This is what I would suggest, already knowing about your hatred of Gunslingers.
Just GM Home PFS games, that way you can restrict the class.
Actions like this in an open event or convention, especially if it is not a local event will get you uninvited from said event.
How have you so far gotten away from not getting complaints sent to your VL or VC? Keep doing that.
Also don't GM here in San Antonio because I promise you that you will get a table with all Gunslingers... ;)
There are 2 NPCs that always seem to get players in trouble and I think they are secretly villains!!
Yargos Gill & Nigel Aldain!
Thanks John for your post, I would like to address some of the questions you brought up. Though I will address them out of Order.
John Compton wrote:
Do more Tier 1–5 scenarios! I say this not to play down the conversation that has happened here so far over the past day or so, but we actually heard you, listened, and began working toward such a long-term goal several months ago.
So the reason I want to address this first is because for myself my greatest concern was not doing more Tier 1–5 scenarios but getting you all not to do less.
Season 0-3 all had 11+ Low Tier Scenarios while Season 4 only had 6. Only having 6 is still hurting my scheduling to this day. I do not want to see that repeated again and would like to see the number get back to at least prior seasons. Yes I am aware that Season 0-2 had a Low tier that no longer exist (Tier 1-7) but Paizo was still able to kick out 11 tier 1-5 in season 3 despite the lost of Tier 1-7.
John Compton wrote:
Would it be acceptable to have two 1–5 scenarios in one month and none in the month that follows? I ask this in all seriousness, as this shows up in at least one of the season-long models that I’ve drawn up.
I have no problem with this as long as we get back to at least prior to season 4 number of Low Tier scenarios released.
John Compton wrote:
Are evergreen Tier 1 scenarios useful? Are they only appreciated when they are published as bonus scenarios? Taking into account their replayability, are they generally more or less useful than a Tier 1–5 scenario?Again, I ask this is all seriousness (despite my hint of snark), as my models aim to include a new evergreen Tier 1 scenario with some regularity.
Well that is actually 3 Questions..
Are evergreen Tier 1 scenarios useful?
Yes they are useful but they are less useful for normal Game days due to the fact it forces everyone to have a level 1 PC. They are way to level restricted to comfortably fit game day.
Where Tier 1 Scenarios strengths lay are at events that will attract a lot of new players and as a Side Scenario to always have prepped just in case you need to quickly fill another table. In other words an emergency Scenario.
Are they only appreciated when they are published as bonus scenarios?
Since you brought this up I am assuming you saw my post here. I was very dispointed to see a Tier 1 Scenario take up a normal Scenario slot in your production schedule, due to the reason I state above about them being difficult to schedule because of the limited level range. I would much prefer see them as Bonus Scenarios not in the normal production schedule like First Steps.
Taking into account their replayability, are they generally more or less useful than a Tier 1–5 scenario?
Oddly enough replayability for local experience actually is not helpful at all. Locally at least replaying a scenario is not enjoyable due to the fact of you already know the story. Though I am intrigued about the statement that it can play different on replay so I will hold my opinion on that until I read the scenario.
That said Due to the level limitation of Tier 1 they are significantly less useful then Tier 1-5. I would be extremely disappointed if Tier 1 Became a stable inclusion into the normal 26 scenarios released a year. They need to be released as Bonus scenarios only, outside the normal production schedule of the 26. Otherwise they will be more of a hindrance then a boon.
If Paizo for Season 5 continues what they did in Season 4 I am worried that I will start losing players due to the fact of not able to sit enough players and the low tier scenarios. If I can't sit veteran players at the low tier tables the games will not happen and I will not be able to grow.
Can we be giving any insight on what the plans for the number of Tier 1-5 scenarios are planned for this season?
Mike (and John) I know I talked to you about this in person at Owlcon last year but now that it looks like the solution you gave me is not going to happen I am going to ask again.
Are we going to see more Tier 1-5 Scenarios?
In all my experience the low tier scenarios are the most popular and easiest to schedule on game days and Season 4 had way too little.
In the past we were promised one per month which did not last long most likely I suspect due to removing 1-7 tier scenarios.
