"The Devil We Know, Part 1" (Inactive)

Game Master JCServant

As a default I would rather see you bot for a character than skip their turn completely....which is what pretty much every other PbP does. If half of us lose Internet access for a few hours, get stuck in traffic or decide to go out for dinner it could mean life or death for a PC.

If you're late in posting the NPCs don't skip their turn...we should be afforded the same courtesy. Additionally the PCs who are showing up and putting themselves in harm's way are the ones who will wind up dead; so you're punishing those of us who are abiding by your guidelines.

Not to be argumenative, but I kinda knew that once in a while, someone wouldn't be able to post. That's why I haven't adjusted up on the CR for the larger party (This is an adventure for 4 1st lv adventurers, technically), and I give the party first initiative (under most circumstances).

I'm not super comfy with completely bot'ing players when they are not here. While I totally understand that sometimes there are legitimate reasons a player cannot post, it tends to promote a lack of urgency for a player to get their post up. Again, if a player knows they are going to miss that 3 or so hour window, they can post their moves ahead of time. This option should be used sparingly. I've set this scenario Pbp option up specifically for faster than typical (1 day/turn) gameplay .

I fully recognize that the rules were clear, and I have been willing to give it a shot. However, this combat underscores that, in practice, something more like what is done in other PbP games might make more sense.

This is particularly the case when we have two opponents who get a surprise attack (without any perception check to prevent the same), flanking flurry of blows while we assume that everyone else is standing around picking noses, and Attacks of Opportunity against anyone new who enters the zone of combat.

In my humble opinion, if a player does not post, it may be better just to "bot" the PC (i.e., play them as NPCs and make simple actions like shoot, cast a cantrip, etc.) rather than have them do nothing - it's less harsh, seems a bit more realistic, and still keeps the game going.

Not to be argumenative, but I kinda knew that once in a while, someone wouldn't be able to post. ...I've set this scenario Pbp option up specifically for faster than typical (1 day/turn) gameplay .

Sorry, posted before I saw this response. I probably will not be able to post three times tomorrow. Further, in ANY turn that I do not post:

PFS scenarios are designed for 4-6 players. The average party level of this group is well within the Tier 1-2 range; and since we don't have more than 6 players so there is no need to "add 1" to APL. (Additionally we don't have a true "tank", so we're at a disadvantage on that point as well.)

I would much rather have you bot players and/or wait an extra day for people to show up than have a TPK because I decide to go to a spur of the moment baseball game and don't get a chance to channel before you call the round.

We're already taking major liberties with the core rules and thus are probably stretching (if not completely breaking) PFS guidelines as it is...I think depriving PCs of taking an action is going too far.

In short I was willing to give it a shot...but clearly it's not working. At this point we need to revisit and revise these experimental house rules; if not I'm of the mindset of resigning from this scenario and, if it results in negative consequences for my character, filing a formal grievance with PFS HQ.

Harboth, I had everyone roll perception, but not everyone's perception came into play based on actions they took. You were not one of the first ones to go down, and had no way to see them waiting silently to make an attack on your friend.

As I said before, I'm not comfortable botting the PCs for missed posts. I do allow a player who knows he is going to miss the next round or two to post his/her intentions. That's fine...but an open "Do this if I miss post" is not.

To address your concern that you will miss once in a whlie, Harboth, If you miss once or twice / week, it's really not impacting the difficulty of the scenario as there are two more players than what the minimum requires. Just to recap, there was 1 bad guy and a few rats for fight one, two monks for second one...trust me, you guys have this dudes WAY outnumbered...and they are all lv 1.

To put it another way, TWO players could miss a combat post each time, and meet the normal CR minimums for this scenario. It's set up for 4 players minimum, so six, while totally OK, is obviously two more needed to win. So missing once in a while does not make this too difficult to win. Even if one or two of you are gone for an entire day, the CR is still right. But, yes, if 3 or more miss a post (which will happen if numerous players are regularly missing), then it will be a problem. Again, I purposely run with more players than normal without adjusting anything because I presume that occasionally someone will miss.

I don't want to sound like I'm being totally inflexable...but, being the experienced guy that I am, I made sure that 1) the rules and expectations were clearly set before starting the game and 2) I made sure there was plenty of buffer in terms of CR knowing that, occasionally, life is more important than a game :D .

