AlKir's page

Every time I have run We Be Goblins!, I have allowed my players a single reroll if they get up and attempt to sing and dance their goblin's song. The reasons they choose to do this, ranged from not wanting to fall in a creek, to not wanting to break the Chief's sword. Whatever the case, much hilarity ensues shortly after they make that fateful decision. Oh, and they were warned this would go on Youtube, and be distributed to all media channels I could get this to.

Enjoy!

I wouldn't mind at all though if some scenarios were released that required a GM to have the APG or other books that aren't in the core assumption, so long as the scenario description mentioned which books are required.

There are already scenarios that include classes or creatures from APG, UM, UC, Bestiary 2/3 etc.

I'd go a step further and suggest that an icon representing each referenced product should appear on the front cover of every scenario (similar to how the Ruby Phoenix icon represents the Season 3 story arc) to serve as an instant visual reminder, when I'm grabbing a scenario for an event, of which hardcover sourcebooks I need to take with me. With so many books, I try to limit how many I carry to an event. It's so easy to forget that Bestiary 2 creature until you reach it in the third encounter, and by then it's too late if you're at an event and don't have the book with you.

Now please bear with me for a moment ...

I'm a web developer. When we build a web page, we specify a list of styles including fonts for paragraphs, headings etc. However, each computer has different fonts installed, eg Windows use different fonts than Macs, Firefox use different fonts than Internet Explorer, etc. So how does your computer display text in a font it doesn't have installed? We provide a list of fonts we would like the computer to try in decending order of preference.

Eg, "verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"

If the computer has verdana installed it will use that font first; if not it will try arial; and so forth down the line; and if it doesn't find any of the ones listed, then it chooses it's own "sans-serif" font.

What relevance does this have to Pathfinder scenarios? I think we need a similar notation for PFS scenario content. Please consider:

CR 11 - XP 12,800
Adult brine dragon (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2 94) hp 147
[substitute Adult black dragon (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 92) hp 161]

No need to reproduce the brine dragon's statblock in the scenario, because the developer has provided reference to a substitute within the Core Assumption.

A similar notation should exist for feats, weapons, spells etc. We're looking to provide a similar experience, so while the translation may not be precise, it should attempt to provide a similar role or theme. For example in the example below, the best substitute might be preparing a lower level spell in a higher level slot.

Spells Prepared:
4th - detonate* [substitute fireball]
* See the Advanced Players Guide

Not all feats or abilities require substitutes or descriptions - some are already factored into the opponent's statblock, just run as is, you don't need to understand where every bonus is derived from.

Finally, how many times does an opponent get to use every feat or ability in a single encounter? Maybe not everything requires translation, if the opponent has enough options to keep them busy.

Male human ninja 8 (Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat 13)
[substitute Male human rogue 8]

SQ ninja tricks (combat trick, shadow clone*, vanishing trick*, weapon training) *[substitute fast stealth, surprise attack]

Basically, go ahead and include non-core content, as long as the developer has given thought to how someone without that sourcebook can deliver a similar experience using only the Core Rulebook and Bestiary, and provided those references.

I'm starting this in it's own thread to keep on just one topic.

The reason you don't see those classes, or archetypes for the most part, is that they are not part of the core assumption. If we started using the, all the time, we would either have to put the rules that are unique to them in the scenario itself, or would have to add additional books to the Core Assumption. While I'm all for that, I feel adding more books GMs have to purchase is unfair.

The question is, do we want to REQUIRE GMs to purchase another hardback for $40? I'm more than interested to hear feedback but i think the answer is to keep it as little cost as possible.

Add the APG to the Core Assumptions for GMs at least. There's just too much good stuff in there not to use. I sure someone would say it's not the case, but I think most/many PFS players have a copy of the APG. And everyone has access the the PRD with all the APG's crunchy material.

What are your thoughts?
Just because it would be a Core Assumption, does it mean the GM can't use the PRD on an IPad?
Do most people have the APG as I assume?

-Swiftbook
Just My Thoughts

The Ruby Phoenix Tournament is an awesome module and I highly recommend playing it. I had an amazing time with it and look forward to GMing it one day. That being said, this module touches on a mechanic from Ultimate Combat, and adds an extra layer interaction for players (not to mention, the chronicle sheet offers a boon if the players excel at this new system). That being said, the module gives a brief blurb about the Performance Combat system and it's DCs, but doesn't go at length into it because there probably wasn't enough room in the word count to really flesh it out.

