|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That's not quite what the OP is looking for. He wants an index like this:
Burnt Offerings - Thistletop, Level 1
I'm not sure I see the problem with "death by box text." You were told there was a time limit, and then you hit the time limit because you ignored the warning. How else are you supposed to be killed?
If the objection is "I didn't get a chance to determine my character's ultimate fate," then I'll humbly disagree with you. You had that chance at the warning about the time limit.
Let me flip the question around for you: "How many Aasimar and Tiefling characters does a player want to have, and why that many?"
Let's look at some math that is overly simplified and rounded off. Please don't nitpick it later - I'm simplifying it because I'm lazy and don't want to actually look through the paths.
As of August, 2014, there have been:
5 seasons of 26 scenarios = 130 available experience
Total available XP for scenario-legal characters: 277
Total number of characters, as of now, that you can get to level 12: 8.4
Given that most people probably won't want to have ALL of their characters as Aasimar or Tiefling, more than 6 is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
What's excessive? In my opinion, which in this case should not be taken as an official answer, having more than 2 characters of a given race - of any given race - is excessive. Personally, I'd have limited it to 1 aasimar and 1 tiefling character per player.
Please note: I don't have any real experience playing online; this is all about playing in meatspace.
Level One Human wrote:
"The Bestiary which is at home, because in preparing for today's scenario I copied/printed out all of the monsters that I need to be able to run it? Can't help you, boss."
Core assumption has changed in meaning, specifically for GMs, since authors now assume that GMs have access to everything that they need to prep a scenario from the PRD. I do not generally bring anything with me except my CRB, as I've got alternative versions of everything else that I'll need for the scenario, usually as a formatted word document that I've spent a few hours putting together in preparation for the game.
To answer your question more formally, it is invalid because to use "things" (class features, races, stats, feats, traits, spells, whatever) from outside the Player's Core Assumption (that is, from outisde the CRB, basically) you need to have a copy of it with you, as per the rules on Additional Resources in the GtOP. You're not even allowed to borrow another player's, technically, unless you live with that other player.
To answer more informally, and from a GM's perspective (and not necessarily as a VL) - don't make the GM responsible for supplying the stuff to make your own character work. Many of us don't get anything for volunteering to run games aside from the enjoyment of doing so, and the least you can do as a player is to respect our time and energy enough to bring the things you're going to use for your own character. (For the record, I do see that sentiment and willingness in your last post, so please don't take this as an accusation - that's not how it's intended.)
Level One Human wrote:
A secondary goal of my post is to determine, as a GM (my wife or I), can we allow our collection of books to meet the Additional Resource requirements of players?
Officially, no. In practical terms, I'm sure it happens, but the rules on owning additional resources are quite clear. In general, if you don't own the book or a watermarked PDF, don't use that character option.
Level One Human wrote:
The one in the Guide to Organized Play is currently correct. There have been adjustments made since the Field Guide was published, which is the danger of hardcopy documents. In general, always defer to the GtOP when there is a contradiction between it and another document.
Level One Human wrote:
If the online Venture-Officers haven't wandered into this thread before tomorrow, I'd send one of them an email asking for suggestions on how to enforce Additional Resources rules online. I'm sure they have some ideas and experience with it.
Recall, please, that while part of the reason for the Additional Resources requirement is to push sales of the products, the other practical reason is to allow GMs access to the stats in written/electronic form.
GMs do not have to memorize every rule in every book, and if a younger, more inexperienced (innocent?) GM Jeff Mahood saw an aasimar fighter casting daylight as a spell-like ability, he would absolutely have asked the player, "Show me in the book where it says you can do that, please."
I spent this past weekend in Boston, and I knew ahead of time I was going to have a block of time on Saturday afternoon, so I started a couple of months ago looking to see if I might be able to squeeze in a PFS game.
When I started looking, it was only a day or two before Lucas Servideo, the VL of northern MA, pinged me on Facebook. Over the next month, he proceeded to literally arrange a table for me. He found a GM to run a game, asked me what scenario I wanted to play, and made the whole thing happen. (For the record, I was pretty flexible about the scenario - I just gave him a list of the stuff I hadn't played before.)
The day before the event, I got an email from David Montgomery, the VC of Boston (who signed up to play at the table with me), with a slew of instructions on how to get to the venue by public transit, as well timing and whatnot, and contact info in case I got lost or needed clarification.
