We are currently running into the problem at lower tiers of "not enough stuff" I'm personally organizing 3-4 tables a week, lots of new players coming in and out, we're just simply running out of stuff for new players.
Makes me wonder why scenario's aren't just "one per character" for playing and GMing, I get the metagaming aspect, but most people are relatively good humans and aren't going to ruin the fun for everyone, and can't you just boot them from the table?
Curaigh, to play a character in PFS, you need to bring all non-core material at the table, and the ninja is no longer a pre-gen. (It has new equipment, a faction, traits, etc.) So the player needs UC, because the Ninja subclass is not Core.
If the player wants to use the Ninja pre-gen, he can either use the Level 1 version and assign it to a second PC, or else he can use the Level 4 version and set it aside till the PC reaches 9 XP.
The natural question, "I like this character; can I just play her again as my PC?" has to be answered, "not by PFS rules, no." If it had been the Rogue, or the Monk, the answer would have been, "Sure!"
Technically they can't play anything without Field Guide and PFRPG core rulebook by the rules. everyone playing in PFS is required to own those books, not bring them to the table because it's assumed you own them, but you must own them.
I do think the rule that you can't play a level 1 pre-gen again and apply the credit like you can with higher level pregens is kinda silly.
I still think my favorite "playing up" solution is the double exp one.
with the exception of 1-5's it's only a bit more than 2x gold on all the scenarios, which I think is fine for the reward.
If you're between tiers, and you play up sure thing, you get a bit more gold, if you do it every single time, it's still not game-breaking.
If you're level 1, and you play 6 times tier 4-5 to get all the monies, that's close to 9k extra gold, double exp reduces that to 4500 extra gold, still a lot, but much more manageable.
Double XP provides a number of benefits for the campaign.
1) Automatically helps curb the gold growth, since it effectively halves the gold from the scenario.
2) Helps newer player's catch-up to the higher level players.
3) it actually makes sense and follows the rules of the game more closely.
What is the drawback here? Complexity for GMs? I don't think that's an issue, they don't have to calculate anything.
EX: Level 2 player at a 4-5 table.
GM: What level are you
Player: 2
GM: Ok, *writes a 2 in the Xp block*
Done.
If having people play wildly out of tier is the problem, just say you can't at all. "If you're the correct level for a sub-tier you cannot play any of the other sub-tier's in that adventure" tell em to pull up a pre-gen.
Often (meaning at least 4-5 scenarios, nothing is used constantly)
Thassilionian, Infernal, Varisian, Osirion/ancient osirion.
Others that I have seen, but I don't think i've used more than once.
Draconic, Abyssal, Celestial, Undercommon, Dwarven.
Languages for people who summon stuff, Ignan, Auran, Aquan, Terran. Gotta tell them elementals what to do :)
Thas, Osirion/Ancient, and the planar languages are all really nice to have.
Random note: Dark Folk is useful, as many of the darkfolk don't speak common, same with undercommon, but that only matters if you're trying to talk to them :)
Most common things I hear are "fighter BAB or Cleric BAB" mostly because that's what I say.
On the internet I see 3/4 BAB written quite often.
the mult-classing rules are very clear. You look at each class individually and then you add them all together at the end. No fractional BAB advancement in PF(S). I am fairly amazed that Andrew has never heard that however, not a comment either way just legitimately surprised.
Either way, all of that discussion has literally nothing to do with Permanency.
as I see it permanency comes down to 2 major questions.
1) is it too powerful. I'd say no.
2) Will it cause more problems then it has benefits? Probably.
There are things with dispel magic in the game, players losing decent sized chunk of wealth creates a lot of upset folks (heck, even when they lose nothing but the PP they were doing nothing with on a raise dead people get upset.
In addition to this, it also hurts the player's wealth by level and can leave them too far behind, actually weakening their party at higher levels.
Because of these things I think it's completely fine from a power perspective, but probably negative for the campaign as a whole, creating upset players and significantly altering wealth by level.
