Ha! I played them in the wrong order. and didn't really have a problem with the timeing - it was the change is judges style that seemed to effect it more.
I also played them out of order and you're right, it isn't a problem playing them out of order, but you can potentially get a crappy Awareness score playing them out of order (which happenned to me, which can make Rescue a lot harder.
There's also nothing (technically) stopping you from playing Rescue after a failed Bloodcove, but since you already have a bad awareness score, the combat challenges are going to be very difficult, more difficult than Bloodcove. But it's still possible to succeed.
If I'm understand you correctly, this is the problem:
1) In the past you've been playing 3 slots per week, which is 12 scenarios per month.
2) Bad experiences with PFS GMs.
3) Hardcores have played everything.
4) Disparity between play levels.
5) You want replay, ideally replay for credit.
With #1, the obvious answer is you can't play as much as you want to play. PFS creates only 2 new scenarios every month, and some modules. If the desired amount of scenarios you wish to play exceeds that, you're going to hit that limit. This is why you want replay. It would help your cause a lot if you actually reported more sessions, because Paizo would consider producing more scenarios.
I think you're doing the right thing by GMing, because GMs can pretty much play an unlimited amount of Pathfinder.
For #2, everything will vary from region to region. I'm assuming that you're not a bad GM, so it's just a matter of finding a few other good GMs you like to play with. Problem solved.
For #3, I guess you guys need to play less, and if you really want to play with your wife and daughter, make sure you play the new scenarios with them.
For #4, as we've already mentioned, First Steps can be replayed an unlimited amount of times. Some low level modules can also be replayed an unlimited amount of times. That's enough to get to 3rd level with ANY character, which means you can play with other PCs until they get to 8th level at least.
You can make a new PC and help them level with that PC. That's the only answer to level disparity. We all deal with it.
For #5, I doubt this will change anytime soon. However, I don't understand or agree with not being able to replay for no credit. See below. Report your sessions! You play a LOT.
It's possible that with enough hardcore players like you, if you're both buying and reporting scenarios, Paizo COULD increase the number of scenarios from 2 per month, to 4 per month. But they would only do it if the numbers supported that kind of increase.
Quishadi wrote:
In reading the posts above, it seems that these rules are largely (except for the two chronicle sheet part of the rules), and quietly ignored.
The two chronicle (one as player, one as GM) per player rule is never ignored.
Having someone's spouse replay a scenario for no credit as a 5th PC is not the same thing. It doesn't do any harm and they're not getting credit. Paizo should really leave the "replay for no credit" decision up to GM discretion, because every situation is different.
Do you really want to send someone home after they drove 1 hour to be there? What if that person drove their spouse to the game, and now you lose the spouse from the game as well? Is that really better than allowing a 5th player to play for no credit? This is why GMs break that particular rule. (I've seen it broken as well). Pathfinder is a social game!
Quishadi wrote:
I'm interested though ... If so many of you seem to think it's perfectly alright to replay as often as you want, just not for credit, what is the rationale for not replaying for credit. I'm starting to realize that most of you are not actually following the rules in your approach to the campaign, but I'm wondering: Why do you support the rules?
If I was GMing more store and convention games, and I saw entire tables of people replaying for credit, it would make me want to quit GMing for that store / convention. That's why I support not replaying for credit.
Restoration will fix the Con loss. It was answered by VC Bob Jonquet on the bottom of page 1.
As written, they can't (logically) do the 2nd mission. It says they're tortured for 2 weeks and then sent back to Absalom by boat (which would take a long time). In Rescue, they *barely* make it to the camp in time. If you're following the story, they're too late.
You could revise the story and let them play Rescue, but they'd be taking the +15/20 awareness with them, which will make it a lot harder for the new group. In addition, if no one in the new group successfully played part 1, they have no key. If it was the same group from part 1, it makes absolutely no sense why the enemies in act 1 would have the key.
Also, if the group couldn't handle the combat in Bloodcove, they definitely can't handle it in Rescue either (especially with everything being harder because of no supplies and awareness), so it's probably best to stay away.
For once I would like get a briefing kind of like in the movies.
For my home game, I do mission briefings exactly as you state in your examples.
Yes, they're more interesting and realistic. They're interactive and I get to showcase the personalities of the mission briefer. And often they're a lot of fun in their own right and custom made.
The PROBLEM with these custom mission briefings, is that they take a long time, sometimes as long as 20-30 minutes. Home games can go overtime, when you're in a little 4 hour time slot, that just won't do and your time is better spent on the scenario. And sometimes it goes on too long and it becomes a drag before you know it. It's really hard to find a balance and I'm still working on it.
I agree, mission handouts are helpful! I recommend all GMs create them for their players. It helps a lot if people are late, people weren't paying attention, and to summarize what the PCs are meant to do. This is especially important with complex missions, or missions with many names.
I let my players make all relevant skill (knowledge) checks without them having to ask. I figure if the PC knows relevant information about the location or NPCs, he either knows it or he doesn't, and if he does know information it makes sense to tell the player about it. :)
I also agree, some of the questions that are supposed to be asked by the PCs should probably be included in the initial mission briefing. It makes sense that important details would be covered by the initial mission briefing. I also think that would reduce word count.
I think they put additional information in question format, so that the mission briefing is a little more interactive and the players eyes don't glaze over from a long speech from the GM.
Tell your realism to go shove it, coz if (already provably possible) archery has to go home, so do dragons, undead, angels, demons, fey, magical beasts, and IN has to come penalties to
The post is whether archery is realistic or not, if you didn't like the topic, you didn't have to read any farther than that.
Realism aside, the problem is that it isn't even balanced against melee currently.