The GM, Ray, was well-prepared, engaging, and fun. The other two players, Michael and Arial, were a pleasure to game with, and a good time was had by all while battling demons and dinosaurs.
I can't praise those members of the Boston/MA Lodge enough for the quality of experience I had while randomly in Boston with a few hours to spare. Thanks for a fantastic time, everyone.
If you, other person on the forums who is reading this, find yourself in Boston, do yourself a favour and look up a game. You'll be glad you did.
Personally, I'm getting a demented sort of glee about how badly Paizo beat Wizrds. But that's just me.
I've been thinking about that, and at the risk of starting a conversation that eventually gets purged, I think it's because Wizards has customers, while Paizo has fans.
Not that we're not customers too, but it occurred to me recently that while I was somewhat active on the Wizards' Boards a few years ago when 4e was in its prime, I couldn't have named more than a couple of WotC's employees. I'm confident that I could name more than half of Paizo's employees off the tops of my head.
Basically, I don't think it's necessarily because of the products that the two companies sell; I think it's because of the attitude that the companies take in engaging with their customers.
This is one of the "table rules" that I tell my players before we start the game. For Bluff, Diplomacy , and Intimidate, you must actively contribute to the conversation leading up to the check in order to aid another, even if is something as small as "I cross my arms and loom menacingly in the background."
I actually don't mind the lack of statblocks - I find that having to add templates and things makes me really read over monster abilities. In essence, I've found that it's improved my preparation (though added to the time I have to spend.)
Speaking to that, since no one had gotten around to it yet, I just uploaded my prep document to the GM's Shared Google Drive, in case it's useful for anyone else. Use with caution; I'm not sure about some of the applied templates.
Question about A1: The sheet of beaten gold with the ritual is written in Aklo and describes a ritual to be done. The ritual does not require being able to understand Aklo. With these descriptions, I'd rule that if no one in the party speaks Aklo, then you can't learn about the ritual at all, so no one can actually do it. If one person understands Aklo, then everyone in the party can complete the ritual. Sound correct?
Mark Moreland wrote:
FTFY. Now, I defy anyone to read Mark's post and NOT hear it in Farnsworth's voice.
Might I also direct you to the Pathfinder Wiki? There's nothing in there that Mark didn't mention, but generally, I find that's a great first stop for any lore questions because, if nothing else, it lists all the products that mention a particular being/place/thing.
To send someone a PM, you can click on their username, and the third line down on that page (below their name, and their stats) will say "Send a Private Message."
To read your own PMs, the easiest way is to go to the top of any page on the site, and right beside your own user name (where it says "Welcome, <username>!") you can click on the little envelope.
Also, all us Venture-Officers have publicly posted email addresses; you can find Brendan's (and everyone else's) on the Regional Coordinators page.
Well, I do, anyway. Two of the four scenarios he wrote for PFS are solidly in my top five favourites to run (3-01 and 3-15), and the other two are also great.
I know he's been called up to the big leagues, writing AP chapters, but can we get him back once or twice a season to write something for PFS, please? :)
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
There's a link in an above post with a citation, but seriously, even without one, how are you going to enforce it?
"Don't bring that character to the PFS game tomorrow afternoon."
"You have to let me! The internet says so!"
"Okay, game's off."
"Fair enough. Want to hang out tomorrow afternoon instead?"
"I can't. I'm playing PFS with some friends."
People who are being marginalized from playing also need to be willing to walk away from the table once in a while. I've got quite a few super-optimized characters in our region, and I just won't play with those characters any more, since it's not fun for me. I don't demand that the GM "fix" the problem - I just leave. Yes, it sucks that I don't get to play, but I also don't have a miserable time.
If there are 3+ characters who are all optimized, then they get to play together and "win" the scenario. If there are not, then they don't get to play because there aren't enough people at the table.
You can't fix something like this with a rule in public play. All you can do is let people know that you don't want to play with them.
Several of these players have toned down their roflstomping in recent months. I like to think that social pressure from other players had a significant part to play in that change.
Frankly, I think 7-person tables should also need the approval of the players already seated. I hate playing at a 7-person table, and I don't think it does the players a service either. To that end, when I'm playing a game where the coordinator adds another player to our table and it hits 7, I'll bow out and go home. It's not a protest - well, not really - it's a, "I know I'm going to have a miserable time if I stay, so I'm not going to put myself through that."