I will say the limit of one MW transformation seems pretty unnecessary to me (it's not like it saves you money...) Secret Page on the other hand is needed, or else you just scribe all your spells for free.
I like permanency, and would love to use it, but I believe it would be a negative for the campaign as a whole.
I like unlocking race boons, honestly no race they will unlock will be more powerful than Asimar or Human anyway, so why not. It'd be a nifty thing for GM stars to do something (well other than the 4th and 5th)
I also said "uniquely powerful" a fire beetle is less powerful than a sunrod! :)
When I say uniquely powerful I mean a source of light that basically can't be extinguished (I wanted to avoid purely sun/moon because other planes are their own business) Ex: the plane of positive energy IS brilliant light. Not every plane has a Sun but I'm talking basically a Sun equivalent.
When I read "Ambient Natural Light"; I read "Night - low light, Dawn -normal light, Noon - bright light ect. I also presume special cases happen Giant cave walls lined with otherworldly crystals that give off light.. I could see that being an Ambient Light Source.
Ultimately YMMV is just going to happen on this.
I'm sure there is something saying that Paizo doesn't want Mike/Mark/John to say "this is how I read it, please run it that way for consistency) Since it's akin to changing the rules, but I really wish they would chime in on ambiguous things like this.
If the rules discussion thread can't come to a hard and fast "this is how this works" PFS should be allowed an interpretation to improve table consistency.
Removing the curse also removes the item. You can't just remove the curse from the item and have a non cursed item.
Remove curse allows you to remove the item, but does not require you to do so immediately. You should be able to have remove curse cast so that you have the option to remove it at some point in the future, if need be. Of course if you remove it and reequip it you'll need another remove curse to take it off again.
Mike, the point of the item is, you can't have the benefit without the curse.
The item would still be evil. The remove curse would not affect the item at all. It also wouldn't affect the alignment aspect. All it means is that you have the option to remove it if you choose. That is the entire point of casting remove curse in this fashion.
If you leave the curse on it's even easier to explain "I got cursed by this ioun stone, it will not leave me while I live."
we're all pretty clear on how the spell works at this point, the only thing that needs to be defined is "what constitutes ambient light"
because of the word "natural" in the faq.
I'm defining "Natural Ambient Light sources" as - The Sun, Moon, or something uniquely powerful such as a cave entirely lined with neon glowing crystals.
IE: If no intelligent creatures ever set foot here, if it were completely uninhabited what would the light level be?
To this 90% of the time outside of the sun, I would say "dark or dim" either way, darkness makes it "dark" and deeper darkness makes it "supernaturally dark"
That's how I define "Natural" and the FAQ requires "Natural ambient light" those 3 words are 1 defined term, created by the FAQ.
Therefore I look for 2 steps.
1) Is there natural light? [a] yes [b] no
a) determine it's level, reduce it by 1.
b) it's dark.
The other common interpretation is nosig's which follows a couple simple steps.
1) Are there light source originating in the area of darkness? Yes, they don't count
2) are there light sources originating outside the area of darkness? Yes, they determine the light of the room
3) Lower that determined value by the appropriate number of steps. (1 for darkness, 2 for deeper darkness).
... yes if you remove the item, the bonus the item grants you is removed.
But if you remove the curse and pay for atonement you just have an ioun stone that grants you a feat, so no penalties, just a magic item for the low low cost of some spell casting.
I said "ioun feat" meaning "a feat granted by a magic item, specifically an Ioun Stone" the magic item rules still apply. sorry for being unclear.
Remove curse can remove the evil aura and the curse from the ioun stone.
Remove curse + Atonement = no permanent negatives and leaves you with a ioun feat. too lazy to search, but Mark posted that in the GM thread on this adventure.
unfortunately you have to balance around something.
I personally think it should be a group size of 5 (no adjustments needed either way then) and should be based on the pregens that would be played in that tier.
