|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
They got away with it, because it really would have been too much effort to go and invalidate all those reported sessions.
But if you think that taking what should be a 4-6 hour session and turning it into a series of ten 23 to 40 minute sessions isn't cheating... Dunno what to tell you.
Because its cheating. And it doesn't matter how fun it is, or whether you can directly tie hurt to someone through the action, or whether you can directly determine breakage of the campaign, cheating is wrong. Period.
As an offbeat suggestion, what if campaign leadership issued a holiday boon that allowed each player who took the boon in the time it was offered the option to rebuild one character. Anyone with a proto Mystic Theurge could rebuild that. People who didn't want to do that could rebuild one other favorite character that didn't turn out the way they wanted
We don't know what this Gen Con boon will offer:
But the last few years, Tier 1 GM's at Gen Con got a Boon that allowed them to build a particular race or get a complete and free rebuild of one character.
It wasn't that a bunch were made. It was the fact that some folks thought it was ok to get together and play Master of the Fallen Fortress 10 times in 8 hours and brag about how they were able to get the run down to 23 minutes.
I can't think of a single person with a valid opinion that would feel that isn't abusive.
There already is a general set rule for how this works. Its in the Guide to Organized Play.
FAQs and Errata come into play immediately. They always have.
In this case, they made a special decision on how this particular change would be handled as it relates to grandfathering and rebuilds. The grandfathering at all was also a decision the Guide to Organized Play does not support.
Per the Guide, everyone with an early entry SLA would have to make some wholesale changes to their characters, up to the point of what was illegal, nothing more. In other words, they would have had to change approximtely 3 levels of the PrC to 3 levels of one of the entry classes (the one that the early entry SLA mitigated). This would have caused a ton of confusion and chaos.
So they made a determination on how this particular change would be implemented differently than the Guide suggests.
I expect that all complicated changes like this, will deviate from the guidelines in the guide, as appropriate for each individual circumstance. This game is way too complicated to make a hard and fast rule for how everything will be handled, as there will always be something that doesn't fit nicely into the rule (see the multiple threads on the differences between what the guide says and what additional resources say for the advanced class guide playtest, and how drastically the warpriest changed).
Of course, this is an explanation coming from someone who played his traditional EK through Eyes of the Ten. No SLA shenanigans.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I still haven't figured out if you realize that the Standard campaign still exists, and you can still use all your books in the standard campaign per the AR document.
The Core campaign is an ADDITIONAL option for play. Nothing you currently have is invalidated if you don't play in the Core campaign.
Judging a season by its first 3 scenarios is not a great way to really know.
Judging a seasons's power evel by its first 3 scenarios... same thing.
I actually think Season 6, overall, is easier than Season 5, and some of the lower level stuff is quite on par with Season 2 or 3.
No. Even if a stone is only in Seekers of Secrets, you don't get access to the resonance power, because Seekers of Secrets is not a legal source in Core.
You don't get to go to Seekers of Secrets because a stone also is printed there. The only time Seekers of Secrets gets to be accessed, is when a stone that shows up on a Chronicle Sheet, is not in the Core Rulebook.
Yes, what melferburque is experiencing, I also experienced while reporting Con of the North last weekend.
It appears that evergreen scenarios are not allowing unlimited replay, and the ability to replay (or get GM credit again) for scenarios played in regular PFS, is not reporting correctly when you replay in Core.
How many ioun stones from Seekers of Secrets actually show up on Chronicle sheets?
I don't think very many if any at all, that don't then list their resonant power on the chronicle as well.
The line drawn is very simple.
Core Rulebook, Guide to Organized Play, Traits Web Enhancement, and Languages Blog Post.
That can't be confusing. The only reason you are confused, is because you don't want it to work that way.
The ioun stones that do not appear in the Core Rulebook are not available in the Core Campaign.