Rydderch...as far as liberties with the rules...most take at least SOME liberties, and I could not find offical PFS Pbp guidelines that tell a GM what he can or cannot do in order to make a Pbp work. Your party is not in danger of a TPK, please do not exaggerate. You outnumber these guys 3 to 1, with only one party member unconscious. I *did* (and do) wait if less than 4 players (the base minimum for the encounter) do not put in their actions. I'm sorry if you feel this isn't working, but I am trying my best...and I put a LOT of time into this. (One gameplay post takes me 20+ minutes, and this last one took me 40.)

I GM PFS PbP games as well...in fact I just finished running a combat with 6 PCs, 6 NPCs who were "assisting" the PCs (as much as goblins can "assist"), and 5 enemy NPCs. I got through it in two days (four rounds) with every PC making a contribution to the encounter. (and I did have to bot a handful of times but never put the PCs in danger.) I know how difficult and time consuming the job can be.

But it would never occur to me to deprive a PC of taking an action during combat...especially when doing so would cause a PC who has been posting regularly to be rendered unconscious.

We can still beat this scenario. Lets try to learn and move on. I know its a pain to miss a round; next time lets declare intentions in case something comes up.

OK - how do we heal you?

I'm not depriving anyone of anything...expectations were clearly laid out about the posting guidelines at the beginning...that this is a 3/day post deal...in this fight, most players are only posting once or twice/day, and one hasn't posted at all. And I don't like being painted as the bad guy...this was all spelled out ahead of time..there are no surprises here.

Again, not a fan of botting people. I have a hard enough time keeping track of combat, mobs, etc. If there's an extenuating circumstance, and you need to annouce an action or three ahead of time because you're out for the day or something...that's fine...OK! But I'm simply not prepared to run every player that misses an action every single time. The players have numerous advantages that more than offset the occasional disadvantages that may happen when someone cannot take their turn.

Sorry for my lack of posts, school has been crazy as of late, but I should be able to get more frequent posts now. Catching up now and posting my action

In short I was willing to give it a shot...but clearly it's not working. At this point we need to revisit and revise these experimental house rules; if not I'm of the mindset of resigning from this scenario and, if it results in negative consequences for my character, filing a formal grievance with PFS HQ.

Sigh...there's no need. If you honestly feel that bad about what's going on here, then you may resign (or anyone) without worrying about me posting your character as dead or anything. Again, I'm not out to be a mean GM or anything...I've run a ton of these games, and I run them to have fun. I specifically set this up this way after talking with numerous players and while it is experimental in a way, I think it can still work assuming that everyone is dedicated to doing their part as originally set up in the rules (Even with the occasional unannouced absense). I know this combat seems like a setback, but I'd rather not make knee jerk reactions to something that becomes an issue at the same time a party member goes down. Give it a longer shot, you know? You might become addicted to clearing out a scenario in a monthish timespean.

And trust me...after this scenario is complete, I will ask you all for feedback, review my own thoughts and notes, and made adjustments if I decided to do more in the future.

To reiterate, my goal (believe it or not) is for everyone to have a fun, good time. If any player feel that this is a totally detrimental experience to continue moving in this direction (as I really don't want to change the rules in mid-scenario), and you are not having fun, you are free to leave with no consequence to your PFS character. Just let me know and accept my sincerest apologies. If more than three players leave, I will be forced to close the scenario and report it as a cancelled event.

OK - how do we heal you?

Rhydderch can channel

I'm off to the beach today. I will not have internet access there.

I've checked in every 30 minutes or so for the past couple of hours in the hopes that the overnight actions would be resolved so that I could post my morning actions; as I likely won't be able to post again until early this evening.

If the monks are still alive I will poke one with my spear, standing behind the "player front line" since the spear is a reach weapon. (although if a rat can make it by the PFL I suppose a monk can as well.)

If the monks are dead I'll use Sacred Touch to stabilize Kyle and use CLW to hopefully bring him back into positive numbers.

I realize now that I won't get the crit since I am prone. I did not want to stand since I don't want to provoke AAO in my fragile state. Maybe next round, if there is one, I would try an acrobatic maneuver to get away and then launch my attack - though I am not sure if I can do that without provoking.