Optimizers that complain about "too easy" well that's our fault for abolishing what the game thinks we can do, and if we're bored cause it's "too easy" again, our fault.
Does that mean that tier 1-2s are too easy for a party of all level 2's? yup, sure does.
I personally think 1-5 should be tier 1, tier 2-3 (probably 900ish gp), and tier 4-5. This is more design work, but accommodates first level characters.
the difference between a first and 2nd level character is immense, even MORE so in PFS (wands, PP buys, ect)
TLDR; my Solution to the "CR Problem"
1 - Make 1-5s 3 sub tiers, 1, 2-3, and 4-5.
2 - design for 5 PCs, so no "adjustments" for player count are needed
3 - Let the optimizers be bored, to avoid exclusion of "weaker" or new players.
The augmentations are (mostly) terrible. they are either ineffective or the break the tactics for the encounter.
I understand that most conventions are 6 persona tables, and designing for that is fine, but something is getting lost on the scale downs.
** spoiler omitted **
some of them are done well, but I think it's far MORE important then the writers/editors/whoever seem to give it credit for. I believe John is in charge of those now, and I have faith they will get better :), but I would recommend staying away from season 4 without 6 PCs
it just seems like a lot of complaints come from improper scaling or way out of a "appropriate" abilities
** spoiler omitted **
Spoiler:
that's fair, the saves bit didn't come up for my party, so I wasn't thinking about it from that end, it just seemed like a throw away debuff.
golemworks scaling annoyed me, as I was literally unable to defeat the party, Black took no damage, used everyone of his spells and was left without a way to harm the PCs, so he teleported away (everyone had heals, and the scaling removes his only consistent Damage source)
The augmentations are (mostly) terrible. they are either ineffective or the break the tactics for the encounter.
I understand that most conventions are 6 persona tables, and designing for that is fine, but something is getting lost on the scale downs.
Spoiler:
My enemy's Enemy - an alchemist who gets +9 to hit on ranged touch attacks the scale down is "sickened" really? -2 to hit/damage isn't worth 2 PCs not even remotely.
In Wrath's Shadow - remove a couple of worthless mooks from the last fight (seems like it should work, but those guys just get mopped up so quickly, I played it at gencon (with 6 people) and I honestly forgot those guys were even in the room until I went back and read it.
some of them are done well, but I think it's far MORE important then the writers/editors/whoever seem to give it credit for. I believe John is in charge of those now, and I have faith they will get better :), but I would recommend staying away from season 4 without 6 PCs
it just seems like a lot of complaints come from improper scaling or way out of a "appropriate" abilities
Oil of Daylight
Potion of Fly
Potion of Gaseous form
5x scroll of see invis* (assuming you can cast it..)
Wand of cure light / Infernal healing
Wand of Bless / Magic missile
Wand of Shield (for magus)
Wand of Mage armor for my monk
all good buys for 2 PP. remember if you spend it on something that keeps you from dying, you don't need it to pay for the rez :)
I optimize, in fact I play primarily prepared casters so that I can tinker with my character MORE because that's fun for me :).
That being said, I don't complain that scenarios are too easy because I GM enough and I see scenarios that myself, or my homegroup, walked through providing interesting challenges for other players. Optimizers know that they are making characters that will make scenarios easier for them, if we really want a challenge, we can CHOOSE to play less powerfully built things.
I don't play my Summoner anymore, because he was built to cover too many roles, and I felt like he was spotlight hogging. I built him before I knew how PFS worked, and since switch to characters that don't dominate the whole game :). I still try to have tools to handle most situations, so that we, as a party, succeed.
I think people saying pfs is too x are working off a few a faulty premises
1) It can be the same for everyone
2) It can feel the same for everyone
There's no way to make it be the same. There's too much variation in the human elements of the DM, how good your build is overall, how your build interacts with the scenario, the characters in the party, the optimization of the other players in your party, and the number of players in the party.
Even if you COULD theoretically iron all of that out (hint, you can't), there is no objective, platonic idea of what it SHOULD be that would appeal to everyone. How hard something should be is a subjective taste, and peoples are vastly different.