1) Wrong game, Paranoia. I had a cruel GM; he cut off my PCs arms. Further, he gave me an experimental head laser gun, which fired when I bit down hard on an activator. For those of you who don't know Paranoia, you can only fire your laser gun a certain amount of (random) times before it explodes... like a grenade. You have a number of rounds to get rid of it, which would normally not be a problem, but yeah... I couldn't even change the barrel by myself. So yeah, I was basically walking around with a grenade strapped to my head. Anyway, you can guess what happens next. I actually lasted a long time like that. I guess that's why you get 6 clones.
2) I was trying to introduce a new PC to the group, he was a prisoner and he said he worshipped Shar (instead of Ilmater, sigh), and insisted that after being asked multiple times by the party. He... even had it on his character and we just finished talking about it not even 5 minutes before that. Well, that was the shortest lived PC we've ever had in the campaign...
3) Rolemaster, the same player had 3 separate PCs die to traps with the same critical. Super bad luck, 1 in 10 000, three times in a row. I guess you had to be there.
4) I had a Ranger jump on a flying Grell who caught his pet wolf and was flying away. The ranger ended up killing the Grell, 100' into the air, and plummeted with his wolf to their deaths. Bet he would have liked to re-think that.
Thanks for the heads up for this scenario, too bad there weren't more reviews saying the same thing. I found out about it from Hogarth actually.
Playing up... I like it. I usually play up where possible, otherwise the scenario isn't challenging. So far it's worked out. It really depends on your group composition and if you think your PC is powerful enough to play up. Ex. I wouldn't play up with my gnome bard.
As GM, I think it's only proper to warn a group if the scenario is deadly, by saying "I think it's a really really bad idea if you play up." At least, that's what I'd do, I can see TPKs a mile away, and really there's no point imo, it's not fun for anyone. Depends on the scenario but also group composition.
I also advise them when they should play up, I'd rather not have my players bored out of their minds. That's the purpose of the game, to have fun right?
I agree with Rubia, especially on #2, I don't know why writers give NPCs terrible tactics and spell selections. Watch, Quest for Perfection is going to kill my PC now, just because I said that. :)
I'm also looking forward to level 7+ play, I think it's the most exciting.
I actually took the time to read all of the entries... which almost burned my eyes out of their sockets. How do editors do that all day and not go crazy?
Anyway, I was just about to vote and the website went down for 10+ minutes. It came back up and I was 1 minute too late. Wow, that sucked.
One aspect where archery is definitely not realistic is when an archer is confronted in melee combat. In real life, they're pretty screwed, you're not getting a single shot off if I'm trying to stab you or you're being mauled by a bear. With a bow and arrow, you basically have no defense, and you're going to get stabbed pretty easily if you just stand there trying to fire again.
In PF, it's all too easy to get out of melee with a 5' step and get all of your shots off, or at least get one shot off my moving substantially. I find that unrealistic and also imbalanced in favor of archery.
In general, when I have a powergamer, he quickly realizes that archery has none of the drawbacks of melee combat, and all of the advantages, so it raises the question, "Why bother with melee when archery is so much better?". And that's an excellent question.
Overpowered Archetypes
I don't think having overpowered archetypes is harmless, it ruins the game. They can't be removed from PF, but they can be banned from PFS imo. Anyone who thinks differently has never had someone run the table with one obviously. First step is to double check everything about her character obviously, most of the time the player has made some critical error.
Difficulty modes
I don't really want a difficulty mode on scenarios (it would increase word count, and it would be abused and lead to drama, especially if it lead to bigger rewards), although I wouldn't mind if there was the occasional hardcore scenario (and labeled as such). The question is, hardcore skills, hardcore combat, or hardcore roleplaying?
6 Players
Personally, I always aim to have 6 players at my home game. Both store play and convention play, almost every table has been 6 players.
6 player tables are already scaled because they're APL+1. However, I think it would be nice if there was some kind of easy way to do additional scaling (buffs or mooks) for 6 player tables. This is a difficult decision though, which is probably why they haven't implemented anything yet. No scaling needs to be done if they go up a subtier, and some minor scaling should be done if they don't.
Depends on their GMing experience and their experience with PFS in general.
Without GMing experience, you have to keep it really basic, with both combats and roleplaying (unless they have great storytelling skills). Some people will be naturals, some will never get it.
I think all GMs should have some PFS experience as a player first, so that they can adjudicate problems that come up, and know how to handle problems with faction missions.
PFS#1 Silent Tide 1«5: Combats are too easy, but a great for new GMs, fun.
PFS#2 The Hydra's Fang Incident 1«5: ??
PFS#3 Murder on the Silken Caravan 1«5: ??
PFS#4 Frozen Fingers of Midnight 1«5: ??
PFS#5 Mists of Mwangi 1«5: Converted and good.
PFS#6 Black Waters 1«5: ??
PFS#7 Among the Living 1«7: Not converted, but still basic and good.
PFS#8 Slave Pits of Absalom 1«5: ??
PFS#13 The Prince of Augustana 1«5: ??
PFS#14 The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch 1«7: ??
PFS#17 Perils of the Pirate Pact 1«7: ??
PFS#23 Tide of Morning 1«5: Basic, short, and good.
PFS#24 Decline of Glory 1«7: Good for experienced GM, with little PFS experience.
Season One:
PFS#29 The Devil You Know, Part 1: Shipyard Rats 1«7: TPK potential, avoid imo.
PFS#30 The Devil You Know, Part 2: Cassomir's Locker 1«7: Basic scenario.
PFS#33 Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible 1«5: Basic, fun, short.