Sorry...Rhydderch...as I mentioned earlier on the last round post, "I expect to post Round 3 between 12noon EST and 3pm EST. Please have your moves in before then. Thanks!" It's 11.45, so I'm a little early, but by the time I finish it, it will be right at that time. (I'm on a business trip in CA and I'm on PST, and 9am-ish PST is the earliest I could get on today).

I want to really encourage everyone to read my battle posts completely. That will help minimize any potential to waste time and energy.

As far as attacking with spear, basically those with reach are still on the front line, so to speak, since in normal table top, mobs can take a 5' to move in and attack without provoking. The only way to avoid that would be if you could get behind three team members to form a wall in front of you (in tabletop), but then I'd normally rule that bad guys get a +4 AC soft cover bonus against your attack since your friends are between you and them. In practice, it was pretty hard for the party to actually set up, especially when there were mutliple mobs. However, if you want me to make a houserule to address it (Something similar to the flanking rule), I can certainly do so (It would be like "When three heroes are on front lines, spear wielders can take a -4 to hit be considered out of reach for a full round attack unless enemies have reach as well). Let me know.

Elwyn, normal rules are, if you are prone, standing provokes. You can crawl away as a full round action IIRC. It moves you 5' and provokes. So, yeah, being prone suxxeth a bit. :P There is a feat or two that makes that easier to deal with, and Blessing of Fervor is one of our favorite 4th level cleric spells as it allows party members to stand up without provoking.

Note: With the three day weekend, I am putting the game on 'pause' so that everyone can enjoy the holiday without worrying about what's going on. I know a lot of people go out of town, visit relatives, etc. I will do on more post before the end of the day today in reponse to anything posted today, and then the next time I will post will be Tuesday morning (Late morning EST).

Elwyn....aside from the negative 4 penalty to your melee ttack rolls, I'm unaware of any rule saying you cannot crit while prone. Therefore I ruled it was a crit hit as both rolls beat the monks AC even with penalty applied.

Great!

I was over at a relative's house a couple of days ago, and he was watching "True Blood." I don't get to watch a lot of cable TV, so it was pretty new to me. For those who have not seen it, one of the highlights of the show is the fact that there are vampires in a war...and when one dies, they blow up very much like a water filled balloon...except they're filled with blood instead of water. They blow up good. Anyway, Elwyn, I really wanted to add flavor to your nice critical hit (while you were prone, no less), by having the monk blow up like a blood filled water balloon. Oh well, maybe next time! :D

BTW....I've been thinking about the spear thing a bit. I had experience with weapons of reach, and I was thinking through how the cleric there used it to advantage and the such. The idea of being able to attack a mob at a distance hoping they couldn't reach the player didn't work out as much in theory because it was hard to set up given the five foot rule. Over the course of all of the battles, that aspect of the weapon didn't come into play often.

However, one thing that did happen often were the attack of opportunities when bad guys approach who do not have reach. Therefore, I'm adding the following rule to more closely working to PF specs.

"If an enemy approaches the party front line, and any member of the party front line has greater reach than the enemy, that enemy draws AoO's from those party members with the greater reach. The converse is true. Party members with less reach than a bad guy will provoke AoO if they approach. There may be creative ways (Such as feats, acrobatics, etc) to avoid AoO's. Alternatively, a heavily armored party member may declare that he is approaching first (perhaps fighting defensively at the same time) to draw the AoO (Combat reflexes not withstanding). In the event that more than one party member declare they are "going in first", GM will generally run it in order of players' postings."

I'm also considering the following...
"Party members with reach may stand 5" behind the PFL, assuming there are at least 2 party members on the front line. Doing so incurs the normal +4 AC bonus to enemy based on soft cover for attacking 'through' squares with others in them. Enemies may not attack party members in that 5' back row unless they have reach (and even if they do, the party member would have the same +4 AC soft cover bonus).

The converse is true. Bad guys with reach my 'stand behind' allies without reach for a similar advantage."

Thoughts?

I'm thinking that we'll want to have people in the front flanking. So if there are two people in the front, and they are flanking, the person with reach could decide to position so they don't give the opponent +4 to AC. But on the opponents next turn, he would be able to 5' step and attack the person with reach.

But then this idea complicates the rules further.

Since I'm the only party member with a reach weapon I'd rather not be the catalyst for a new rule variation that may have unintended negative consequences for other PCs further on down the line...but ultimately the decision is up to our GM.