IDK I think dire wolves appeal to everyone. ;)
However, all of the things you said are true. It's not for everyone.
It's impossible to provide the "right" amount of challenge for everyone, if a fight is hard for the optimizer it's going to be extremely lethal for the non-optimized.
gold in a scenario is determined by the things you find, therefore it has to fluctuate (personally I don't think this is true, but it's what the campaign chooses to do.)
Frostfur captives is just a mistake it was supposed to be a 3-7, got changed into a 1-5, and the 3-4 gold was left alone (the chronicle even says 3-4 on it).
I think Jason said it very well, the problem has been too much reward regardless of risk, this new "get gold appropriate to your level" is an attempt to curb that. it's easier than telling the player they don't get to play.
Either-way, I think we have derailed this thread enough.
Has PFS gone too far into hard mode? Nope, but if it goes much further it could cost them players.
Should we make a "hard mode" for scenarios and award more gold? Nope, characters with too much wealth is a problem regardless of risk, we don't want PCs getting more gold, it just snowballs into an arms race until PCs with appropriate money or "average" builds cannot complete them.
Should we make "Hard mode" and give the same rewards? Nope, wasted design space.
Should all chronicles become generic and you get gold based on your level?
It would solve the money problem, but I think it detracts from earning cool stuff that makes your characters accomplishments actually matter in the future.
my point is that all scenarios of the same level range pay close to the same amount of gold (season 0 is an outlier because it was designed with a different game system in mind).
Risk=Reward, Risk is determined by CR in pathfinder. the CR system is flawed, therefore 2 encounters of the same CR that provide the same rewards will have different risks.
The "wide range" of gold amounts is because things change over time, in an attempt to find the "right amount"
there are gold amounts that are intended for each level range, authors are supposed to stay withing 5% of those amounts. Those amounts change over time, though they have stayed very consistent since the Pathfinder RPG came out. Tier 1-2 has fluctuated more than the others.
In the case of first steps, you are given slightly less gold because you automatically receive 2 Prestige for completing them.
Playing season 4 vs most of season 1 or 2 is pretty much "playing up without the rewards of playing up"...
I can prove this is false.
1-05: Mists of Mwangi - Subtier 4-5 pays 1351gp.
4-01: Rise of the Goblin Guild - Subtier 4-5 pays 1904gp
That's a 44.6% increase in gold. Let me repeat that: It's a 44.6% increase.
In fact, we know the PFS subscribes to the model that risk determines reward because even scenarios within a single season do not all pay the exact same amount. In fact, there are Season 1 Subtier 1-2 scenarios that pay more than Season 4 scenarios in the same category. Do you think the are just guessing at what to pay out?
The very idea that your level should determine what you earn and not the obstacles you overcome is fundamentally antithetical to D&D. The greater the risk, the greater the reward. It is that credo that motivates the character to expose him/herself to danger in the first place.
If there's a problem with Level 1's walking away from a table with loot from a 6-7 game because all his/her buddies are carrying the character's weight and the character never lifts a finger or suffers a single attack, then PFS needs to address that specifically.
Restricting loot based on level IS a universally bad idea unless it is the only way to cure a bigger problem.
the original printing of mists (and the one with the 1300gp chronicle) is from season 0, season 0 pays less gold (with the one exception of decline of glory, for no reason.) So thanks for proving my point?
you have to restrict gold based on level in organized play, because the same scenario's have to be playable by a wider range of people.
this does mean, unfortunately, that gold has to be restricted by level and in theory the scenario's should be in the same challenge range.
They ARE in the same CR range, the fact that the CR system doesn't work properly isn't PFSs fault, it's an issue with the game in general, and you just accept it.
for reference season 1 starts on scenario 29, being the first scenario designed with Pathfinder RPG rules, as opposed to 3.5 OGL.
Actually that will solve the problem of 'this scenario is too easy for us at the assigned tier'.