This is what we had for Low tier every season
Season 0 - 13
Mike I really don't want to see a shortage on Low Tier (Tier 3-7 does not count) scenarios like we saw last season.
are we going to see and increase this season?
I am going to admit straight out I am not a fan of the Weapon Cord or any cheap items that screw around with action economy.
That said I am against banning them only for one reason.
Most of the hype and anger on this particularly with Gunslingers is most likely from theory crafting and not due to a huge influx of dual barrel pistol wielders with weapon cords. Yes it can be abused, but no it is most likely not being abused to a height that it is causing a problem with PFS. If you are seeing it in your local area it is best to bring the issue with the person causing it.
There is no reason to Ban an item that is not abused by most likely the majority who use the item for the few who are abusing it. Especially because I don't see this becoming a larger issue at this time. If it was to become a larger issue in the future due to something else being added to the game that made this item a must have then I would be willing to rethink this. But currently it is not.
When you come up with stuff like this you need to base it on why the rule is there in the first place and any ideas that come up need to be based on why that rule is there.
So for this particular thread it is finding and alternative to carrying books or PDFs. So why is that rule there?
I see two reasons for it, for Paizo it is there to accurately show proof of ownership and for GMs it is so the players have a trusted source on hand that accurately reproduces the rules in question.
Any idea that comes from this thread needs to be able to do both of those or it is a dead idea before it even started.
So for example Allowing PRD use for players does not shows Pazio's proof of ownership they are looking for so that idea is a no go.
Allowing HeroLabs as a source does neither show proof of ownership or accurately reproduce the rules. HeroLabs does an excellent job of implementing the rules but not at reproducing them accurately (typos, not having full text)
I think the best idea I have seen is to allow photocopies of owned books with a signed chronicle verifying proof of ownership. That said this chronicle needs to be trusted and accurate and I agree with Andrew it should be limited in who can sign it to VOs who by their very job are required to be trusted.
This may be an inconvenience for some but it opens an option they did not have before for for a rule that when not followed could be an inconvenience to an entire table of players and GM.
On the shirts and not being able to distinguish musters from everyone else. One thing that might have helped was to have all those musteres who had their own volunteer shirts from another con actually wear the purple one like they were supposed too.
Another thing I would love to see is to keep the purple shirts for the HQ/musters only and get a different shirt with a different color for the GMs that says they are PFS GMs on the back. Those purple shirts are horrendous ;).
Mark Moreland wrote:
Doh! Darn you message board rules!!! I could have used that dollar, I am trying to buy a house...
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Oh, and please don't bother trying to argue/extrapolate that to mean we should just allow players to do whatever they want in the name of "fun." Frankly, that is a weak, childish, ridiculous counter position.
Play, Play, Play!
wait...what?... *Head explodes*
I'm sure we (judges) could have a wonderful discussion and perhaps everyone would alter thier play style a little.
Really off subject
I got nothing much really to add to this thread, but I will say this bolded word still makes me cringe every time I see it.
Nosig If we ever meet in person Remind me to Get you a T-Shirt to replace your T10 Shirt that states I am a Game Master!!! ;)
This should help get the point across...
Number of time Judge is used as a title in the PFS Guide = 0
In Fact Judge is mentioned under Game Master in the Core book, but as one of the many roles a GM fulfills to include Storyteller, Entertainer, Inventor and Player.
By calling us Judges IMO (notice the opinion part please, it is neither a statement of fact or a statement saying those that do not agree with me are wrong) you actually reduce the roll we play in running game in PFS.
I know your reason for using the term, but I still don't think it fits. I think the current terms that are actually used, GMs for everyone who runs the game and Pathfinder Society Campaign Manager For Mike much more accurately describes our roles. I hope one day I will see the end of the use of the Term Judge for PFS GMs.
That said please continue with the thread... ;)
Edit: Also under my Profile it says this... Pathfinder Society GM, not Pathfinder Society Judge... ;)
I have to say I don't understand this restriction.
Yes when playing a Pregen you are doing Grand Lodge faction missions but when the game is reported for the lower level PC it is reported with the faction of that PC not Grand Lodge (of course unless the lower level PC is grand lodge), in essence that PC gains fame with his/her faction not Grand Lodge.