By the strict definition of reach weapon I can not attack adjacent targets, so technically there should be 5 feet of empty space between me & whoever is next to me on the PFL. In a perfect world I would be in a support role; taking lots of 5 foot steps to alternate positions in and behind the front line and occassionlly making use of Aid Another on attack rolls to give the true damage dealers a better chance at hitting their targets.

Oh well...C'est la vie!

Salutations....it's noon PST and 3pm EST...and a few players haven't posted even once. Just a friendly reminder...this is a more active-than-normal pbp campaign. Ideally, I'd like to see everyone post in the morning, afternoon and late afteroon/evening (depending on time zone). Big thanks to those who are on top of it.

In response to Rhydderch's concern on the gameplay side, On the house rules, I stated that there would be three posting periods each day.... in the morning, early afternoon/lunch, and later afternoon. So, I expected that by 6.30pm, everyone would have their 2nd afternoon/late afternoon post up.

However, in all fairness, I never outlined exactly what times those postings would happen. So, let's get on the same page so that everyone knows exactly how this works. I'm going to stretch times out a bit from my original vision to allow more breathing space for everyone.

(All times below are in EST)
Moving forward, on weekdays I post at 10am, 2pm and 6pm. This provides the three windows of time players would normally post for combat... once between 10am-2pm, the 2nd time between ~2.30pm-6pm, and then the third time between 6.30pm-9am the next day. For most people, that means a post in the morning, one right after lunch, and one right before you go home (or after depending on your time zone). If I miss a posting by a significant margin (1 hour+), I will skip my next posting if its a combat round to insure everyone has at least a 3 hour window to post.

Weekend postings will always happen between 6pm-2am EST on Saturday. If we're in combat, I will skip Sunday to allow everyone time to post their action, otherwise, I will post a Sunday post sometime in the afternoon or evening.

As far as this combat, if everyone hasn't posted by 6.30pm, I will skip until 10am tomorrow morning. Moving forward, I will keep the schedule above. Remember, if we're in combat, and you know you're going to miss, you may post your actions ahead of time.

Thank you for your patience as we iron out this process. Hopefully this clarification will remove any confusion about the process moving forward.

Rhydderch, I wanted to explain my comment earlier regarding the appropriate tier of the group. I didn't go into detail back then because it was turning into a heated argument, and proving the point one way or the other served no meaningful purpose. I'd like to review it with you now, because if my understanding is incorrect, I'd like to find that out so I can make sure I'm doing this right going forward.

Because scenarios in Seasons 0 to 3 were designed with four characters in mind, if there are six or seven players at the table, add +1 to the APL. For example, if a table consists of six players, two of whom have 4th-level characters and four of whom have 5th-level characters, the group’s APL is 6th (divide 28 total levels by six players, round to the nearest whole number, and add +1 to the final result). But adding +1 to a table of six players should never exclude a group from a tier in which all the players qualify to play. In the above situation, for example, even with an APL of 6th, the party could play in Subtier 4–5 in a Tier 1–5 scenario, since all six players can legally play within that tier. This means your group should play in a subtier appropriate for 6th level.

So, APL is 2 (3 of you are lv 1, 3 of you are level 2, so that's 1.5 rounded). This is a Season 2 or 3 book. There are six players so I add 1 to the APL making it 3. According to the last few sentences since the players qualify (individually) to play a Tier 1-2 scenario, they may do so. However, it also says that the group should play in a subtier appropriate for the higher level (in the example: 6th, in our case: 3rd).

This is why I made remarks that, in all actuality, I think this party could run in a higher tier. What are your thoughts regarding my interpretation (and if it is wrong, my math!). Thanks. Just like most, I'm learning this as I go along.

It's a decision that I would hope would be finalized prior to the start of the scenario...but if you'd like to bump us up halfway through I guess that's your prerogative. Might make things messy with the Chronicle Sheets...but I'm sure we could figure it out.

I have never sat at a table (PbP or a live game) where the +1 to APL was added with only 6 players; and I've played at tables run by 4 star GMs and Venture Captains. So whether this is a hard and fast rule or a merely a suggestion might well be open to interpretation.