So the only reason you'd be looking in Seekers of Secrets is if an ioun stone from Seekers of Secrets showed up on a Chronicle sheet. And if I'm not mistaken, the only ones that do that, are the ones that have the resonant power written on the chronicle sheet.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
You'll note Purple Dragon Knight, that you are in the Core Campaign section of the message boards. Resonance powers remain completely legal in the normal Pathfinder Society Campaign.
The point of the Core Campaign is to go back to the basics, and you can't allow everything everyone would like in the campaign, and still call it Core.
I have the privilege and honor to announce that Jon Dehning, the Venture-Captain, Minnesota-Minneapolis has earned his 5th star as of Con of the North this weekend!
He is full of dry wit, sarcastic humor, ironic demeanor, but overall, he's a fun guy and a great friend. He does his best to make sure the tables he's GM'ing for are fun and entertaining. Often, he is one of the most popular GMs in the are for people to ask to play at his table.
A couple comments:
The last quote is a good example of the wit and humor he brings to our region, and why many folks like to give the humor back to him as much as he dishes it out.
Congrats my friend!
The Fox wrote:
I may be mistaken, but I thought you had to actually play the tiefling or aasimar, not just simply assign a pregen credit to one.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
First, thanks for not taking my chiding over hyperbole as an excuse for flaming. Im glad you posted a reasonable response that I can use to continue a good discussion.
1) I unequivocally disagree that multiclassing is a weaker option. 90% of the characters that have derailed scenarios I've played or GMd, have been multiclass monstrosities.
1) my first character that has been extremely viable for 15 levels is a kick butt Rage Prophet.
2) there are not lots of prestige classes. It seems Paizo is actually trying to do away with the glut 3.5 became. Seems archetypes, alternate and advanced classes have been the replacement.
3) you can still realize your build. Just a few levels later. I've seen a mystic the urge usung the old rules be very effective in my Kingmaker campaign.
Gregory Connolly wrote:
For what it is worth I just want a consistent ruleset. I understand that this is a complex game, but I really hate being told that I can't do something while other people can. I would really prefer to go all or nothing. Either don't mess with the rules in this fashion, or make everyone retrain out/retire. I don't get why so many people are cool with the "not anymore" approach. It drives away new players, and it makes those of us who have been playing long enough to know about the exploits but new enough not to have explored them yet insane.
I also like consistency. But what do you think is more fair? Telling 100 Mystic Theurges to retire, or letting a hundred hours of investment continue?
Would your hope for consistency also nix race boons?
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Hyperbole doesn't really help anything.
And to be fair to the design/development rules team, the original FAQ did say they would potentially revisit the ruling in the future.
Now is the future.
Adding any sort of "This amount of xp or that amount of xp" option, just adds a layer of complexity that causes nothing but issues.
Just the "must have 1 played XP to make a new Aasimar/Tiefling" created probably 15 different questions of...
And so on.
So a clean break is best. It avoids any complexity whatsoever.
Jolene Danner wrote:
Well Dianna gets her thanks in a different way.
Yes. Thanks for the explanation.
While I feel for folks who were building towards a completely legal option, I think the best thing to do is make a clean break.
Not necessarily for abuse reasons, but because anything else will be rife with complexities that will create more questions than answers. Just look at the confusion around the "retrain if there is a change" rules differences in the ACG playtest and the Guide to Organized play. Something that on the surface looked pretty simple got blown up into a big ball of confusion. So much so, that John had to write a blog post about it.
So while I'm sure people can come up with some very reasonable options to avoid the rampant abuse seen in the Tiefling/Aasimar grandfathering, any system like that would have too many moving parts to make it viable for the average player to understand easily.
This is also such a corner case, that we probably are talking in the 10's of characters affected.
That sounds more like an issue with certain players who create characters that dominate the table. Not the options of the game itself.
Mike Bramnik wrote:
Close. It was in regards to double dipping Dexterity for damage with a Pistolero because Ultimate Combat had a misprint and forgot to say that Pistol Trainining replaced Gun Training. So people were maliciously assuming they had both.
What is it that you are trying to accomplish?
