Chris Mortika's page

Folks, hang on a second.

Tarma, there are certain types of attacks which require particular exotic equipment. Guns and poison are but two. In a home campaign, the GM has complete control over those materials and can ration them out as she sees fit. In Pathfinder Society, the campaign coordinators have decided that giving everybody access to guns, or to poison, makes those attack styles too pedestrian. They would lose their cool factor. So, to be a poisoner, your PC needs to take levels in a class that allows poisons. To own and fire a gun, your PC needs to be a Gunslinger.

We can talk about how effective poisons are, or aren't. We can talk about how they would overbalance the campaign, or wouldn't. We can discuss the complexities of evil or unlawful attack forms. None of that matters. The campaign coordinators have not wanted to oversee an organized play environment where everybody and his animal companion is running around with poison.

During my first game, my cleric was hit twice and driven to negatives both times. If my character had died, I probably would've said PF isn't the right game for me. I think by 3rd level, a player would've made that decision no matter what.

Good evening, Calibrate. It's good to have you with us.

I think back to the very first Gen Con, when Pathfinder Society debuted. I think about players losing their characters to drowning, or to diseases; about entire parties dying in the deserts or in warehouses, and having a terrific time. I remember one player who had lost a character in each of the four adventures.

If you had a fun time playing a character, and he died, then you had a fun time. Whip up a new PC and catch the next train to fame and fortune.

If your cleric had died, you probably would have said that Pathfinder isn't the right game for you. Well, I hope your PC lives and has a breath-taking career, up to and including the Eyes of the Ten. I hope to sit down at a table with you and see him in action. But if not, if the Chronicles hold that your cleric chose a risky short life for the glory of his deity and the Society over a straw death, and if that spoils your enjoyment, then whether Pathfinder is the right game for you, the Pathfinder Society Organized Play might not be the right campaign.

As a datum: Master of the Fallen Fortress is an approved-for-PFS module. It provides 1st-level recommended pre-gens, which are built on 15-point buy.

So, it is legal.

I can sort of see Tarma's perspective on this. It seems that his issue is not that "death is expensive" but rather "death is expensive, and the payment has to be up front."

I'm now musing about submitting a Quest:

Is it me, or are the death penalties too high for society play?

Tarma, you articulate that the burdens for dying are high. You haven't yet convinced me they're too high.

What kind of penalty do you think would be right?

I agree with Bob, insofar as I think what Painlord is doing is legal, but granting players new goodies, or cheaper raise dead opportunities would not be.

I would find it analogous if someone said "none of those weird Chronicles that you get from owning Pathfinder novels in my game!" Or "If you want to play in this session, you must agree to give away half the gold you receive."

deusvult, I apologize. We're talking past one another here.

For scenarios -- Current rule: play a 1st-level pre-gen and give the Chronicle to a new PC. Play a 4th-level or 7th-level pre-gen, receive no credit.

Upcoming rule for 4.1 -- play a 1st-level pre-gen and give the Chronicle to a new PC. Play a 4th-level or 7th-level pre-gen, receive crdit when a PC reaches that level, or give the chronicle with reduced gold to a new PC.

For modules -- Current rule: play a pre-gen or a newly-made character and give full credit to any character you please, at a tier appropriate for the PC.

Upcoming rule for 4.1: play a pre-gen or newly-made character and give reduced credit to a new PC.

I have a reputation on these boards as a hard-nosed, "lawful" sort of GM, and I hope to trade on that reputation now.

So, continuing the not-entirely-hypothetical, the PCs flee back to the grand lodge. Session over. 0 XP, 0 Fame, and probably 0 gold. And probably 4 hours until the next slot, a table of players who want to play the adventure, and a GM who has prepped the adventure and is ready to go.

I guess I don't understand who is served by the decision that bars them from that adventure.

Actually you CAN do exactly that. If you play a pregen, the chronicle goes to an existing PFS or a new 1st level. You can't start a new PFS character at the level of the pregen you just played.

That's only for 1st-level pre-gens, deusvult. If you play a 4th-level or 7th-level pregen, you get no credit for the scenario, but can never play it.