Even taking the +1 into consideration, by my calculation our APL is + .16 from being rounded down to 2 instead of rounded up to 3; and with a less than optimal party make up that is someone under-equipped (to my knowledge none of the 2nd level characters picked up a Wand of CLW with their Prestige Points) I think it would be very dangerous to send a party without at least one 3rd level character on a Tier 3-4 scenario.

Just my two cents...

Nothing I said on my previous post implied that I wanted to change it half way through, Rhydderch. I was simply asking your advice, my friend, regarding my statement I made much earlier that, technically, this group qualifies for a higher tier of play (Tier 3). I believe I made it pretty clear that I was just trying to make sure I understood those rules correctly because you had a different take. (You said that a party of six does not get a +1 APL)

The +1 APL, according to the rules I quoted, is only added in cases where one is playing the earlier seasons with six or seven. Perhaps you did not experience this because you've only played later seasons, or the GMs decided to not even extend that offer to the players.

I wouldn't take into consideration party composition (balanced or no) in deciding the APL for PFS simply because the rules do not make an allowance for that specifically. However, there's obviously enough wiggle room for players and GM's of borderline groups to decide (assuming the qualifications are met) whether or not they want to do a higher tier or a lower one.... in which case, that may certainly be a consideration they discusses.

When I started this session, however, I made the decision to run the lower tier without asking you guys, despite the technical qualification to play 3rd tier, because I realized that running a Pbp in this manner may necessitate a little more breathing room as we iron things out. That's why I made the argument earlier that even missing a turn or two, you guys are more than capable of knocking these guys out. I just wanted to make sure (a little after the fact) that I was not incorrect in my line of thought that this party could, technically by PFS rules, do a Tier 3.

This has been great, constructive dialogue, and very educational for me as I am new to much of Pathfinder and PFS play. I appreciate the ability to ask questions and push back on things and feel that you have been very responsive.

I haven't spoken up much but thought I'd add a few thoughts. I generally like the pace of play and he push to maintain it, it keeps things going and hopefully avoids the game fading away. Those of us that played before kept a similar pace in our last 3 scenarios. While I like the goal of that pace I also see the need to balance it with accomodations here and there and I think we have seen that as well. You want to keep the balance of fun and recreation, but also maintain some momentum. It seems like the approach here, which is already somewhat modified for PFS on PBP is working well and has benefited from a tweak or two. I'll leave the heavy rule lifting to others more qualified than me, I appreciate your input and knowledge base.

I'm having lots of fun either way.

As far as Tier goes, well, I am a bit more risk inclined on that front and would be in favor of a higher tier if all agreed (understanding that it probably needs to be at the start of the next scenario for fairness/practical/etc. considerations) but that if it were just up to me I'd be ok with that now, not that I'm advocating it, again just my opinion.

Thanks all for your efforts and continued good gaming.

EDIT: Rhydderch, I should also point out that your thoughts have also made it easy for a neophyte to sit back and feel comfortable that key player issues are being voiced and vetted.

In the interest of making sure everyone is having a good time and keeping things as fair as possible given the fact that some of this is being 'clarified' and changed on the way, I'm loosening my rules a little bit. If two or more players have not posted before or within the given posting time, I will wait until the following posting period to resolve combat. However, at the end of the 2nd period, the combat will be resolved.

I personally feel that in setting this up that I did communicate the expectation that this was to be a more active gaming deal with 3 times/day posting. However, I also acknowledge that exact parameters were not communicate right from the get go. Some of you have posted since that you feel that this creates an unfair situations, and in the interest of fun and group harmony, I will use the above guideline as a compromise that should give a greater opportunity for everyone to participate for the remainder of the scenario.

Moving forward, when I set up other Pbp sessions, I will make the posting guidelines more concise so that everyone is on the same page. Thank you for your continued understanding. Hopefully everyone is having a measure of fun here ;)

Yeah, Thanks Elwyn. I'm still considering other options for when 2 or 3 people don't post during a period. I'm glad you appreciate the push to keep up the pace of the game. That's really an important consideration. I don't have the attention span to keep a 4 hour scenario going for more than a month or so. I may be older, but even I get impatient after too long. At the same time, as I mentioned before, I hate botting. I even hate doing it in my normal campaigns. So, when someone doesn't show up, we simply run out with that player.