It lets them play a tougher scenario so that it won't be too easy for them. Done.
That statement evinces a failure to grasp even basic psychology of what people who want a challenge are operating under. People don't want it to be simply harder. Anybody can self-nerf by fighting with less armor or mundane weapons. Nobody who's looking for a challenge does that.
There has to be a commensurate reward for it being harder. What you're proposing is simply nonsense. No designer subscribes to that theory and no significant number of people are going to exercise such an option. More to the point, no random group of people would ever subject themselves to such a situation. Ergo, you haven't solved the problem of allowing people to challenge themselves. You've simply punished people who want to challenge themselves which completely contradicts your stated goal of accommodating more play-styles.
If you don't believe me, next time you play at a Con ask every single table if they would play up without getting the rewards of playing up.
Playing season 4 vs most of season 1 or 2 is pretty much "playing up without the rewards of playing up" I would actually say it's harder a lot of the time.
I think many tier 7-8's from season 4 are harder than 8-9s from the other seasons, and in some cases even 10-11's. CHOOSING to play season 4 scenarios is, for the most part, playing up with no greater (monetary) reward.
Season 4 Scenarios are harder. they give the same amount of gold as seasons 1-3, and they are harder.
lets look at some options, and really think about them.
Scenario 1: S1 and S1 hard mode or (S1H).
S1 grants 1500gp
s1h grants 2000 gp. S1H has +1 CR added to all the encounter levels. but offers a greater reward.
here's the problem, that grants optimized players greater rewards, thus pushing the "need" for optimization and diminishing the "fun" for players who don't want to play hard mode. By either forcing those characters into, or excluding them from, playing the way they want to play.
If S1H doesn't grant additional rewards, then player's won't play it, and it's wasted design space. (I actually believe this to be a fallacy, but I'll use it as a premise for now).
What happens if players can replay a scenario for credit, but only on hard mode and only if ALL players are replaying it for credit.
I can add hardmode to every scenario with a blanket statement. "All monsters in this adventure gain the advanced simple template" If they are already advanced, apply the simple template on top of the normal advancement. This is a way for everyone to die. The perception, disable device, and save DCs of traps/locks are all increased by 2. Damage from traps is multiplied by 50%.
you can know whats in the adventure, but it gets scarier :).
One of the biggest problems in PFS are characters significantly above expected wealth, this is achieved by groups of powerful PCs playing up at every possible chance. Offering additional incentives for those PCs doesn't seem wise.
I will admit that i originally built a very strong character, then I built slightly toned down characters for most of my other ones, if the difficulty continues to increase I'll have to go back to making more powerful characters again.
I don't think season 4 is too far in that direction I think that going much furthur could start exclude players who don't enjoy crunching the numbers, or want to take "fun" flavorful feats instead of power attack.
I'm thankful that our local VL is both a strong community builder and keeps himself well informed of the PFS specific rules and regulations. I haven't actually met our VCs so I won't speak to that.
I'm going to break this down how I see it.
Rules knowledge: Stars = Nothing (many of the best rules folks on the forums have no stars)
PFS Specific knowledge: Stars = minor. things come up when you run PFS and you'll learn some of them while running. Specifically day jobs, clearing conditions, and things you can do with PP.
Opinion's on how hard a scenario is compared to the "norm" Stars = decent.
this is discussed a lot, people who have GMd more PFS scenarios are likely to have a better understanding of what scenario's are usually like just from experience. Ex: 95% of the traps I have run are completely pointless as they aren't tied to combats, so they just eat a couple wand charges and do nothing.
Another one that stars bear some weight on, how players react to certain things, you see a specific "thing".
Now Dragnmoon said something that I wanted to highlight, as it's very important to keep in mind.
"A GM that has GMed a 100 PFS games in his own little local game bubble and has never GMed out of his group is much more likely to pick up bad habits then a GM/Player that has GMed only 20 games but has gone outside their local bubble to conventions and other out of town game days."