This is a semi-hypothetical situation, an amalgam of a few sessions I've GMed and played in.

A party of levels 4, 4, 5, 5, and 7 are playing a Tier 3-7 scenario. The APL is (25 divided by 5) 5, and so the players decide to "play up" to sub-tier 6-7. So far, all is in working order.

Within an hour, real time, the 7th-level cleric is killed dead. There's probably enough resources to have her raised at the end of the scenario, but the party is suddenly down most of its healing (even if she were raised in the middle of the adventure, only one of the negative levels could be removed this week.) The players realize their characters are out of their weight class.

They can (a) turn around and report to the Venture Captain back in Absalom that they were unable to complete the mission. Or they can (b) ... ?

Having a cap on the DC necessary to resist a PC's spells might be one aspect. If my charm person and dominate person virtually always succeed, that can break a scenario.

For the record, dying during a sanctioned module makes it more valuable, rather than less. Let's say you give the experience to a 5th-level PC.

Make it through Godsmouth Heresy unscathed: 3 XP, 4 Fame, and 6250 gold
Make it through Godsmouth Heresy dying twice: 1 XP, 2 Fame, and 2083 gold

So, you get gold proportional to your experience (no change) but more fame per experience point. (Indeed, if you play three modules, dying twice in each of them, you get 3XP, 6 Fame, and 6250 gold.)

Not that we're voting, but I (a) like the opportunity to build PCs at whatever level is necessary to play the modules, but (b) would like to restrict players so that the rewards go to an analogous PC. (Play the Harrowing with a 7th-level half-orc ranger, the level-appropriate rewards should go to a half-orc ranger.)

What if you had played the paladin anyway? Would he have questioned your adherence to the paladin code? Would you have lost your powers?

I don't know.

But ultimately, I didn't decide to press the issue.

I was fine with his position; it's his table.

Doug,

If it helps, I attended a convention a couple months ago, intending to play my Paladin PC in a Season 3 scenario. The GM mentioned, before the play started, that he felt a paladin would not be able to complete the assignment without falling. So I played something else.

So, where would you place the iconics?

The text says "normally hit" rather than "otherwise hit".

One could argue* that this distinguishes a normal hit from a critical hit. If the attack would hit normally (that is, for baseline damage) it can be deflected.

*and argue, and argue, and argue, and argue...

But, barring clarification from the developers, I would consider that a poorly-supported position.

Hey there, Matt.

My understanding is that GMing the First Steps scenarios n times each will garner you three XP to apply to n new PCs.

...which is not to say that separate efforts aren't a bad idea.

(signed)
Chris, who won't be at PaizoCon, and won't have a spare slot at GenCon

For what it might add to the discussion, particularly on the topic of conflicting alignments and the prohibition against PvP, former Campaign Coordinator Josh Frost was asked about somebody spending the money and magic to animate dead.

He explained that a good-aligned colleague would be within her rights to destroy the undead, and that the necromancer PC wouldn't be able to counter-attack because of PvP.

(Josh didn't care much for folks wandering around with undead minions.)

#06: Black Waters was announced for retirement, but the great love the playerbase has for that scenario reprieved it from the chopping block.

I'm guessing that Hands of the Muted God, which played with what gods had and hadn't ascended from the Starstone, got a little too close to Golarion lore that the campaign-setting folks have kept vague.

I still think #9: Eye of the Crocodile King is a fun scenario. In the right circumstances, I'd be happy to run it for a group that doesn't care about PFS Chronicles or credit.

By "dead players" I assume you guys mean dead PCs.

And that would be fun. A trip to the Boneyard and struggle to get back to the world of the living. If you made it a 1-2 hour quest, it might be useful for the backside of a session in which the party all died in the second encounter.

And I can see more use for it. "Pathfinders, welcome. One of our highest-ranked agents has died, and it's your job to cross the veil and bring him back."

"How are we going to get there, Captain?"

I'll disagree, Arnim. Master of the Fallen Fortress plays reasonably quickly, within a couple-three hours. It provides some background on Absalom and the Pathfinder Society, and gets a PC's career off to a fast start. I'd like to see it offer 1 point of Fame, but that's it's major drawback.