PFS#35 Voice in the Void 1«7: Basic, fun.
PFS#39 The Citadel of Flame 1«5: Basic, fun.
PFS#43 The Pallid Plague 1«7: Meh, avoid.
PFS#45 Delerium's Tangle 1«5: Imo, avoid.
PFS#47 The Darkest Vengence 1«5: Although I LOVE this scenario, definitely avoid.
PFS#51 The City of Strangers, Part 1: The Shadow Gambit 1«7: Need PF experience to pull off, avoid.
PFS#52 The City of Strangers, Part 2: The Twofold Demise 1«7: Need PF experience to pull off, avoid.
PFS#55 The Infernal Vault 1«7: Basic, good, fun.
Season Two:
PFS2-1 Before the Dawn, Part 1: The Bloodcover Disguise 1«7: Moderate (needs some GMing experience), fun, good.
PFS2-2 Before the Dawn, Part 2: Rescue at Azlant Ridge 1«7: Needs xp to pull off. Avoid.
PFS2-13 Murder on the Throaty Mermaid 1«5: Avoid because of complexity and RP.
PFS2-15 Shades of Ice, Part 1: Written in Blood 1«5: Basic, fun, good.
PFS2-17 Shades of Ice, Part 2: Exiles of Winter 1«5: Moderate skills needed, fun, good.
PFS2-19 Shades of Ice, Part 3: Keep of the Huskarl King 1«5: Basic.
PFS2-21 The Dalsine Affair 1«7: Imo avoid because of you-know-what.
PFS2-23 Shadow's Last Stand, Part 1: At Shadow's Door 1«7: ??
PFS2-24 Shadow's Last Stand, Part 2: Web of Corruption 1«7: ??
PFS2-VC The Midnight Mauler 1«7: Basic.
Season Three:
PFS3-I1 First Steps, Part 1: In Service to Lore: Should be good, TPK potential in some reviews?
PFS3-I2 First Steps, Part 2: To Delve the Dungeon Deep 1: See above.
PFS3-I3 First Steps, Part 3: A Vision of Betrayal: See above.
PFS3-01 The Frostfur Captives 1«5: Good, but the scenario won't be excellent without prior GMing experience.
PFS3-02 Sewer Dragons of Absalom 3«7: Moderate-high, fun, good. Might want to avoid.
PFS3-05 Tide of Twilight 1«5: Reviews say some aspects (maps, NPCs) make this hard to GM.
PFS3-06 Song of the Sea Witch 3«7: ??
PFS3-07 Echoes of the Overwatched 1«5: ??
PFS3-08 Among the Gods 3«7: ??
PFS3-09 The Quest for Perfection, Part 1: The Edge of Heaven 1«5: Some reviews indicate it needs an experienced GM, although it's mostly combat.
PFS3-11 The Quest for Perfection, Part 2: On Hostile Waters 1«5: ??
PFS3-13 The Quest for Perfection, Part 3: Defenders of Nesting Swallow 1«5: My guess is you would need an experienced GM to run a village siege.
Sanctioned Modules:
PFS2-WG We Be Goblins! 1: Good, but an inexperienced GM won't make this scenario great, unless they have good storytelling skills.
For a pet, it seems way too high, but technically it's correct. It seems like most people are ok with the power level of the summoner, I'm not. Just look at what Fueldrop did with hardly any optimization at all, AC 36, give me a break. That's just broken imo, and no it doesn't matter if the pet invested in defense.
And yes, it's probably better than Cyphermage is run a couple times, so you guys get your credits. There's only so many players around to run it for. I was personally going to wait for Gencon. It's almost like you want a strict limit of 4 players per table, to maximize how many times you can run it!
Wouldn't all of you be better served if we focused on providing five scenarios the playerbase will actually use, including all those 10-11 people you are referring to, instead of half that number?
The answer is obviously yes, but it wouldn't be a bad idea for planning a new one in a year or two. I think you'll see a large (20%+) of the player base reach the first retirement arc by then.
Also please consider that many people play PFS casually at Cons, with no intent of ever getting to level 12. Just because the casual masses never get there, doesn't mean your core GMs and players never want to see another retirement arc, even if they represent a mere 20% of your player base. Something to think about.
Jason S: I'd like to request that you alter your post above to "spoiler" all discussion about the survey questions that may sway the input of someone who has yet to reply to survey.
Could an admin please put the word "** SPOILERS **" at the end of the title of my message, I can't do it. ty
See, there you go. You went to Spellstorm last year, you should go to Gryphcon this year. It's only fair to alternate.
Nudge, Nudge.
Maybe, depends on a lot of things, like my play group also, who might attend. You don't want to kill me or something at Gryphcon, right? :|
One comment regarding the schedule for Gryphcon. The boon at the end of "Wonders of the Weave" depend on consecutive ordered play. Wouldn't it be a better idea if they were ordered consecutively during a single day (such as Saturday in the morning and afternoon)? Right now, they're on Sat. morning and Sun afternoon. As much as I'd LIKE to play them consecutively, I might not be able to. Just a friendly suggestion.
I might not be able to play it anyway, depending on my home group and whether I go to Gryph or Spellstorm, but if I'm going solo that would make it at least possible.
This is why I don't like the boons being given to consecutive ordered play only, it's not a matter of me wanting to play on Sunday, it's a matter of me being ABLE to play on Sunday. Real life responsibilities, like children, kind of trump gaming at times.
I played all of the PF slots at Spellstorm last year. I got to play at a table with the legendary Neil Shackleton, award winning author Michael Kortes, current VC Robert Triffs, and 5-star GM Doug Miles as GM. Lots of name drops there! Lots of star power there, good times.