Why not allow a player who does not have a level 3-7 character in Shadow Lodge/Lantern Lodge faction but only a level 1-2 PC of those 2 factions can the benefit of the boons? Playing a Pregen does not remove the fact they are still gaining fame with their chosen faction and not necessarily Grand Lodge.
It has to be assigned at the time you filled out the tracking sheet.
PFS Guide pg. 40 wrote:
When you choose to take a Chronicle sheet for GM credit, you must decide which of your characters receives the Chronicle sheet when you fill out the tracking sheet for that table. You must apply Chronicle sheets in the order they are received. The only exception is when you hold a higher-tier Chronicle for a lower-tier character. In either case, you do not need to build the character until you actually play it.
I believe this was a deliberate change form the past rules that were more open to applying GM credit when you wanted to.
Erik Mona wrote:
They sometimes cause creases on the covers, and a lot of comics readers highly value pristine condition.
Since every single comic I got had this crease let me add my voice to those that are glad the maps are gone so you at least see there are some of us here... ;)
Vic Wertz wrote:
I'll tell you this: as of today, we've released 20 scenarios so far this season. The number of people who have reported playing 18 or more of those? 42.
Isn't that always the answer?... ;)
Michael Brock wrote:
This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is.
My personal opinion on this is we do need an increase of scenarios a month based on the many reasons stated in this thread and threads all over the place *Mostly by Drogon ;)*.
But to answer your Question
I would like to see an increase to 4 per month 1 for each Tier.
But I expect that is too much so as an adjustment to what above I truly think would work I think just an increase of 1 extra scenario a month with the extra one always being Tier 1-5 would work as well, just not as well as 4 a month.
There is a much easier thing to do then to figure out a complicated method of difficulty of a Scenario or adjusting how scenarios are written, provide more resources to teach GMs how to deal with different types of players in a group.
By far the greatest impact of the perceived difficulty of a scenario is based on the experience/knowledge/skill of the GM. Providing advice/tactics/training for GMs would go much farther in providing enjoyment of all players no matter the type of player then working on a complicated near impossible rating system.
I think a much better project that Mike/John could work on is to provide the next level of the GM 101 training and finding methods of encouraging GMs to attend/read them. Also a Monthly PFS GM Advice Blog would go a long way as well.
This is how you Figure it out.
You can craft bullets, pellets, and black powder for a cost in raw materials equal to 10% of the price.
So all bullets are 10% of the price of the bullet
If you have at least 1 rank in Craft (alchemy), you can craft alchemical cartridges for a cost in raw materials equal to half the price of the cartridge.
So as long as you have 1 rank in Craft (Alchemy) alchemical cartridges are half the price.
So when you are combining the 2, you first figure out the price of the special material bullet and add that to the price of the alchemical cartridges.
So you get these prices for all bullets
Alchemical Cartridge, Dragon’s Breath = 20 gp
So let’s look at a couple of things here.
Using Common sense - This is an opinion thing but I always viewed that sentence as allowing the GM to use common sense to interpret a rule when interpretation is warranted and a rule is not clear and not an open invitation for a GM to change a rule because it does not make sense to them.
That said let's actually look at the rule for day job.
PFS Guide pg. 22 wrote:
Permanent bonuses from equipment, feats, racial bonuses, and traits effect your Day Job check as they would any check for the rolled skill, but temporary bonuses such as those granted by spell effects do not contribute, as the duration over which the Day Job check is made is undefined and represents a longer amount of time than a spell’s duration would permit the bonus to remain.
Nowhere in that description does it state that the Permanent bonus needs to represent everything you can do with that skill. So where are any of us getting that idea anyway? Has that been stated somewhere by Mike?
The FAQ does not say otherwise and neither does Mike clarification posts. Based on that alone both the alchemist ability and the ability mentioned in the OP above should work since they are both permanent.
more stars are not an indication of better GMing, I mean have you SEEN what Dragnmoon posts? ;)
That's it! if you are ever at a table of mine all the monsters will attack you and kill you when you are down!