On one hand, it really encourages people to be there...as they know if they aren't there (or don't post), no one else can step in and do what they do.

However, as Rhydderch pointed out, that can feel like a punishment to that player. Or, even others on the team who needed that healer for a particular combat and the such. Obviously, its different for normal play where you know that PC isn't going to be there for the entire session. In the Pbp we're doing here, it's a bit more jarring. One minute they're here, the next minute they're POOF! When that's the healer or the person with the critical sleep spell as 10 goblins bear down on the party, it can certainly sting.

I'm open to compromise solutions. After all, I'm really not about 'punishing' people. It's a game. But a game does need structure and guidelines to keep it moving smoothly. In the table top version, we've implemented a number of creative solutions under more dire circumstances to insure that the entire party isn't completely jeopardized by the absence of another. In setting up this system, that was also my goal.

My original idea was to delay resolution of combat at the normal times if there were at least 4 players posting. I am increasing that to 5. Hopefully this keeps things moving without too many delays, while also making it feel fair and somewhat balanced for all involved. We'll see!

I've also not chimed in, and will just say re: posting regularity, that with my job and life responsibilities, I can average 3 posts a day, but it won't always conform to the times specified (morning, afternoon, evening). I can try to be better about posting my actions in advance, if I can just remember to do so. I appreciate the accommodation you just mentioned (waiting one posting period).

With so much of communication being non-verbal it is sometimes difficult to ascertain intent when all you have to go on are words that have been typed in a message board post. I meant no offense and apologize for assuming you intended to bump us up mid scenario.

Much like being a "front liner" is not a comfortable place for my character to be, neither is being the "big mouth" a comfortable place for me to be personally. Believe it or not I'm pretty much a "go with the flow" type of guy. I've played in approximately 10 PFS PbP games over the past half year or so (and I've GM'd 4 others); which makes me a relative newbie or a grizzled veteran depending on one's point of view. This has been the only time I have ever spoken up about something that, for lack of a better term, didn't feel quite right to me.

The straw that broke the camel's back for me was the fight with the monks; where a few players missed more than one post and a quick spell or a well timed arrow could have meant the difference between unconscious and dying or awake and attacking for two of our players. As one of the players who was participating regularly it was particularly frustrating; and I certainly can't find fault with player's who put real-life responsibilities ahead of a PbP game. But I can point out to the GM of said game that it might be time to pull the brakes on what was becoming a runaway train to allow some of us to catch up and others of us to catch our breath.

Switching topics back to the notion of APL...some of the time its fairly obvious what Tier you'll be playing at; and other times it warrants a discussion. While this party technically could play at Tier 3-4....it probably wouldn't be a good idea. Without a single character above 2nd level in the party we would quickly become overwhelmed; as it is we've blown through the majority of our healing without any indication that a rest is on the horizon. it might make for a difficult battle once we discover the "man behind the curtain."

In a nutshell there is a time to strictly follow the rules and a time to use common sense and good judgement; and the hope for a positive experience for everyone lies in the balance between the two.

I've rambled on so long I'm about to miss my 6:30 post...but suffice it to say that at this point I feel as though I've said all that I can say and am willing to throw up the white flag and concede that whatever happens will happen. I'm content to simply finish this game and try to have some fun doing so.

The only time I should miss a post is during mid day when Im at school with no internet. I can get 3 posts/day otherwise.

And from my viewpoint, Rhydderch, I felt your frustration, back there, should be towards the players who missed posts rather than me...since I felt I pretty much laid the expectations for the scenario right from the get go. Again, in retrospect, I realize I could be more concise by listing times rather than generic terms like "morning" and "late afternoon."

And see, I disagree with the thing about real life getting in the way. What I mean I *totally* understand that life gets in the way sometimes, and that this is a game. But, as a person who has DM'd a lot of tables, my approach to campaigns is I ask players not to sign up unless their regular commitments allow them to be at the table the vast majority of the time...not because I'm a meanie...but because their team members are going to need to depend on them. (Not to mention, it just breaks up the story when people don't show up to RP their characters). And when I see the same player miss session after session (more than 1/month), I normally ask them to leave. It isn't that they are a bad person...it's just that an ongoing campaign isn't a good fit for them. (PFS scenarios at tables are great for people with commitment issues, though!)