(But I can't recommend you use the pre-gens that come included with it.)

Lyle, I guess I'm confused by your insistence. The Guide makes it pretty clear that you need to return a dead character to the living by the end of a scenario.

There are no undead PCs in this organized play campaign. A sorcerer can take an undead bloodline, but the PC is still living. If you have the right certificate, you can play a grave-touched Dhampyr, and other feats can give your PC negative energy affinity, but those characters are still warm-blooded and living.

You want to play a shambling undead thing, a rotting corpse. And you didn't read the OP guidelines well enough, so you thought that you could do so, but you can't, and you're upset. I dig that. But is that really your whole purpose for playing Pathfinder Society? I hope you build a new character with the GM Credit you have earned, and I hope to play with you at some point. You sound like a fun person who has some weird ideas for characters.

What are some of the issues you discussed?

In that case, ThornDJL7, there are deeper problems than the class the player is choosing.

Honestly. Some people's children!!

When another player constantly creates characters with the expressed intention of being "at odds" with my character. Such as a paladin vs. an undead raising necromancer, or a naturalist ranger with favored enemy(half-orc) vs. a half-orc defiler, etc.

I can imagine that being (a) a whole lot of role-playing fun, or (b) a real headache, depending on the attitude the other player brings to the table along with the character.

"Hey, Bob, I've got a necromancer. Do you mind if I bring her to a table with Turlokkk so that he can counsel her in the error of her ways?"

Add to #23: Listerine Breath Strips, or what I call Miniture Scrolls of Protection against Bad Breath. This are great to pass around the table and kindly ask everyone to use one.

I'll bet that you're a great game master, that you're a lot of fun to play with, and that you run an organized table.

But, whoa. Making alcohol breath strips available is one thing. Telling everybody to use one? That seems a step too far. (1) It's insulting. (2)Some people are naturally allergic to alcohol, and others are on medication that makes them intolerant of alcohol. And maybe this is the teacher-part of me waving a flag, but do you really want to be responsible for that kind of interaction at your table?

Player 1: Gkkkah-kk!
Player 2: Hey, it looks like Brad is LARPing about his PC being poisoned.
Player 3: No I think he's actually having some sort of seizure. Ah!
Maldar: But on the bright side, his breath is minty fresh!

It might be nice if there were some way for the Venture-Cpatains and their Venture Minions to post using aliases, so that another poster could more clearly understand when they were speaking in their capacities as regional coordinators and when they were posting as just people.

Barring that, I'd suggest that we all just assume that a Venture-Officer is posting as just another goob here, unless he or she states otherwise. (For example, if a VC says "In my region, I'm not going to support your decision to run a table of 8 players and report it as two tables of 4.")

Oh, you might want to check if it's "fun, fun, fun" for the other players at the table, too.

"There's a good chance that, once combat starts, I'll be attacking you randomly rather than the enemy. 'Cause that's fun for me." As a fellow player, I'd like an opportunity to object.

cf. Wild raging barbarians

As an aside, the party had a difficult time In Shadow's Last Stand I at the 3-4 subtier. That disability would very likely have resulted in a dead party.

The nice people of Chicago were generous enough to let me come and GM at their "Stuffed Cows" convention this weekend. As always, the Sunday morning slot brought something interesting to the table.

One of the players handed me a sheet with the game mechanics for schizophrenia (-4 to WIS and CHA skills, never be able to Take 10, when you go into combat or some other stressful sutiation, make a Will save to avoid being confused for 1-6 rounds). He explained that one of his earlier GMs had imposed that as a permanent penalty for taking enough INT damage to drop his attribute to 0. The GM hadn't mentioned this on the Chronicle sheet, and the player was a little unsure about it.

So, if you're that GM, I'm sorry for ignoring the PC's permanent mental disability, but I need some guidance on the Chronicle sheet as to why you imposed that penalty (See the rules for insanity).

Sorry this is so long. This is one of those subjects I feel passionately about.

Spoiler:

In a recent scenario I ran, the PCs are trying to track down cursed items stolen from the Pathfinder vaults. In one encounter, a sword of berserking is triggered, putting the PCs against a fellow Pathfinder. One group I ran killed the Pathfinder... and then used Animate Dead on him and used him as a spare combatant through the rest of the adventure.