On Subject, In General Star can be an indication of Experience of PFS matters not GMing skill but one I don't normally trust. For that matter, VC/VL can be an indication Experience and knowledge of PFS rules and regulations but I have found it is not.
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.
What can be even worse is that most likely/possibly that 100 game GM has picked up bad habits and being such a prominent local GM has passed them along to all the other players.
When it comes to rule knowledge Stars usually means nothing.
When it come to PFS specific knowledge I have found that those that have traveled afar more often and are active in these forums are more likely to be reliable no matter how many stars they have.
I have learned more about GMing from Gms I have met at conventions out of town then I ever had from GMing locally.
Nosig, if it is taking longer than 10 minutes then it is not a quick audit and you are describing something totally different than what we are recommending for convention play for Audits.
Here is the quick check list for a quick Audit. Granted this does require rule knowledge and GM experience, and if you don't have either of those you should not be auditing other pcs, or just limiting the auditing based on your own experience and knowledge.
1. Does the Player have filled out chronicle sheets - I don't care what is on them I just want to do a quick thumb through to see if they are there and the majority are filled out and a quick count maybe.
That is mostly it, I might have missed a few things that I might do if it is going quickly.
That will take less than 10 minutes for 6 players.
Things that will slow you down.
Poorly organized characters sheet will kill this process. If you come with a character written on scratch paper I will skip most of the above and just see if issues pop up during the game.
Problems! If I see a problem in any of the above then I have to ask questions, in general you just accept the answers giving. Remember you are not trying to catch cheater you are trying to help players. Now if the answer is not satisfactory and the issue will not cause problems during the game, you give a quick explanation on how the character can fix it later and move on.
If the problem will cause problems during the game then what you will do depends on what the problem is and what the fix is.
In general unless there is an extreme case the above will be 5-10 minutes for 6 players.
It took me longer to type this up then it would have to do the audit.
Other GMs may have different checklists, depending on their experience or what they find important. But a proper audit check at a convention as described above is quick.
So as a Reminder, In general you won't find cheaters with Audits, you will however find mistakes that either favor or disfavor the PC.
I use audits to find mistakes and to help the player get a better knowledge of the rule system. I do not look for cheaters.
That said, I leave my in-depth auditing for our local games.
Here is an off topic story
How Dragnmoon began:
Back in the day when AOL first started you were limited to 9 characters on your account/profile name. I wanted Dragon Moon, but spaces were not allowed, Dragon_Moon is too long same as Dragonmoon. In the end I ended up with Dragnmoon and it has stuck ever since
On Animals and non-intelligent beasts, this is how I handle it, and it fits very well in my opinion and gives the chance for the rest of the group to save them.
If the main motivation is feeding with the animal or beast then I will have the beast try to grab and carry the body to a safer location so they are not in danger while feasting.
I don't agree that an Animals or non-intelligent beast would just stop worrying about the danger around them and start chowing down on the fresh meat the PC just became. I think they would be more worried about the danger of the other PCs to themselves and their food. They would either protect themselves from that danger or try to bring the fresh meat to a safer location to chow down in peace.
This allows the PC a chance to save their compatriot and still fits within the action of the animal or non-intelligent beast.
Robert Matthews 166 wrote:
That is the section that has the leopard in it. The section for riding animals lists an untrained cost and a combat trained cost. The rules already exist. So if you want a combat trained leopard it costs 150 GP.
Since it states this
Pathfinder Player Companion Animal Archive Pg. 15 wrote:
Some may be purchased already combat-trained at the GM's discretion, and typically cost an amount equal to 1-1/2 x the price of the standard animal.
It is not legal in PFS to buy combat trained animals using that rule unless already listed as being combat trained or listed with the adjust cost for combat trained (Riding Animals on pg. 14).
Statements that say "GM's discretion" require Mike to make that discretion which currently he has not in additional resources for Animal Archive.
Though as there is no support for this, and I most likely will be yelled at by someone..
If I was the coordinator and I truly believed you misunderstood the ability you added and it did not do what you thought it did, I would allow you to change it to an equivalent.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Yes I did miss don't part, sorry.