Even with that being said, I do plan tables with the understanding that, because of life, roughly 15-25% of the players will not be available during each given session or time period. If I have five players in a group, I usually plan encounters in my homebrews around 4. In this P&P, I grabbed the lower of the two available tiers. And these older seasons of PFS are balanced around 4 players...so it should work out...theoretically, even if only 4/6 players post each time. But, I agree with you to a point, and am bumping the minimum post to five. :)

And, I know what you mean by a lot getting lost in translation. Feel free to call me any time on skype (jcservant7) or phone (email me for number). I'm happy to talk anything out.

And by the way, as I mentioned before...if you're going to be away, feel free to post your next move or two with rolls. I have no problem rolling saving throws for you and the such if needed....just lay out what you want to do in combat the next couple of turns if you're going to miss a day.

And what I wrote above works both ways. While I expect people to generally keep to the commitment of the game (barring unusual circumstances), you can expect the same out of me. You'll find that I'm very dependable...I post when I say I'm going to for the most part, and if I'm going to miss posts, I generally let everyone know ahead of time. After all, it would be mighty hypocritical to lay down that expectation for those who sign up, and then not keep my end as the guy who started the table. :)

Rhydderch, I'm continuing the discussion of the monk dealie here. Just to clarify, I'm not changing the definition of a surprise round. The monks did not have a surprise round, but rather had initiative.
'
For sake of argument, however, if they had one attack each, you're right that the rogue would still be standing for an extra round. But, remember, he got an attack anyway on the next round because he was healed, and he rolled poorly. So he would have missed either way, and the monk would have crit'd on him next round resulting in the same loss of HPs and healing resources.

Because the board remembers rolls, ultimately, the only rolls that would have changed, if we followed what you suggest, would be the last two rolls. One of those resulted in Kyle being hit for 8 hps, which was subsequently healed by your CLW for the exact amount of damage he took.

In the spirit of compromise, please consider that CLW spell you used to heal Kyle as unspent. In the future, I encourage you and all players to ask questions as things happen. Again, I want to emphasize the importance of reading each round of combat carefully. It will help things run smoothly and help me to keep things straight, as I do make mistakes (I don't consider this one as I explained earlier, but, for example, someone pointed out earlier that I was off on hp calculation after a hit).

Along the lines of limited resources....lots of battles in a row...and my encouragement to everyone to read the combat posts completely...

In http://paizo.com/campaigns/TheDevilWeKnowPart1/gameplay&page=4#199 Under "loot" there are two potions of cure light wounds. I don't recall anyone saying they were picking them up (if you did, please let me know where you posted that). I imagine those might be useful right now. Or maybe later. Your choice.

For those of you a little newer to PFS, you do not keep found magic items at the end of the scenario. They effectively 'disappear.' However, you may purchase them at any point in the future as they will appear on the chronicle sheet I give you along with their retail price. Once purchased, the magic item becomes a permanent part of your inventory until used, consumed, sold, etc.

What that means, for these 2 darling potions, is you may as well use them before the end of the module. There's no penalty for using found items before they disappear at the end.

And another note for newer players....as you can see here in this scenario, sometimes you don't get much time to rest and multiple battles get strung together. What makes PFS interesting is that, you are usually playing with different characters each time...that makes having a 'balanced party' almost a pipe dream. There are times where a healer, arcane caster or (in this case) true tank is not a part of the team.

So, in constructing your character, buying items, etc, always presume you are short one or two of these rolls. I always advise all classes to carry some form of healing (i.e. potions), casters should consider bracers of armor and feats like toughness, etc. You have to be a bit 'well rounded' to do well in PFS, unlike traditional campaigns where members can afford to be more specialized knowing that the other members of the party will fill in missing roles and make sure there's plenty of protection, healing, etc. Pathfinder books generally recommend that characters have 10% of their net value in consumable items. That's largely ignore-able in most campaigns, but not in PFS...at least IMHO.

Re: CLW potions:

I recall noticing that those were there, and (maybe wrongly) assumed that it was a given that we would be collecting all of that loot. In my very limited experience, it seems that some groups make these things explicit and some do not, but I will admit that I could be wrong on that point.

To the extent permissible, I would ask to retcon our scene belowdecks to the effect that we take the potions and gold. Being a former bandit, Harboth is not one to let loose loot lay about.