There have been threads on these boards as to what "an evil act" is, and what manner of things would make me as a GM consider that a PC would need to receive atonement to avoid an alignment shift to something unplayable. That's one of the clearest examples I've read.

ThornDJL7, a player doesn't have to take the Pharasma-friendly version or the Death domain. (Indeed, unless he has access to the blog post in question, he doesn't have a choice but to take the Core version of the domain.)

Implant ioun stones between adventures, when time is no object.

As this is the general discussion sub-forum, as opposed to the GM boards where spoilers are routine, I'd request that any specifics about a scenario be placed under spoilers.

Thanks.

Note: This is an edited reply, in light of Gornil's observation

That's not a question of "RAW vs. RAI". That's a special exception to a game rule based on the campaign setting, because Pharasma isn't your normal death goddess.

If Mike hadn't allowed it, it wouldn't be legal.

I have used Jestercap to good effect in First Steps I: In Service to Lore.

I imagine I can get the same kind of effect out of Seven Veils.

Actually, in your scenario, the one person just wouldn't get credit, as if they were playing a pre-gen (there is nothing different from a pre-gen and a made up character from a reporting standpoint) so why should the legal characters suffer due to ignorance?

I didn't realize that playing groups, half with legal PFS characters, and half with made-up characters*, were legal. So, to answer Scott, there's nothing keeping the folks who are falling behind from artificially leveling up their PCs, so long as those particular players don't try running those characters at cons? The legal PCs get Chronicles, and the others don't?

* Yes, yes, they're all made-up characters. You know what I mean.

If you do this, you're not playing PFS anymore, you can't report the games, no one gets Chronicles, and the characters aren't legal at conventions or anywhere else. At that point, you're playing a home campaign, just using the PFS scenarios for adventures.

Scott, I understand about the non-reporting, and the absence of Chronicle sheets, but I'm not sure about why the legal PCs are no longer legal.

Let's say I play my PC up to 4th level. I play a game with Players A, B, and C, and find out during the last fight that Player C just made up a 4th-level PC. Obviously, I shouldn't get credit for the adventure or keep that Chronicle. But it's pretty harsh to say that I should never be able to use my PC again.

Even in the case that DMFTodd is talking about, there's nothing keeping me from cloning my legal Pathfinder Society character and playing it in that home campaign. (If the other dudes are creating characters out of whole cloth, then I should be able to make one out of crbon paper.) As long as (a) I keep the PCs legal explots seperate, and (b) never play (for a Chronicle) an adventure that was spoiled for me in a home campaign, everything should be copacetic, yes?

So now it seems that Doug has decided to slash his own tires. That's convenient, 'cause he knwos where he's parked, but ...

Or, since this is a home game and we don't have to worry about legal PFS characters, just level up the casual players to join the committed ones.

What are the ramifications of playing a PFS OP PC in a group where you know that other characters aren't PFS legal? It's been my understanding that the session doesn't count for you, you can't get a Chronicle sheet, and you can never again play that scenario for credit. (A friend of mine down south has said that it keeps you from playing the PC, and while I can see his interpretation of the rules -- you've played the character outside of the OP environment -- I don't necessarily agree.)

I haven't seen anybody around here with ioun stones floating around their heads. They either mount them in a wayfinder (multiple stones? multiple wayfinders) or implant them.

1) My biggest concern is that it seems you get a very limited amount of gold per module. For example, in "Feast of Ravenmore" it says you get only 675 gold for subtier 1-2 but you gain 3 XP. That's really, really low, and it's a major PC nerf (you should gain 1500g instead). Am I reading the entry right?

Not quite. It's double that if the players are moving at normal experience progression.

3) They won't be playing their own PCs. Modules are a nice "break", but we just finished "We Be Goblins", I don't think they're ready for another departure from their "mains".

They can play versions of their main characters at different levels. Play Godsmoth Heresy with 1st-level versions of the PCs.

4) It's hard for everyone to find the time to play 8 hours straight. In addition, the casual players can't commit to attending 2 sessions in a row (which is the problem anyway).