Couldn't justify going to Gryphcon only 2 weeks later with the wife. :)
For many people, video gaming has always been about getting together with friends.
Gah, it's not the same at all, for me. My real life friends, who I probably spend a lot less time with, mean a lot more to me than any online friend.
In addition, when I have a real life friend who is also online, I've found my offline time with that person means a LOT more than when we talk on Skype. That's just the way it seems anyway.
I think the pregens are a lot better than they were before, and definitely playable. They're not "optimized", but they don't need to be to play PFS.
I agree about Valeros, one of my players still has a hard time with when he can make 1 attack or 2 attacks. Sigh.
I find the pregens are extremely useful and I've introduced several people who have never roleplayed before, with them. If I had to make a PC with them, it can take a long time, sometimes as long as 1-2 hours. Most of the time, I don't have the time.
-----------------------------------------------
First of all, thanks Painlord for taking the initiative for making the survey. While the survey might not 100% accurately represent the PFS community (which I don't even think would be possible/realistic anyway), it will represent the active forum communities opinion, and shed light on what we want in PFS in general. So thank you.
Quote:
How important is it to you that the Pathfinder Society Organized Play have a strong, interesting, immersive storyline told through the scenarios?
That question is a bit ambiguous. Do you mean strong storylines WITHIN a scenario, or strong meta storylines that occur over an entire season or campaign arc? I interpreted it as meaning #2.
Quote:
Do you wish your characters had more involvement/impact in the overall storyline?
The impact your PC has on the "overall storyline" is meaningless unless there are meaningful decisions to be made. For example, your party captures a main leader of the Shadow Lodge (or the PC killer in Dalsine Affair). Does the party:
1) Kill him.
2) Bring him to justice for his crimes (in Absalom).
3) Bring him to the Decemvirate for interogation and for other unknown reasons.
4) Take a bribe from him and release him, for increased scenario gold. (Probably a popular choice, which is hilarious).
5) Let him escape for various reasons (Shadow Lodge agent, feel pity for him, hate Decemvirate, understand his plight, TPK, mistakes, etc).
You see, those are meaningful decisions! And each decision might have a dramatically different impact on the world or further scenarios. Decisions like these might even DRIVE further scenarios to be created.
Right now, how do we really affect the world? Sure, we all play the scenario, but we basically do the same thing. So Paizo knows that 10 groups completed scenario X and 1000 groups played scenario Y. How does that affect the storyline? It doesn't, even if we captured information, because there are no meaningful decisions being made.
The only thing we know right now, are how many PCs of a certain faction have played a certain scenario and their success in that scenario. While that's moderately interesting, I don't think it's interesting enough to change the campaign metaplot. Paizo probably agrees because the winner of the faction race wasn't even revealed until season 3. And even then, the winner of the faction race was kind of meaningless anyway (and no real statistics or interesting demographics were given either (although we know by word of mouth that a lot of Finnish players choose Cheliax and most US players choose Andoran.).
If Paizo does decide to track meaningful decisions or events in their metaplot, these decisions would need to be captured via survey, from a GM. Ideally it would happen when reporting a scenario, but that system is already complex enough (it would be difficult to code, maintain and customize), it would cost Paizo too much money and time. It just doesn't make time/money sense. But surveys make sense, especially if you can only key in Pathfinder IDs a single time and track who is actually performing the data entry.
So my answer is "yes", I would like to make an impact on Golarion, but the only way to have it drive the storyline is that the decisions the PCs make is meaningful.
Also, please note that the season 3 overall campaign storyline is being driven by their product releases.
Would anything we are suggesting here fix the Cheat? I really don't think so. But heck - I've been wrong before, and I'd love to hear some suggestions. In the drive home, three of us gamers figured the only way to "fix" this problem is for the PLAYERS to enforce it. Don't play with the Cheat.
The only problem that I see with this, is if the players start skipping sessions because they don't want to play with the problem player. This is very disturbing for GMs and can destabalize PFS playing altogether. It's even worse if they don't tell the GM what's happenning (which is often the case!).
If you communicate what's happenning to the GM, you force the GMs hand to remove the player altogether (as opposed to 'teaching him'. Honestly, most people are too 'nice' when they see obvious cheating anyway.)
If you don't communicate with the GM, you waste his time on several nights and he wonders why he's doing this, demotivates him and kills your weekly PFS games.
Anyway, just something to think about. I've seen players 'take it into their own hands' several times, the outcome is usually not good. Having said that, I hate cheaters so much, I probably also wouldn't play, but at least the GM would know that they either had to play with cheater-face or me.
I've seen mistakes on some players PCs, blatant mistakes like a 1st level PC having full plate +2. When I asked how he got it, he showed me how he "played up" to subtier 7-11.
When I said you can't do that, he said "I don't make the rules, I just do what the GM tells me.". Unfortunately his GM was right there and I was outnumbered and a guest at their home game, lol. But you get my meaning.
I can tell when a player is the type of person that cheats (or make "mistakes") without even looking at their sheet tbh. Maybe it's a skill left over from high school D&D sessions.
Most Gencon people are precise though, their PCs are 100% accurate, it's mostly local conventions and home play.
I'm all for doing some kind of audit, the question is always about time. Best case scenario is you have a dedicated auditor / troubleshooter, if someone doesn't mind doing that.
I think it also depends on the kind of person you are.
Some people just don't get good visual images by reading or hearing descriptions. A computer game brings these images to life, no need for creativity or imagination. For these people, a computer game is infinitely better.