We are at a point in our growth of our local area where walk-ins are not an issue unless we had an extreme number show up all at once.
Where I am having problems is having GMs that are willing to GM to help us grow.
We have about 6 GMs that will always GM no matter what, and I run 6 games throughout the day. So if 1 or more GMs can't make it It is like pulling teeth here to get someone else to GM. I have about 6 more players that are good at GMing but rarely GM unless it is a Convention and they are getting in for free, the scenario for free and getting a Boon. One of them it is a funds issue so I don't count him, I know he wants to but has limitations that make it difficult.
I have warned about cancelling games, about having to send players home and still people do not sign up to GM.
I have failed at encouraging community and finding more GMs who want to GM for our community. More GM credit will not help that because the games I am offering they have Not GMed so that is not an issue. I need ways and ideas to get people to GM or find GMs that want to GM because they love it and because they love adding to the community.
I have a couple of players that are almost ready to fit that bill but are not quite there.
I have too many players that care little about the community and that is just encouraging it more. I am friends with most of our players and I like most of them so I don't want to do anything that will make them leave but I need to find a way to get them think more about other players and making sure everyone gets to play then just thinking of themselves.
The idea of more GM credit can be helpful, but it can also be harmful as shown by those who have posted their experience on it.
What we need are ideas that a Helpful without being harmful.
Though I have some ideas for doing this locally with help with our VLs (And by putting more heads together on our problem) I would like to see more ideas that work campaign wide, and I just don't see more GM credit as that idea due to it's harmful side.
The idea I am getting at, is that for sustained growth of PFS in a local area it is better to have a sense of community and Esprit de corps, without that the community may fail and further growth may not happen. I have seen things fail because of that lack of community, but I have never seen something fail because the majority was doing it because they loved it unless there was some kind of outside influence.
Having a few GMs that only do so because they get something out of it can be fine as long as they are not your majority. A Majority will influence more than a Minority. I want to avoid the majority of my GMs only doing so because they get something out of it because a community may not sustain that and grow.
Anything that encourages Esprit de corps is a lot more preferable then things that may encourage the opposite Someone who does something more for the community then the opposite encourages that in others, and that is what I would rather see. Having more people in your group that encourages that can be better because without that in the long run it may fall apart.
I am not trying to insult anyone here, I am just trying to show my opinion on what I think is better for the growth of PFS. If you are being insulted then you are reading what I am writing incorrectly and/or adding things I am not saying.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I have never met a GM who would object to being corrected about a rule (assuming it is 100% clear, not ambiguous), but most get irritated or worse if the player is being a jerk about it.
Dragnmoon (GM) - Ok Bob I rolled a 14, that is a crit!Bob (Player) - Wait what? How are you criting on a 14?
Dragnmoon (GM) - He has improved Crit + Keen
Bob (Player) - They don't stack, see it says right here they don't stack.
Dragnmoon (GM) - Sorry Bob I Object to be clearly shown I am wrong by You. Anyone else at this table want to show me the rule?
Kyle (Player) - Does the Crit kill his character?
Dragnmoon (GM) - Why yes it does.
Kyle (Player) - Nop I don't want to show you anything.
Another thing to do before you open a thread is to First look for you answers in the following places, and do so carefully, not just skim them.
The vast majority of PFS specific questions can be answered in one of the following places:
Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play - Most questions can be answered here.
Pathfinder Society Frequently Asked Questions - Clarifications of PFS rules can be found here and additional rules.
Additional Resources - The "is it Legal?" questions can be answered here.
Compilation of message board clarifications for PFS Rulings - Clarifications made by Paizo Organized Play staff posted on the boards can be found here.
If after you have looked in all those areas and you still have not found your answer then is the best time to post on the forums, though even then most likely you still will find yourself directed back to the above resources...;)
Doug Miles wrote:
I ran this weekend for a table of six at the high tier. I had them pre-roll four Will saves, Perception checks and Sense Motive Checks to suspend the urge to metagame.
Quick question for any GM that does this...
How do you deal with Take 10 or Take 20 when you do pre-rolls?