It doesn't have to be 8 hours straight. See if you can work around the casual players' schedules, maybe?

I sincerely hope that is not how you actually play. Because if so, I would leave your table mid play. The quote you provide indicates you are looking to crush players who don't play the game exactly the way you want to, and I am personally ashamed that *any* PFS GM would chose to run their table.

Hey there, Alexander. Back up a notch.

No, I don't run a table that way, but both of my GM-quotations are taken from D&D 3.5 DMs who have run campaigns I've played in. And -- speaking as a player with several alignment-restricted PCs -- I'd be cool playing at a PFS OP table under a GM who would agree with one or both of those statements.

One of the sincere truths I've found about "alignment" is that nobody agrees about what "lawful" means. One person describes her view of "lawful", and somebody else replies, "That's what I mean by 'good'!" And there's never a resolution. When it comes to home campaigns, whenever I choose to play a character whose class depends on maintaining an alignment, I'll ask the DM / GM what he means by that alignment restriction. In an organized play environment, anyone who plans to jump from one alignment to another and back is dependent on the individual table GMs agreeing with that change. (Or, a casting of atonement.)

So, that's my legitimate, non-tongue-in-cheek position. Some GMs enforce alignment, particularly alignment change. They would never consider that to be "crush[ing] players". To those GMs, that's living up to their responsibilities as a game master, the same way other GMs monitor a player's die rolls or make sure a player is keeping track of expendibles.

And I agree with you that this is serious business. Let's say that someone (not Jiggy) decides to run a neutral Barbarian - then lawful Monk - then back to neutral Barbarian PC, to get those 12 hit points at 1st level. The PC has a rollickin' good time through 3 scenarios as a Barbarian and then annouces her next level will be as a Monk. The GM is within his rights at that point to say, "Not without an atonement to justify the sudden shift in world-view." We can hope the player gets a GM with a different attitude the next time her PC rises in level.

Or, as Bob would have me say, "Mmmm-mmf. Mnnnmmf-mnrr. Mnnnmm."

I feel like causing trouble. Fel free to address this, or to just shrug and say "That's Chris, causin' trouble again."

According to the Pathfinder rulebook, in a passage well-worn from the "what happens when your PC turns evil" discussions from a few months ago, a character's alignment is a decision the GM makes, not the player.

Your barbarian can "act lawful" but until you pay for an atonement, it's the GM's call whether the PC has shifted. "A neutral character often does lawful things one day and wild things the next. You're not lawful until you embrace law and rigor as a lifelong quest."

Likewise, it's the GM's call whether your ex-barbarian monk has now betrayed her new alignment dictates and fallen back to neutral. "You're committing random acts in order to 'be chaotic' or at least neutral. But that's exactly how a lawful character would attempt that. You're still in that legalistic mindset."

It's a shame, really, that the mortal heritage of Tieflings is always human. I'd make a halfling / Tiefling Hellknight, just to watch the reaction among the paranobility in Cheliax.

Play a PFS-approved module, with all-new PCs. Have the players with 4th-level PCs apply the experience to those characters, raising them to 5th level. Have the players with higher-level PCs apply the experience to a new PC.

Also, have people with 7th-level PCs take Slow experience for a couple of levels.

And therein lies your doom.

I know that people are getting honestly upset in this thread, but part of me wants to smile a little, because it sounds like people are having the following conversation.

First Person Hey, wasn't there a pear on that table yesterday?
Second Person Maybe, but there's a banana there now.
First Person Yes, I can see that, but I'm pretty sure there was a pear there yesterday.
Second Person Even so, banana there, today. It's pretty obvious to anybody who cares to look.
First Person Yes, and I'm not disputing that! I heard you. But yesterday, it was a pear.
Second Person I'll take your word for it. But that's not what's there now. It's - a - banana!
First PersonYesterday it was a razza-frazzin' pear!
Second Person Well, it's not a pear any more. I'm trying to tell you, it's a banana!!

(They glare at one another, each daring his opponent to refute him.)

Third Person (enters) Hey, wasn't there a pear on that table yesterday?
First Person HA!
Second Person Oh, for the love of God...

** spoiler omitted **