After reading the rules and taking a look at the different combats, I've developed a nice little guide for figuring out the DCs for the combats and the bonuses each NPC has to their rolls. I typed out exactly how I calculated each number, just so you can see the method to my madness. Please follow the link:

Performance Combat DCs for The Ruby Phoenix Tournament.

Now, while the DCs are assumed for a party of 4 PCs, the Performance Combat system is challenging enough without access to Performance feats and other things not legal for PFS. So, I would recommend not changing the DCs I have listed, despite what modifiers you could add based on outnumbering, total # of combatants, etc.

I also taking the time to have you and your players to read the entire Performance Combat system. If you plan on using it, make sure each PC calculates the bonus to their rolls and know when the CAN make a check vs. when they NEED to make a check. And don't forget that PCs can take an 'Aid Another' action to give a bonus to someone else's Performance check. GMs also need to keep in mind if the party all starts with a VP, because that can automatically start the crowd with an improved attitude, depending if everyone has at least 1 VP, 2 VPs, etc. Lastly, remember that to get Victory Points for a bout the PCs don't have to make the crowd helpful, they just have to make the crowd love them more than they love their enemies. :)

I hope this helps any GMs planning to run this module in the future. I'll keep it updated for any changes that come down the pipeline.

Irksome as it may be, I wasn't here when previous rulings were made. I'm here now and I can deal with what happens now. I'm sorry you are irked at me for not controlling rulings that happened more than a year before I arrived as Campaign Coordinator. I will try to do better in the future.

Sure, if you want to sell weapons for full price, knock yourself out.

You folks have a great weekend playing PFS. I will be back on Monday to catch up on the boards.

Note that NPCs in published adventures seem to be able to ignore this rule as well. Eg: Ruby Phoenix Tournament module.

If you're running that module, you now know how to adjust the attacks of the monks therein to abide by this clarification. Luckily, GMs are not robots.

IMNSHO: All non-unique items on chronicles should be 10% below market value.

I'm ready to play a tengu, but it looks like Golarion is set to be overrun by a hoard of strange races. My mother warned me this would happen.

The campaign isn't going to be overrun by a hoard of strange races. Im not sure what gave you that idea. Your mother must have been wrong. Golarion is human-centric and will remain that way in Pathfinder Society. I've said in the past, and I will say again, most likely any new races allowed are going to be provided with a convention boon. Parts of the Advanced Race Guide will be available for play (traits, feats, etc), but we are not making the book wide open as is the case with most books.

Take note that the Dhampir and the elemental races have already been phased out as available convention boons. Eventually Aasimars, tieflings, and tengu will as well.

As far as I know currently there are not any boons that allow Catfolk for play.

Not yet.

A couple of longstanding issues have recently had developer intent revealed, but it was hidden several pages into a lengthy thread that a lot of people probably either stopped reading before resolution or else never bothered trying to follow in the first place.

As such, I decided to bring these clarifications out in the open so people can see them without digging. :)

The first involves the Take 10 mechanic. T10 allows you to pretend you rolled a 10 instead of actually rolling a d20, but you can only do it while you're not threatened or distracted, and never on UMD (or Swim in stormy water). However, the bard's Lore Master ability states he can T10 on Knowledge checks. Does this imply that he can do so even while threatened, or does it imply that other PCs can never T10 on Knowledge checks?

ANSWERED!

You can take 10 on knowledge checks, as with all checks. The bard lore master ability lets a bard take 10 at all times, even in the middle of combat.

The second involves Perception, reactive versus active checks, and the Trap Spotter rogue talent. Does encountering traps count as a stimulus to which PCs can make a reactive Perception check? If so, what's Trap Spotter for?

ANSWERED!

The trap spotter talent lets a rogue make a perception check to notice ALL traps he comes wihtin range of. Normally, you have to tell the GM that you're looking for traps.

So there you have it!

To summarize:
Any PC can Take 10 on ANY skill (unless otherwise specified in the skill description, as with UMD) if they're not threatened or distracted. Abilities like Lore Master let a PC take 10 at ANY time.

You don't get to notice a trap unless you announce a search (spending the requisite move action) or have the Trap Spotter ability and come within range.

Happy GMing, everyone!

I will capitulate this, there is a differnce between a person who optimizes for combat, and one who is a dick about it *killing NPCs that he knows the group wants to survive, whining when not in combat*. But those are 2 different problems.

Optimizing for Combat I can care less, being a Dick is never liked.