Gregory Connolly wrote:
I also love how some people who play PFS, namely those who are venture officers, got warning that this was coming down. The argument that this is fair because nobody had notice coming from someone who admits to having notice is rich.
As far as I'm aware, the Venture Officers had no notice of this.
Still not fair that my PFS charcter has to compete with shenanigans that she can't possibly pull.
The crux of the issue I see in your comment, is that players or characters should not be competing with one another at all.
We gather together at the table to have fun and have a shared roleplay experience. Not to compete with one another for best character.
The last time they graciously allowed a grace period, and asked that it not be abused. It was abused.
So the RP you do with the Praetor at the beginning, where he specifically asks you what you are going to do to resolve his situation with the Kobolds, and that he wants it done quickly and all that really doesn't give the PCs the sense that Fort Bandu wants this taken care of quickly?
EDIT: The scenario deals with time very abstractly. It tells you what time of day it is when you arrive at the camp depending on when you left. It also tells you what constitutes a delay. The GM should not be adding on more qualifiers like movement speed in a jungle. The trail to the mining camp is an actual road, and as such no slow down in time should be used anyways. The only delay points should be assigned based on what the scenario says assigns them, or if the PCs manufacture their own delay by deciding to randomly roam about the jungle for a couple days. Lets not make this more complicated than it has to be.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I'm pretty sure it pertains exactly to what you asked. I bolded the part I was responding to above.
Darrell Impey UK wrote:
To be honest, I just get the feeling that whoever wrote this item had no concept of the actual size if an arrow.
Or what form of action economy would actually require an arrow in a wrist-sheath to begin with. I can't think of many reasons outside of needing to hide your weapon on your person, why you might need or want 1 arrow, let alone 5, hidden up your sleeve.
And so now you have 5 hidden arrows. What are you going to do with them? It isn't like you can hide your bow up your sleeve too... Use them in melee? I suppose its an option. There are rules for that. But they are worse than daggers for that purpose.
Jolene Danner wrote:
It was a most excellent affair! Kudos to all the people who worked so hard to make it a success! Can't wait for next year!!
Hey, you were one of those people! You made HQ run pretty darn smoothly, and between you and a couple other folks, Jon and I only had to handle the big things.
So thanks Jolene, AJ, and Steve!
Sanctus Spinatus wrote:
This may have already been said, but I couldn't pass up commenting on this.
GMs are not allowed to make changes like this. We must run as written as far as changing encounters or the challenge levels.
My intention, is that until this is fixed, unregistered characters will not get reported. But I'm not going to hold back an unspecified* number of reports in the hopes this will get fixed in the near future.
For those who care, they will get their characters registered so they can see what's been reported.
For those who don't care, it really won't matter to them whether their characters are reported or not.
So if they register their characters, they can email me to update the event, or when its fixed, I'll update what I have stored away for just this purpose.
Joe M. wrote:
I would say no. You can only learn non-core spells if your character personally has it on a chronicle sheet.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Yes, yes, "X is not evil" does not imply "X is not a code violation," and the list of dishonorable acts is not all inclusive, but that does not answer the question. Taking the evil out of the spell, leaves just a spell whose use is to simply heal wounds. How is that in any way not acting honorably and therefore a violation?
[Evil] has not been taken out of the spell.
Simply for the purposes of PFS, casting an [Evil] spell does not constitute an alignment infraction. For the purposes of PFS paperwork (noting evil acts on chronicle sheets), casting an [Evil] spell is not considered an evil act.
But the spell itself is still [Evil], and casting it is still an [Evil] act whether its considered so administratively by PFS or not.
There would be no purpose to putting the part about Codes of Conduct in the FAQ, if the intent of the FAQ was to allow Paladin's to cast [Evil] spells.
I think you may have just been unlucky. I've checked our Meetup Site and the couple venues you've been at recently, and what's been reported has been what was advertised on our meetup site as far as Core or Normal.
More information will be necessary for me to understand if things were switched on you last second and if I need to remind the coordinators to do their best to stick with what was advertised as best as they can.