If not, oh well. I'll be sure to post Harboth's looting intentions going forward.

Good points, Harboth.

Because of the way PFS gold works (going directly on your chronicle sheet), I've never bothered with players bookkeeping or declaring if they're picking up gold.

Potions and magic items, Sure...because we need to know who's carrying them since they can be used in the scenario. During battles, who is holding the CLW wand, potions, etc becomes VERY important.

I'm happy to let y'all decide now who wants to be the keeper of the potions. Just remember....use them or lose them by the end :)

While Marisan is in need of one, I think it's more likely that we would've distributed the potions to those who are consistently on the front line (Harboth and Elwyn)?

Too late to drink one now as doing so would provoke an AoO. I have one channel left (I think Kyle is out...though he may have one as well.) I'm can only exclude 3 from my channel and I don't want to accidentally revive the evil cleric...so hopefully people survive long enough for me to get a CLW or two off. Otherwise I'm going to wish I took a rank in Swim.

Hopefully Rachelle can sneak out of school early and pop a Color Spray...but she's got less than 5 minutes to do so before we all get hit with big sticks.

Rachelle, you mentioned something about not having internet access in school or something. Let me remind you that before you go to school or the night before (I posted at 7pm EST), you can post the early 10AM round, plus the mid afternoon (2pm) round both at once.... and then do the third one when you get home since it isn't resolved until 6pm.

Rhydderch, you can always exclude the wounded/uncon enemies only. Its usually save to assume that the guys who have not been hit yet are still at full health and won't benefit from a channel.

Rank of swim...hahahahahahahahaha

I'm out of everything.

Also, the creature with the lady was undead; you don't have to worry about excluding it from your channel.

BTW, that's one of the reasons I'm a big fan of rolling mobs saves, attacks, etc, "on the table" (I do it in most of my campaigns). While it takes away by ability to change things on the fly, it gives others an opportunity to correct me if I'm forgetting something. I've asked a lot of players, if they would rather me roll on the table, knowing that it means that I cannot fudge the dice to have a monster miss a lucky x3 critical roll that might result in instant death...and just about everyone said, "Roll it on the table." I don't think people want to die...but I think they appreciate knowing that the dice are being played the way they land.

What are y'alls thoughts?

Depends on the GM and on the group of players. If it were a regular, ongoing game group with people that I knew well then chances are I would trust the GM to roll the dice behind the screen in an effort to create an immersive game experience. Without seeing the dice totals I wouldn't know of he/ she were fudging the rolls but would trust that, if he/she did so, that it would be for the betterment of the game.

Our characters don't know what an armor class or hit points mean. They may know the difference between good and evil but wouldn't define it in terms of alignment. If they haven't had experience or prior knowledge obtained some other way they wouldn't know enough to pull out their cold iron weapons when encountering a fey creature...assuming they could identify one in the first place!

In short a GM that I know well...or one who has a trustworthy reputation; would be given carte blanche by me to be the architect of the campaign.

It's really hard to gether data on player's reaction for when a GM fiats a roll since, well, it's done behind the screen. But, there are times when players figure out I meta to save lives, and that has had some interesting results.

There was one time that I pulled a bad guys punch. A player had been severely hurt, and another full hit from the baddie would result in that character's death. I had the bad guy hit someone else, even though, logically, the monster would not do that without some strong outside motivation that clearly wasn't there. The player quickly in question quickly go upset that I pulled a punch to save character, accused me of meta, and left.

On the other hand, I had a character that rushed to the front lines of the enemy...The enemy caster held him, and her golem servant CdG him...killing him with a 1-2 punch. The player himself was OK with that...he admitted that rushing to the front, even as a full armored warrior, was not the best tactical thing to do.

However, it was another player in the group who was mad with me. He felt the move was vicious. I explained the exact RP reason why I did it, but he felt I meta'd (because, he implied, I enjoy killing players).

What Rhydderch said...

There are two reasons to roll behind the screen, either to fudge a roll to improve the experience of the players or balance out exceptionally bad/good luck, or to prevent the players from meta-gaming based on the results of the rolls (such as, I got a 1 on Perception, so someone else try, because there's probably something to find if someone can roll high enough). I find both to be appropriate if used judiciously. If the GM has the player's trust, these are useful tools in the GM toolbag.