of those discussions explained the innermost workings of how to balance a system copied and pasted from another game.
But the answers given in those discussions were insufficient for a vocal minority who disagreed, or who simply didn't like the answers that were given. People would get angry, including one former Developer, and the result was less discussion from leadership.
SFS is refreshing because Thursty does engage the forums more than has been the norm for PFS and the Rules Forum, and it's my hope it continues like that.
But I feel it's easily possible things could go south again.
Starfinder Society Developer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, back from SkalCon (seriously, an amazing convention) so I can dedicate a bit more time to replying in this thread.
First off, I recognize the desire from a large contingent of players who want to see broken down reasoning on each Additional Resources decision. Personally, I come from a very game-centric background, with a longstanding history of being a wargamer. In wargames, there tend to be wide-ranging FAQs/Erratas as well as lists of allowed/banned content. This is by far one of the biggest reasons that I've made it a personal point of working as hard as I can (along with the other Organized Play team members) to produce content that supports Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild players in using their books. Seriously, some of my earliest meetings at the company were discussing how to make sure that Starfinder Society had a robust FAQ/Errata process, because I believe it’s so important.
That being said, RPGs also have _many_ reasons why certain mechanical options aren't necessarily the best fit for an organized play campaign. In many cases, you'll see the results of a single choice spread across countless forum posts, sometimes peppered in as quick quips in completely unrelated threads just so someone can once again snark about topic X or ask about topic Y. As Kevin pointed out, it's a popular pastime on the boards to speculate!
Would I love to provide comprehensive detailing on Additional Resources/Errata choices? Yes, very much so. However, knowing what I know about myself and the ongoing maintenance such a posting would require, I can emphatically state that it would not be possible to produce such a thread/post and still be able to provide it the care and maintenance it needed. For example, if I were to make a post that said "AG Rifles are banned because they're green and green is too powerful a color" and twenty people posted "But wait, purple is clearly the most powerful color, so this is perfectly fine! Please comment and explain with detail why you think green is da best?!" then that invites an ongoing discussion about that item. Then, because the reasoning came from a developer, once the pitchfork mob has arrayed twenty different responses, then the developers have to come in and respond. Sadly, the team simply doesn't have the time to provide that level of reply that I think the community would deserve if we were to do such a thing. Yes, I know that particular argument about gun color is totally facetious, but I don’t want to even try to offer a realistic example for people to actually debate here—I see you internet, I see you!
Tangentially, I'd also like to talk briefly about why Additional Resources touches on certain items. As has been mentioned before, there's a certain level of mechanics that get examined: "Oh this item is mathematically superior to most other items." Then there's a level of appropriateness for the campaign: "Oh, this AG Rifle is supposed to only show up in the hands of the mysterious Star Azlanti, so maybe we should keep it for that." Then there's another option that doesn't quite get talked about as much, but there's options that encourage a very specific style of play that might radically influence the types of characters we're seeing in Organized Play. This last point may not sound too terrible, but I (personally) want to ensure our campaign is diverse in the types of characters we see. I freely admit that sometimes these decisions come from personal experience or thoughts and are not entirely based on mathematic analysis or hard numbers.
So long/short: I 100% see why a lot of fans out there want us to include notes on our decision making process for the Additional Resources. Heck, I want to eventually see us get to that kind of point. However, we’re not there yet and I think that the time such an investment would require is beyond the scope of what our team could handle to deliver in a manner that it would be fair and useful to both the staff working on the products and our players. As always, I’m going to do my best to be a presence on these boards and answer where I can, but don’t expect to see an answer to every question every time and know that there are some questions I may intentionally avoid answering because the bandwidth requirements would be something I see as “too damn high.”
Hopefully, this rambling has been useful! :D
|
Starfinder Society Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, because this sparked a lot of this discussion...
Official Clarification: All of the battle ribbons (traditional, micro-edge and zero-edge) are not legal for play. The plasma ribbons (student, professional, competitor, and champion) are all legal for play.