The world is weird today anyway, lots of people replace hanging out with friends with Facebook and texting. Not the same, but it's been replaced anyway. Whatever happenned to a bunch of kids hanging out in their parents basements?
I have decided to uses the SHORT scenarios of the society for a "mission of the week" type campaign. I can see that some scenarios are split in parts.
I did the same thing.
There's no continuity between scenarios unless it specifically says "Part 1 / 2 etc". They can be played in any order. Sometimes there is a "spiritual" continuity, but it's really loose. Even with a multi-part series, all scenarios are independent of each other and while it won't make as much sense and it's not recommended, they're mission based.
Any list that anyone provides is only a suggested list, based only on their preferences (which might not be yours). There is no 1 all-encompassing "best" list to play by. Some people like modules (I prefer scenarios), some people like the Shadow Lodge arc (I don't), some people like some of the season 0 scenarios (I prefer more recent scenarios). Some people like roleplaying scenarios and some people like combat scenarios.
Everyone has an opinion, so probably the best thing to do would be to read through the summary and user reviews for a lot of the scenarios and see what you think would appeal to your group. Take some suggestions from the people here, try some out, and go from there.
In general I'd look at season 3 scenarios, because overall they seem better and all factions have their own faction missions. Also, the chronicles have current PA / Fame separated, so it's a little easier to explain this to people.
I’m writing down some details from my session a few months ago to give the organizers an idea of what I expect from PFS scenarios. The premise of the scenario was excellent, the details were not (at least for me).
Here’s the background. A few months ago I ran this scenario for the first and last time. My home group had 4 PCs with an APL of 3 (all 3rd level), 2 rogues, 1 sorc, 1 2H fighter. Notice they had no healer (except UMD and the Sorcerer using an Infernal Healing wand).
Disclaimer: Before increasing the difficulty, I asked everyone if it was ok. Before anyone gets hostile about changing scenarios, I agree it’s bad to change scenarios too much when GMing for strangers. However, I would never run this scenario RAW, so I decided to experiment with my home group, and make it more interesting and more difficult. And it worked really well in the end, for a unique experience.
So here are the things I would improve. I’m sorry if I’m picking on Delirium, but these are things I’d like improved “in general” in PFS scenarios. Please try to read the feedback constructively.
#1: Back story:
Although Delirium had a great back story, the PCs will never learn about it. In general, I want the PCs to know the back story, through whatever plot device you have to use. If word count is an issue, use a single sentence and get the GM to write his own document. For example, I created 'the Journal of Tessara Greensummer', which explained the back story and was found in the maze.
”Journal of Tessara Greensummer”:
Journal of Tessara Greensummer
These are excerpts from Tessara’s journal.
…………….
I’m not sure what’s happening to happening to my brother. His love for humankind has gone too far, he spends all of his time trying to find a way to stop or slow down time for them.
As if that matters! We elves are immortal and whether humans live for 80 years or 160 years, eventually they all turn to dust and fade away! In any case, he sits in his workshop whispering to himself; drawing strange manuscripts… he’s up to something. Something about his diagrams unnerves me.
…………….
He speaks in whispered tones about someone called… Vyric. I have no idea who it is. I also catch him speaking in tongues I don’t understand. The speech sounds alien, although it’s no language I’ve ever heard and I’ve lived more than 200 years.
…………….
It seems that Abysiel has sold much of his considerable fortune to purchase a minor artifact, Izryen’s Hourglass. He says it slows down time for anyone in close proximity to the hourglass. How is that supposed to help more than a few humans? Also, the hourglass can’t be carried so the humans would have to be in the same room the entire time! I suppose it’s not a bad purchase, it’s just quite a shock to spend more than 100 years of earnings in one day!
…………….
I rarely see Abysiel anymore. He spends his time under our mansion, with his dwarf miners and elven artisans, sculpting and creating who-knows-what. He forbids me to see his project.
…………….
He let me see his work. It’s a small maze. He says the maze amplifies the power of the hourglass and will slow down time for all of his friends. I doubt that, but it might give them a headache. I have no idea how he spends so much time there. It seems I’m not alone; the workers also can’t stand to be here more than a few days at a time.
…………….
It’s been 4 years now and I supposed it had to happen. After all the work that’s been done over the years with no income, he has finally sold his mansion to pay the enormous debts that he must owe. I suppose I’ll get my own apartment somewhere in the Ivy district. Somehow I think Abysiel will stay with his maze.
…………….
It’s been several weeks and I haven’t seen Abysiel. I’m going into the maze to find him, to talk some sense into him if it already isn’t too late. I feel like I’ve lost my brother…
…………….
I’m hopelessly lost and bleeding. I’ve called out to Abysiel, but no one answers. The maze is different now, almost like there’s no beginning or end. It changes on whim. Time and space are warped, it feels eternal, nothing makes sense. Why would he create this… thing? I feel like I’m losing my mind.
…………….
End of journal
I hope some GM somewhere gets some use of the journal.
Anyway, it would be nice if back story elements were included in the scenario, but if they can’t be included (for word count reasons); GMs should know to place something and where to place it.
#2: Make the scenario interesting:
For a place that warps time and space, everything was very banal and mundane. Not enough “weird” or experimental things happened imo.
- I changed 2 of the traps to “Confusion spell Traps”, and it was much more interesting to have the PCs lose their sanity for a few moments, and see how the rest of the party deals with it. I’d rather have less traps but more interesting ones.