An Optimizer that makes a character that eats through a combat allows me to get to the actual fun part of the scenario faster... The roleplaying..

This is true, but I've had some experiences in a home game where the optimizer ruins the diplomacy for the other players, because he wants to get back to smashing stuff. Not ruins in-game - but literally whines loudly about, "Just get on with it."

That particular optimizer is no longer welcome at my home game, incidentally.

I would like to repeat a Statement *with slight changes* I made a while back, that points to the fact that combat is not the end all and be all of a scenario, in other words who cares if player optimizes.

An Optimizer that makes a character that eats through a combat allows me to get to the actual fun part of the scenario faster... The roleplaying..

This is more of a Alternate Resources thing then Guide Thing, but it does help bring PFS closer to the RPG rules. I hope that is ok.

Please Re-think about the following not being allowed in PFS play. Some I believe should be added because certain PFS rules have changed, some because I don't understand why they have been excluded since they don't actually break any PFS rules.

I am only listing Pathfinder Roleplaying Game books, though I may list other from APs, Player Companion or Campaign Setting books later.

Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide

Since the Day Job rules have changed, I see less reason to have the following not legal:

• Craftsman alternate Dwarven racial trait
  
• Practicality alternate Halfling racial trait
  
• Heart of the Fields alternate Human racial trait

Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat

I don't understand why the following is not allowed

• poison conversion discovery
  
• Inquisitions for Inquisitor

I still believe the Following Gunslinger type archetypes can fit within the campaign, and the overrun of gunslingers through PFS was way overblown.

• The musketeer archetype
  
• The holy gun archetype
  
• The trophy hunter archetype
  
• The spellslinger archetype

Field Repair - Though I understand the initial response not to allow this feat to be allowed in PFS play, I think it would work withing PFS because it does not actually Craft items, and would allow alternative to the mend spell.

Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic

• Alchemical Simulacrum discovery
  
• alchemical zombie discovery
  
• doppelganger simulacrum discovery
  
• greater alchemical simulacrum discovery
  
• Clone Master alchemist archetype
  
• Pack Lord druid archetype
  
• Broodmaster summoner archetype
  
• true name arcane discovery
  
• staff-like wand arcane discovery

I don't see this as a problem. I've got a third level rogue that has access to a +1 returning dagger. I can't afford it, but I still have access to it. I haven't played a ton of scenarios, but I'm sure there are others that give access to +2 weapons earlier than you can gain the fame for.

Warn them it's a bad idea. Have them read the reviews of the module. If they still want to play, teach them a lesson in humility.

I have been discussing this here, on a private email list, and with a few other people IRL. I have also been thinking about it long and hard over the GenghisCon convention weekend. I have finally come to a conclusion.

The rules state that the effect ends because it was cast by a PC. That is fine, but it doesn't sit well with me as a player.

So, I am going to pay the 660 GP to buy off the spell effect. I know that I don't have to, but it makes more sense to me that I do this. The disconnect between ongoing spell effects as cast by an NPC versus those cast by a PC don't make much sense to me. I guess it fits with the "no PvP" rule, but it is still not quite right. For roleplaying reasons I am spending the gold. I just don't feel right taking advantage of a rules loophole to save a few hundred gold pieces.

Thanks everyone for your input.

I ran this today, tier 4-5. Lots of fun and the players liked the setting and the mechanic.

Unfortunately, it was too easy for the party of six. The PCs can get more defense points with a big party, which means that they will face smaller groups of enemies AND have a bigger party against them. This "double dip" mechanic probably played a big part in determining the difficulty. I'm looking forward to running this to a party of four.

Also, they rolled over the owlbear by dropping it before it got off its first full attack. What a shame.

Even with the problems mentioned above, it's a worthy conclusion to the Quest for Perfection series. More scenarios with interesting mechanics and a "special" feel like this, please!

When my home group started playing PFS back at scenario #1 Silent Tide, we all took turns GMing. Whenever you ran a scenario, you were responsible for buying it. This worked great for the first 3 years. Then I became a Venture-Captain and now it seems I run everything. :-(

@Mike B. its a good idea to add in your ruling in the other thread: Eyes of Ten gives retroactive XP. If you have finished the entire arc, you will be level 13 with 2 XPs.

Mike

Sundering is also not really applicable, since even magic items destroyed by sunder can be repaired with make whole.

They CAN be, yes, but the caster must be at least twice the caster level of the item. That can get a bit dicey for even moderate items. It would be possible that you not only lost the reward value of the item but could be out the cost of the spell service as well. Essentially a net loss.