I'm actually of the opposite opinion to the prevailing one. Pulling him aside is required at this point. "Hey, cut it out," may get the behaviour to stop (either for the time being, or completely) but it trivializes the behaviour. If sexism and racism could be addressed by bystanders just saying, "Hey, stop that," we'd have a much more egalitarian society.
Public shaming doesn't work, so don't make a big deal of it at the table. But at the end of the night, pull him aside and say, clearly but firmly, "You were making comments here that are sexist and hurtful. I did not want to interrupt the flow of the game or embarrass you publicly tonight, but next time I hear you speaking that garbage at my table, I will tell you to leave. There is no place for those kinds of words or sentiments in PFS. I will be speaking with the coordinator so that they know my concerns as well."
Brook no discussion or argument. "But it was in-character! But it was a joke!" - Doesn't matter. Response: "I have explained my feelings to you, and why your words were inappropriate. There is no justification that is enough to balance or excuse the things you were saying. If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you find somewhere else to play."
Why make it easier to get the things we want. Back when I first began playing D&D, I loved trying to figure out how to multi-class to get just what my character needs, but Paizo keeps putting out all these "combo classes" and takes away from the adventure.
Why not? If you don't like them, don't use them.
If it can be done, I'd love to see Iobaria or other parts of Casmaron explored in fiction, but that steps away from established canon to give authors a pretty blank slate to work with and may be difficult.
Ideally, I'd like Tim Pratt to write it. :)
Other authors I think you should investigate/approach if you have time, and if you think they might fit. I've read Sword & Sorcery from some of them before, and others I would love to hear their take on it. In no particular order:
Ahem. Sorry about that. I appear to feel strongly about Garth Nix.
The Fox wrote:
Again, I say this:
You can say "My character would prioritize all these other things before the Pathfinders," but if/when you do, don't be surprised if you cost yourself some prestige.
A little late on the reposting here this week, but this past Monday our latest column was an Asmodean Advice about effective choices in Summon Monster IV through VI.
Listen, just because he's the patron God of Cheliax doesn't mean he gives bad advice. I'm just sayin'.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Huzzah! Three cheers for Chris and her quick solutions!
If players are spending half a session time stumbling around doing everything possible that might possibly award them the second prestige point, then they're doing it wrong. Generally speaking, clues to the optional objective are in the VC briefing, and if they're thinking about the justification for that briefing and not just creating a mental tickbox of what needs to be done for the first PP, the second will get done along the way.
I know people are going to get frustrated by this. John and the Campaign Management are trying to stimulate a cultural shift here, and not subtly - this is a major change to the way PP work, and will therefore rustle some feathers. However, once again, we're seeing a few vocal posters complaining within six weeks of the change. Give it a chance, see how it works, and then if you still don't like it after it's been in place for a while, offer suggestions. But at least give players a few months to figure out which way is up before kneejerk posting.
Could we get all the pregens in a single file, rather than one per class (or in addition to?) Ideally, a file that's all the level 1s, and a seperate one for level 4 and level 7, but even all 39 pages in one file would be great.
I'm trying to print off just a set of level 1s for an upcoming convention, and it's a huge pain in the butt to send 13 print jobs when I could make due with selecting pages in Preview or Reader and sending a single job.
Earlier this summer, the Ontario Pathfinder Society website relaunched with a slick new design and a better interface, thanks to the hardworking efforts of Toronto Venture-Lieutenant Michael Iantorno, whose degree in Fine Arts means that he knows a whole lot more about design aesthetics than I do.
In addition, we took the opportunity to launch a series of community-focused columns, written by members of our community with experience and/or passion for writing. Our goal is to publish a column every Monday, rotating through the different columns so as not to overwhelm a particular author.
The columns are:
5-foot Theatre: A column focused on useful tips for GMing in general, but with a particular focus on the challenges for GMs.
If you're interested, this link will take you to an index page for all the columns.
Glen Shackleton wrote:
Another option (the route I took) is to attach yourself to the nearest Venture Captain as a VL. That way you have a good resource for advising you in getting things rolling and, once things start to grow you can always apply to be a VC.
And if you do it the way Glen did, you swear up and down to the VL that recruits you that you have no interest in being a VC, but that you're happy to build the community until such a person emerges.
Then, six months later, you take the plunge anyway. :)