- Instead of having a giant leech in the Void Whisperer encounter (and encounter in a shared dream, how cool is that? Reminds me of Nightmare on Elm Street), I instead had them encounter “shades / figments” of opponents in their past, with a few rounds between each encounter. These figments would act and converse with the party briefly before materializing. They were basically weak versions of the real thing: Skeldon Miregrold (Darkest Vengeance, they failed and he died), Rimetusk (Frostfur Captives), Hafshi Al’Moloch (Citadel of Flame). For PFS, this could have been a single fragment (with standard stats) and the GM just asks all players at the start of the game, “which opponent was the hardest or do you dislike the most playing PFS”. This is a good opportunity to “kill the PCs” if that’s the outcome, because there are no permanent effects.
- The puzzle door opens to anyone with 5 or less wisdom, because they’re also insane.
- I’d do more if I removed more encounters.
To sum up, I’d rather have LESS encounters but have the encounters be more unique and interesting.
#3: The challenge level was extremely low:
When I say challenge, I don’t mean only combat challenge. It’s not our job to kill PCs, but I want them to work for their victories (all of them).
- I removed the option to use Perception to get through the maze, because the idea of following someone’s scent (unless you have the Scent feat or a tracking animal) is absurd. Also, skills like Perception are overused, and if someone actually does have K-Dungeoneering or K-Arcana, it makes having these skills obsolete since it's probable that the Perception check will be easier. I changed the skill check to use Survival and I decreased the DC by 4, so that unskilled groups still have a chance. This made the maze much more challenging. (My group had maybe 10 failed checks, not all of them by 5, before resolving the maze).
- If they fail their check to navigate the maze by 5, they encounter a confusion trap (max 2), however the leader will always suffer 1 Wis damage. This makes it more interesting because it builds tension and takes minimal time, so I don't have to "push the group through" to the end. This increases the tension, as players run out of Wisdom. This also increases roleplaying, as PCs go “insane”.
- I allowed the PCs the option to suffer 1d2 wis damage to get a +5 bonus on their roll, by allowing insanity to take hold, to understand the maze. Sort of Cthulhu-like, this is also an interesting option. The option can be presented without mentioning the bonus or the side effects, which is also interesting.
The boss challenge was too low:
I took an APL 3 group “to the edge” when they were playing up to subtier 4-5 (and very non-optimized for this combat), but I think that’s the way it should be.
- I had Abyssiel awake and fully buffed. In my story, Abyssiel was still under the control of Vyric, but essentially powerless in Abyssiel’s broken body.
- I changed the feat ‘Point Blank Shot’ to ‘Improved Init’ (to give him a chance to act with a heavy ranged party).
- His 1st level spells are: Enlarge Person*, Mage Armor (for a respectable AC at subtier 4-5), Obscuring Mists (for heavy ranged), Infernal Healing (which works nice in the mists), and Hydraulic Push (which knocks people off the bridge. :) )
- His 2nd level spells are: See Invisibility*, Protection from Arrows (vs ranged), Defensive Shock
- His 3rd level spells are: Force Punch (for knocking people off the bridge).
- He was buffed with Mage Armor (AC 26 which is now respectable), See Invisibility, Defensive Shock, and Protection from Arrows.
- Since he was unable to move (he has no Dex bonus), so he was vulnerable to sneak attack (which was never explicitly mentioned in the scenario, but should have been).
- See the gems (or power sources) in the spiral corners? Those could be disabled using Disable Device (DC 15/20) (maybe even someone with k-Arcana could shut them off?), which would disable his control of Site Mastery for a few minutes (no attacks with pendulums etc). In those corners, it also happens to be outside Abyssiel’s line of sight, meaning he can’t attack the PCs there. I think it’s important to have different ways to solve boss combats, other than just “run in and kill”, especially for smart players. This solution was very similar to “Voice in the Void”, for those players that think about it.
- At subtier 4-5, I also had Nuar under the control of Vyric, but slightly weakened (‘young’ template with a minotaur). The PCs had to defeat Nuar without killing him (or… if they don’t think about it, they kill him). In any case, Abyssiel needs fodder in front of him and this made the encounter more interesting. Maybe the minotaur was too much, but not if the PCs are actually level 4-5.
Summary: Even with all these massive buffs, it was still possible to beat the encounter, even with four level 3 PCs. But more importantly, instead of just challenging, it was *different*, unique, cinematic, memorable, and interesting. If I played it RAW, Abyssiel would be dead in 1-2 rounds tops (with 2 rogues), and I can’t imagine that would have been fun for anyone.
Anyway, this is a summary of what I’d like to see in scenario.
1) Players should need to think. Or rather, intelligent players should be awarded for clever thinking (and these solutions should be built into the scenario instead of making me a cheating GM by adding them in). When solving puzzles, successful skill checks should sometimes give the players clues or hints on how to solve something, not necessarily auto-solve it for them. Imo. For example, I think the simple puzzles in Silent Tide were received better.
2) Creative solutions (and non-combat skills) should make some combat encounters easier.
3) Players should know the back story
4) The big encounter should not be too easy (although season 3 seems to be difficult, hopefully not too difficult.).
5) It would be better to have less filler encounters but more memorable encounters.
6) More (good) roleplaying moments are always welcome.
I also don't like the (hypothetical) scenario where people who read spoilers get all kinds of awesome boons (because they know it's important to play the scenarios back-to-back or whatever other nuance is required) and that people who avoid spoilers get jack squat.
+1. That too.
godsDMit wrote:
Get rid of "If City of Strangers 2 was the most recent chronicle this character has played through..." idea, and replace it with (For Penumbral Accords)"If this character has played through both Mists of Mwangi and Voice in the Void, he gets a +4 bonus on Knowledge History rolls regarding Blackros museum in this scenario. if he has only played through one of the two, he gets +2, instead."