This exact point is why GMs are to run as written.
100 games with the same group of people means a lot less then 100 games with 100 different groups of people. a HUGE part of what makes PFS what it is, is the fact that you get random groups, with players of varying skill/optimization/roleplaying levels, and running an adventure in a way that is fun and rewarding to those players despite their differences.
GMs that have 4/5 stars and often GM for different groups of players, DO have better perspective on some things.
going back to the PFS is too easy/hard. I'll take a 4/5 stars opinion more seriously in those threads, because they have SEEN more groups try and struggle/cakewalk through them.
6 fully optimized PCs that play together regularly cannot be challenged by the same combats that 6 pre-gens played by random strangers can defeat.
TLDR: A GM with more stars is more likely to have experience with a wider array of groups, which can lend strength to their arguments, but that shouldn't discount other peoples arguments.
more stars are not an indication of better GMing, I mean have you SEEN what Dragnmoon posts? ;)
HOWEVER they do represent how much experience you have GMing PFS, reading modules/scenarios, how familiar you are with types of encounters that appear in scenarios. Also, it shows at the very least, that people are willing to put up with your GMing, so you probably aren't the worst.
There are 4 star GMs that are bad, and 0 star GMs that are awesome. I don't believe there are any 5-stars that are bad, you have to be recommended by other GMs of high standing.
Eitherway, I have 3 stars, closing in on 4, and i don't think they mean anything, the 5th one carries weight, the other 4... they show that you are willing to GM to help the campaign, but otherwise.... they don't really count for much.
As I was composing an encounter for Lady Gabrielle, I realized that such an encounter would require some background leading up to it. Which led to more background. Which led to an outline I came up with this morning, which posted below.
And if you live in the Portland, Oregon area, know that as I am typing this, I have realized that this would make a great home campaign to run for you guys. So don't read this.
The Siege of Absalom
** spoiler omitted **...
I vote that you write that scenario or series of scenarios and submit it. Excellently done.
One of the problems is that the subtiers are often so radically different, you can't make a risk factor the entire scenario. For example, King of the Storval Stairs is a fun time at subtier 7-8, but at subtier 10-11 it's twice as deadly.
You have to be kidding?
You’re absolutely right of course. Good tactics and the right spells (or consumables) rule the day.
However, you can’t judge the difficulty of the scenario based on the fact that your group can systematically shut down the powers of the enemy. Even if the enemies hit for 1000 damage, it’s irrelevant if they can’t hit you.
When I said subtier 10-11 is much harder, it was based on the raw data. For only +2 levels difference, the enemies had twice as many HP, gained Scent, Uncanny Dodge (a rogue breaking ability if combined with tactics), substantially increased damage (if the GM factors in power attack which rarely happens), and their Willpower saves for from +3 to +8 (which is a big difference considering we took advantage of that at subtier 7-8).
Also, I wasn’t referring to the ranged combats; I was referring to last fight. In the last fight the GM has a huge sandbox of spells and abilities to work with. I’m sorry, but if a tactically minded GM was running that encounter, they could thrash your group of flying ranged attackers, almost at will. When you get sandbox abilities like that, it’s really about the GM, and how tough he wants (or can) play. It’s night and day.
Btw, you should use spoilers if you're going to be explicit.
yeah this is basically what I was saying in my other post. if the BBEG is something the GM knows well (like a wizard they are accustomed to playing) the fight can get very hard very fast.
If it's something they aren't familiar with or they just don't want to remove most of the party members actions cause it can be unfun, the fight can get much, much easier.
at low levels an evil cleric casting obscuring mist and then channeling is often times a very lethal encounter :)
Easing up does not have to mean soft-balling. YMMV.
Bob, what do you mean by this? What do you see as the difference between "easing up" and "soft-balling"?
I think this is more of a distinction between using especially lethal tactics (coup de grace, just attacking downed foes) and maybe just moving on when someone is down.