Personally, I think that if you sunder an item intentionally, that character should lose the value of the item. It was a choice after all and makes more sense than it re-spawning at the end of the scenario. But, then again, I tend towards harsher rules. And I said above, a sundered item is not necessarily lost.

Whatever price a PC pays to bargain with an outsider needs to be listed as gold spent at the end of the scenario the same as if he had spent real gp out of his amassed wealth. Whether or not the equivalent of that gp value came from his own existing gear, an item found in the scenario, or his cache of coins is immaterial. You cannot use the proposed workaround to get free material components.

This will be clarified in the FAQ as soon as Mike gets back from vacation and we can put together clear language for it that covers all such loopholes.

I have let PC's spend just gotten loot money, if they are in city. This would be the same, you are spending your just acquired treasure. This means that at the end you note it on "gold spent". Using a just acquired item worth say 10,000 would mean others can chip in to the cost if they want. At the end of each act, there is a gold piece total for each person based on selling the stuff, so from this I would deduct payment.

0gre wrote:

If you are in Absalom you can't take found gold and spend that on scrolls/ items/ etc, which you then use during the game and expect that gold is still available at the end of the chronicle. The way I see it, this shouldn't be any different. You are spending the gold and it should be deducted from your chronicle sheet.

(For reference, here's the wording on using items during a scenario.)

** spoiler omitted **

While I agree that giving away items in exchange for favours is probably not what was intended, I'm hard pressed to figure out how those words allow you to permanently consume a potion or sunder an item without affecting your treasure amount while simultaneously saying that giving away an item does affect your treasure amount.

How is it any different from selling items and buying spell components during a scenarion? Or selling items and buying a scroll?

Why can you trade a +1 flaming longsword for an outsiders service when you can't trade it to a wizard to cast stoneskin on the whole party for the encounter?

I just don't see where being able to trade goods for services from outsiders is ok but trading with real world merchants is not ok.

Just to play Devil's Advocate. . . .

What exactly is the thing that "doesn't sit well" with selling boons that a person got for use in PFS?

1) Is it the issue that Paizo created something for free that someone else is making money on?

2) Is it the "impurity in allowing the pocketbook" to affect PFS play?

3) Is it that the boon should be TIED TO YOU AND ONLY YOU when you get it?

4) Is it because of a fear that since boons can be easily duplicated (and aren't tracked) that they will be photocopied and distributed?

5) Is it because the person who buys it isn't the person we want to reward?

Perhaps answering why can explain how to address the issue, if one exists.

Rubia

For me it's #1 and #5.

With that in mind perhaps next time you'll look into it more before passing judgement and potentially dragging someone's name through the mud :P

To be fair Todd, your name was already in the mud. All Deidre did was drag it.

So I'm 100% at killing at least one character when GM'ing this scenario and 33% at TPK. This might be a candidate for adjusting the BBEG's tactics.

Yeah...I just can't get too worked up about this mod.

I think there *SHOULD* be some scenarios that are notoriously difficult or hard or deadly. Heck, I *like* that there are some encounters that can be dangerous.

Some scenarios will be easy...and some should be hard.

+1 for the difficult encounter in this scenario.

I hope to see more like it.

-Pain

No, the OP clearly states that it's for listing what changes you want to see in future guides (without arguing over them).

That said: Please reinstate the Magical Knack trait. As it stands, spellcasters are essentially punished for multiclassing while the other classes suffer no such penalisation.

And 2 more.. 2 that seem to bring up a lot of questions.

Seasons 1 and 2 (Scenarios #29–#56 and #2–01 through #2–26): These scenarios all include two faction missions. For characters using the standard advancement track, one of these should be considered the faction mission and the other the success condition for the scenario, maintaining the 2 Prestige Point maximum.

I know what you guys where trying to say with this, to keep the same theme going, but it has just been to damn confusing.

Change to

Seasons 1 and 2 (Scenarios #29–#56 and #2–01 through #2–26): These scenarios all include two faction missions. Completing overall scenario goal for these scenarios does not give you a prestige point. Characters using the standard advancement track get 1 prestige point per faction mission competed.

Also

Additionally, except for specific examples cited in this guide or the Pathfinder Society FAQ, the Craft skill is not legal for play and crafting of mundane items is not allowed in Pathfinder Society.

Saying Craft skill is not legal for play is just not true, it invalidates many Missions and scenarios using the craft skill for a success condition which both don't meet the criteria "specific examples cited in this guide".