Yep, I had no clue that CDG wasn't for use by GM's in PFS, and I basically used it as an example of what CDG *could* do. Could anyone point me out to where CDG is put on the no-no list?
I assume that CDG means "coupe de grace"? PFS GMs aren't allowed to use it, under any circumstance? Can anyone show me where is says that?
I don't like to kill players, but sometimes it's the only thing that fits.
I'd like feedback from the community (organizers, GMs, and players) about which of the two methods you prefer, how you think rewards along these lines could be improved, or if you think trying to reward people for playing arcs in order or consecutively is stupid and shouldn't ever be done again.
I like the idea of a boon if ALL scenarios in the arc are played, however I do not think they should be required to be played in sequence or order.
The reason is that I think this causes more organizational dilemas at cons and store games, where people don't want to jump into the middle of an arc etc. It certainly puts constraints on the slots you put scenarios into. It's not worth it imo.
As a GM it doesn't affect me, I GM my home game in sequence. As a player, it only somewhat affects me, I probably would have skipped 1-2 scenarios by now, so it means I play less.
I played in a scenario with a Heavens Oracle, and you're right they're very powerful, not just with Color Spray, but also with Moonlight Bridge.
However, I didn't find him overly powerful. Maybe:
1) You're clumping your enemies up too much? When I played, everyone was spread out more and at range with obstacles. Often the Oracle spent his time using Moonlight Bridge, and then spent a lot of time moving up (perhaps he was also lame, armor doesn't help). He was a non-factor a lot of the time, more of a utility character for several combats.
2) He can only use it a very limited number of times per day (7 times per day). If enemies are spread out, this is used up very quickly. Are you making sure it's only used 7 times per day? I find players conveniently "forget" if the ability is really good.
3) Many times color spray can't be used without hitting one or more PCs, or without forcing the PC to cast defensively or taking AoO. Using a spell template, you can more easily see how hard it is to use CP at times, without collateral damage.
4) To get into position for color spray, often the caster makes himself vulnerable. It sucks to be a caster with low AC at level 5, you can get maimed really fast.
5) Casters are very vulnerable to grappling, being surrounded, or even a single opponent with reach or Step Up. You can't cast Color Spray if you're grappled, or even in a Web spell.
6) 15' range is still really short. Anything that can be done to challenge a melee PC will probably be valid for challenging the Oracle (although the bridge will help immensely).
7) Oracles have a weakness (curse). They're actually completely crippling every few combats when a situation comes up that uses them (and the GM / player handles them correctly). I don't know your oracles curse, but you're probably hand waving it and making it too easy on the player.
8) Maybe your point buy is too high? The PC has a 22 CHR, which I'll assume means they started with a base of 18, put their +2 bonus into CHR, and also have a magic item that increases CHR. This means his other stats have to be weak. You have a smart player, but it doesn't mean his PC is that smart. Reign the player in.
Weak str can always be exploited through stat damage (undead or poisons) or combat maneuvers, low con means he gets wrecked easily, low Dex hit easier and balance checks across uneven terrain (or forces him to use the bridge wasting time), low Int I've already mentioned, low Wis he can be controlled easily as well (other casters will also have Improved Init etc) and maybe even turned on the party (for extra fun).
9) Maybe combats need to be more challenging in general.
Also, just because an opponent is stunned or blinded, doesn't mean the combat is over necessarily. The Oracle still has absolutely no DPS, SOMEONE has to reduce the opponents in HP, and that's the ranger and rogue!
Also, it's not a bad thing that a PC wins some combats very quickly. Imo it let's you move onto the good stuff, which is roleplaying.
You could always nerf (CHR / 2) or remove Awesome Display, that would solve the problem. Yes, your player found one of the most broken abilities that hasn't been nerfed yet, in the game. Maybe you should talk to your player if they're in the habit of always trying to make broken characters.
Regarding charisma, yes there is some redundancy with two CHR players. However, one can help (assist) the other and it doesn't hurt to have several well spoken PCs in the group. Everyone can get some face time, just like in real life. The oracle will be better at speaking to "good NPCs" and the rogue might be better at speaking to the underworld or shadier NPCs?
Also, I'd like to mention that the Oracle has limited skill points, the rogue should have several skills the Oracle doesn't have, especially Bluff and Sleight of Hand. A rogue doesn't JUST talk, a rogue has several roles. Maybe your campaign is just combat heavy, and the PCs are just efficient at killing everything?
Anyway, Awesome Display is a broken ability, but it's still possible to give everyone something to do, without having to make enemies specifically designed to beat the Oracle.
Thanks JasonS, glad you like them. I hope to do PFS scenarios at some point. Did you have any specific scenarios in mind?
Not a particular scenario per se, but scenarios that have unique creatures, or creatures that aren't covered in other paper mini sets.
A few examples of unique creatures in scenarios are:
- The main boss in 'Song of the Sea Witch'
- The main mobs in 'Silent Tide'
Some examples of a very common creatures that haven't been in any AP sets are:
- Vampires (common feral vampire spawn in particular. 'Noble' vampires often don't look like vampires at all)
- Kolbolds ('Sewer Dragons of Absalom')
- Satyrs ('Pallid Plague')
- Plant creatures ('Midnight Mauler')
- Etc. I'm sure you guys can come up with a good list.
What we don't need are paper minis that are covered in other adventure paths. For example, we don't need thugs, guards, Pathfinders, goblins, medium zombies, anything monkey related, most animals (although it wouldn't hurt to reprint a familiar), or ogres.
Ideally the paper mini set would contain most of the minis needed for an entire season of Pathfinder Organized Play (or perhaps a half a season).
Play an unarmed fighter, call it a monk. Voila, everything's fixed.