Or perhaps even asking a player if they want to provoke that AoO.
one of our local VCs is very helpful with newer players, but if you're at an 8-9 table and you cast a spell not saying defensively while you're threatened you're going to get attack, no take backs :)
What bob said!
I played Refuge of time yesterday, today I read the scenario because i'm considering running it for my home group, because i had a blast!
I didn't feel that it was very difficult overall, when I played it.
Spoiler:
we actually all gave up all our magical items, and still accomplished the mission fairly easily
Upon reading the scenario, I discovered that the final fight could have been MUCH more challenging. Now I play a character that is very similar to the final boss - Conjuration specialist wizard -.
I know what all his spells do, and spend a lot of time using those types of spells to pick apart NPCs, if I were running that enemy it would certainly be more dangerous than it was.
I think our GM ran a great scenario, but that wasn't his character to run as an NPC (while it's very close to mine). That difference alone turns that encounter from "pretty easy" to "challenging"
I don't think I'm misreading the rules. Check out the chart of available animals in Ultimate Equipment. There are some that have brackets indicating they have a training package, and the hunting cat doesn't have those. Therefore, no tricks.
However, a few people have mentioned the larger problem of just how cheap it is to purchase a combat-trained animal. This is the issue that should be discussed I think, because the gamebreaking nature of a bison or tiger is really not in the spirit of Society play.
This +1
just for fun, I pit a few encounters from season 4 against the bison. I assumed a successful handle animal each round, but it also had no PCs.
The bison kept winning. it clearly can't beat any "siege" type encounters, since it can't really climb something, but it'll maul most first level parties to death.
I think the discussion has mostly simmered down, but there are a couple things worth mentioning.
1. People are being told not to GM if they do it for the credit in this thread. Sorry to say it this way, but "really?"
I GM for the credits. I GM for the stars, and I GM to grow the community.
I will state as FACT that scenario's are better when GMs have run them more than once.
I will also say I rarely run things more than once, because I want credit for GMing.
I help out as needed locally to grow our community, but I don't volunteer at gencon/paizocon because I would MUCH rather play than GM.
I'm a good GM, I'm not a great one. I know the rules, and my players have fun, but sometimes I have to pause and double check something. I don't read the scenario 4-5 times, I read it twice and print out stat blocks.
I GM for the credit, without the credit I probably wouldn't have started the weekly Game Day I have on Wednesday nights, which has had at least one table every week for almost 5 months, more recently 2 tables nearly every week.
Without the credit's I wouldn't have brought 10 players into PFS that consistently show up and play both at my events and the other events locally.
Saying that GMing for credit fosters a bad attitude is elitist and demeaning, I'm sorry for being upset, but I know how positively I have impacted the community and this thread told me that my motivations make me wrong. This leaves me pretty sour.
I'll use a REAL example. I have run First Steps a few times When I have new players that come unexpectedly to a game day I will run them through that because I get credit for it AND I know it very well, so I ENSURE that those players have an excellent experience and increase the likely hood that they come back.
WHY IS THIS BAD WITH OTHER ADVENTURES? Boons?
if boons are the problem, then Generic chronicles are the answer, and I'm all for that.
Also, it's not like they are hard. no boons, no items, gold as suggested by tier (just look at race for the runecarved key and you know what it is)
well, it's still worse than "Bison, combat trained" from Animal archive. AC 17 42 HP and hits +11 for 2d6+15.
Luckily it comes in 25gp cheaper at only 75, and it's combat trained.
Couple interesting options i had not considered - Inner Beauty trait over lantern lodge trait.. @Adam i'm only aware of the day job boon in a 5-9 tier scenario...
I had intentionally left off crafter's fortune in my 22 as only a wiz can use it before getting a 2pp wand... but what wiz would choose it as one of its starters?... anyways...
so... 26 with a potential 29 if Inner Beauty works.. plus if there is a level one scenario day job boon...
But with the street performer... i think Adam wins after the double up.
A couple notes here.