Change to

Additionally, except for specific examples cited in this guide or the Pathfinder Society FAQ, crafting of mundane items is not allowed in Pathfinder Society.

the Craft skill is not legal for play and was removed from above.

ooooh I got one...

Current Reading

Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does.

Change to

Any spell cast by a PC or NPC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does.

Spells ending at the end of the scenario needs clarifying.

Thanks for the concerns and opinions expressed here. I've talked to numerous store owners, previous staff members of LFR and LG, I have played organized campaigns going back to Living City, and have spoken to many players of Pathfinder Society.

The overwhelming consensus is they don't want unlimited replay. Mind you, some players would like it, but most don't. Your experience appears to be quite different from what many others I have talked to. I have spoken to 12 store owners in 9 states, 4 in person, who all agree the unlimited replay killed previous organized play in their stores.

We release two new scenarios a month and six new modules a year. Hopefully, if you have played the other 17 sanctioned modules and more than 100 scenarios, that the two new scenarios will keep you and your group interested in Pathfinder Society.

I like the idea of multipart boons, like the one I noticed the one when I ran Wonders in the Weave part 1. However, I dislike the part where it requires the next chronicle sheet to be the one that allows you to be eligible for the special boon. Since there's a lull between scenario release times, the current system seems only to benefit those with multiple characters, or those who "take a break" from society play, only to return when the second/third/etc parts have been released. I would fix this by changing the way multipart boons work. Rather than having it be the next chronicle sheet (e.g. part one as 11 then part two 12), just require the parts to go in order (e.g. 11 then something else as 12 then 13) but not necessarily be back to back.

Because of the way they work currently, no one in my area will receive the Wonders in the Weave boon, because they wanted to continue playing their character during the intervening time. We shouldn't punish players for wanting to play.

From a player's perspective, I don't think there needs to be a boon for playing the multi-part scenarios in order. I just want the story to be compelling and connected through all of the scenarios.

It may be a nice giveaway for people who have played through an arc in order, but I don't know that it is necessary.

As an organizer, I see the appeal. It helps the players figure out which PCs to play (with the Quest series, the players chose to not start with characters that would level out before Part III because there was an extra incentive) and allows for some easier scheduling. That is not to say that it always works out for the players, but I don't know that there is anything that can be done about that.

As a GM, I would like the add-ons to be kept to a minimum in terms of the mechanical impact they may have on a session.

Having written all of that, I would be much happier (all around) if PFS scenarios were released based on the connectedness of the stories rather than on filling out the selections by tiers. As Paizo is likely never going to adopt that policy (because it probably only appeals to a few), I think that keeping the multi-parts linked and engaging is the best solution. And if there is any way there can be more PC-NPC roleplaying encounters written into to any scenario, that would thrill me.

*innocently* If this is the case... why didn't they ban Paladins, as well?

We are keenly aware of all the things Painlord has pointed out. Mark and I have weekly discussions on how to tweak things and what direction to move the campaign. However, we can't fix all of the issues overnight. We will eventually address all of those issues but it will take some time. All I can do is ask everyone to have a little patience while we work towards improving the campaign.

This language will be fixed in Guide 4.1 It will read as follows on page 4:

If you play a 1st-level pregenerated character, you can even apply the credit for its first adventure to a newly created character of your very own. If you play a non 1st- level pregenerated character, you can apply the credit for it to your character as soon as they reach the level of the pregenerated character played. You may also opt instead to apply the credit from the non 1st-level pregenerated character played to a newly created character with the GP gained reduced to 500 GP (or 250 for slow advancement track characters). Equipment listed on the pregenerated character sheet may never be sold.

And on Page 27:

Step 3: Determine the Max Gold for the scenario based on the PC’s advancement rate and the subtier played (F) and circle the applicable value. This value represents the total gp value a character may receive for defeating all enemies and finding all treasure in a scenario. If the PCs failed to earn any of the rewards listed in an individual act, deduct the amount listed for the applicable subtier from the Chronicle’s Max Gold. If the player is playing a non 1st level pregenerated character, they may choose instead to apply this Chronicle to a newly created 1st level character. If this is the case, reduce this value to 500 (or 250 for slow advancement track). Place the sum of this calculation in the shaded GP Gained field and initial the adjacent box (Q).

What I don't care for about modules is there is no incentive to play characters at risk for rewards. If a player has a 3rd level character he is better off *not* playing with his real character, this bugs me a lot.