Which boon, and does it specify a type of bonus? because there is a decent chance it's circumstance (most boons are).
The traits don't stack, Inner beauty makes it +4 but it's still a trait bonus.
Also what is Protege from?.
Yeah Street performer maximizes gold though, well done Adam :) (Also inner beauty could come up when trying to fascinate or make a really challenging bluff check).
The best part about Adam's is you can drop the cha to 18, still have reasonable stats and still take 10 for 150g (assuming there is a boon that works). All it really costs is a feat and a trait.
Human (Xa Hoi)
Wizard 1
Int 20
Skill Focus Craft (Traps)
Prodigy Craft (Traps), and Profession Sailor
Trait: Clan Artisan: Craft (Traps)
Crafter's Fortune (+5 luck bonus)
The Breakdown.
Ability: +5 (Int bonus)
Luck : +5 (Crafter's Fortune)
Trait : +2 (Clan Artisan)
Untyped: +5 (Feats)
Class : +3 (Game rules, Class Skill bonus)
Circm : +2 (MW Artisen's tools)
Comp : +0 (Probably a boon for this...)
Ranks : +1
Edit: Misread alchemist class ability, so changed it to wizard. Updated a couple things for clarity. Listed the sources after the bonus, and the type of bonus before
I don't really start to enjoy a scenario until I have run it 3 or 4 times as a GM. That is my motivation to run a scenario multiple times; the players get a progressively better experience. I concur with TetsujinOni. In addition, all the work prepping a scenario is done on the front end. GMing the same scenario multiple times is like running downhill.
This is an argument for allowing GMs to get credit more than once IMO.
There are a lot of GMs that Master Games out of necessity, these GMs usually don't want to run the same thing multiple times, because they want credit. I know of at least 1 (myself).
I have run a couple things more than once. (Burnt offerings, Feast of Ravenmoor, City of strangers) I can certainly tell that my being prepared and having the insight of "oh this is how these PCs handled it" makes the scenario better, makes me a better GM that session, and helps everyone else out :).
I try very hard to only run things I have played, just to have a little better insight into the adventure from a player side.
I always want to create the most fun experience I can (I own a store, it's VERY important that players enjoy their experience) However, I also like playing higher level characters a lot and I always have a million things I want to build... so I want them credits :).
GM credits can't increase character power. giving them full PP is enough of a "nod" to GMs. If you allowed credit to give PP back instead of an EXP you're increasing character power. Many people have mentioned that PP is an increase in power, they are correct.
GMing is already full credit, full PP, and 0 risk. It's good enough.
I would only like to be able to get GM credit for the same scenario more than once, I would be OK with removing any chronicle specific boons for GM credits beyond the first running of the scenario.
Now here are the advantages:
Everyone Runs scenario's better every time they run them.
More experience with the monsters and what other parties have done is a benefit.
When a GM runs a better table, everyone has more fun.
People who have more fun, are more likely to come back and play more.
Cons:
Sometimes an additional limitation would be required to prevent all of someones characters from having the same boons. This could easily be "any special boons on the chronicle must be crossed out if applied as GM Credit, unless this is the first time you have applied this chronicle sheet as GM credit."
I think the only thing that really needs adjusting is the early fame, as RE touched on.
the chart goes up exponentially, so you quickly get outside of your curve. This is fine for characters that want to buy weapons and armor, because they are always available.
I'd like to see the chart change to.
1PP 500
5pp 1000
9pp 2000
13pp 4000
then the rest of it is fine imo. I'd like to see 31 PP as 18500 also, just do you can hit that +3 weapon plataeu if you want, but really only the first couple levels are relevant.
The main reason for adding the 1PP 500 is that brand new players get to interact with the system right away, sure there aren't a ton of items in that range, but there are some and they get to use the fame chart right from the get-go.
I often have a little chat time after the game sessions where i explain what's going on in the backround in order to help people get into the setting, but there are often lines in the adventure that there is no way for players to find out without a GM just offering the information.