Not really. A fighter won't have many of the special abilities a monk should have. One of key attributes that defines a monk is that they don't wear armor. A fighter without armor compared to a monk is at a great disadvantage. And I'm sorry you don't like my POV, I was responding to the OP, not you, rude person.
master arminas34 wrote:
And many people feel the same as you. I don't. I believe that the monk class should be a highly structured class, and while I understand that can make some folks unhappy, I just have to say if you want options play a fighter. Or a rogue. Or a ninja. But if you play a monk, it stands to reason that you should be a monk
Well, you see, a monk means many things to many people. Sure, the classic monk is the typical "kung fu" monk, but it doesn't represent the other very different types of monks.
Here's a silly example. Kung Fu Panda. He certainly wasn't the stereotype, but he was still a monk. There are a lot of different types of monks in fiction, but I'm not going to list them all. That's where options (or perhaps archetypes) come in.
You prefer to tweak where I'd rather Paizo do a rewrite.
master arminas34 wrote:
I did expand the allowed bonus feats and included some feats that are fighter only. Don't forget, the monk has another 10-11 feats that he can use to get the Greater Maneuver chains. And please don't say that isn't fair because the monk has to take Combat Expertise as a prerequisite! It just means you can't dump Int, which is a good thing.
Monks are supposed to be good at maneuvers, despite their intelligence, yet the way the bonus feats are structured, if they want to be good at maneuvers, they will never use their bonus feats to do so.
I find that in fiction and movies, not all monks are smart, yet many of them are masters of maneuvers, so making them have a high Int to do so clashes with classical depictions imo.
In addition, it's somewhat helpful for monks to have an average Int, because Monks are already very demanding on several stats already.
No I didn't read everyone else comments or the fact you made the monk's hand magical weapons. That's a powerful buff.
I don't find this version of the monk to be a big improvement.
The following things need to be changed about the monk imo.
1) There aren't enough options: I want options, like the Oracle or Barbarian have. Archetypes should contain the basic features of the archetype, but beyond that I want a lot of options. Every monk shouldn't be able to flurry (some should hit slow and hard), fall long distances, have increased unarmed damage, have fast movement, or have Evasion. (Almost everything should be an option).
2) Monk Abilities: Non-monks shouldn't be able to get feats like Stunning Fist and Deflect Arrows, they should be part of the options you pick when you make a monk.
3) Bonus Feats: At levels 1-2, there should be more bonus feats to select from, and the bonus feats should be better and keep up with other classes (like Fighters). For example, at levels 1-2 Improved Trip / Bullrush / Disarm should be available. At level 6+, Greater Trip / Bullrush / Disarm should be available.
Until the bonus feats are fixed, monks will always be behind the curve compared to other classes, even though they're supposed to be masters of these maneuvers!
4) Ki: Should be earlier, like the ninja. To me, this is a core part of the class. And ki should not be available if you wear armor either.
5) Magic Items: The pricing for monk magic items is higher compared to the cost for other classes. For example, Bracers of Armor +1 should have the same cost as magic armor +1. It's bad enough that you lose your neck slot (can't have Amulet of Natural Armor), but the cost of an Amulet of Fists is also very inappropriate considering it's exactly like a magical weapon (5000g compared to 2000g, it's twice as much!).
Although this has no effect in a home campaign, this has an effect on organized play.
There are other things, but your new monk is pretty much like the base monk and doesn't address any of my issues I have with the class.
I have few problems sleeping after roleplaying, however if I play good video games or play sports after 9pm, I usually can't sleep for another 2-3 hours.
MMOs are the worst though, I could be dead tired, but once I start playing I'm wired and could play all night if I wanted, no problem.
I honestly don't know how you guys stand the Sith characters. I hate them all, actually I hate everything about the Sith side (but I guess that technically makes me a powerful Sith, bwahahahaahaa!). The closest I can get to playing an Imperial is to play a female bounty hunter. At least playing that character I'm not annoyed.
Hey, I'm just trying to tell you how it is from a player's perspective at these cons. I'm sorry that bothers you. I'm a GM too and I don't see the big deal. It's not like I don't wear my t-shirts, I do wear them but only for 2 or less days. If you want to be a d%^& at these cons, I think this hurts PFS alot more than being strict with t-shirts helps. I didn't know PFS was a competition, I thought it was for fun? And that ultimately, you'd prefer the PCs to win?
Maybe we have completely different GMing styles (actually, we do), but to me GMs should be friendly, especially at Cons (you're representing PFS) and especially on something as minor as this. It's only a single re-roll we're talking about.
One of the things that makes scenarios and adventures exciting are allowing players to make important decisions and having alternatives to solve problems. In the very least, there's almost always a safe and a risky way to solve a problem, and different classes have different ways to solve problems as well. Although you can say almost every problem can be covered under the "Creative Solutions" clause in the organized play guide, I think scenarios would benefit from explicitly giving options on major events (such as the event in Pallid Plague).
Also, if the party doesn't have a skill, they should be allowed to continue with the scenario (as written), but with penalties.
For example, in Pallid Plague:
If they don't find a cure (or not in time), perhaps more citizens succumb to the plague and there are more zombies at the feast. Maybe it's so bad, the fight is unwinnable (APL + 5). I've seen multiple martial PCs take out APL +5 challenges, so it's probably the right CR for the encounter.
Rescue on Azlant Ridge:
Having said that, adding penalties or increasing combat challenge shouldn't be taken to the point where it's like "Before the Dawn 2".
If the party is mostly unsuccessful in Part 1, the GM is supposed to add a CR4 group to almost every encounter in the scenario (6 out of 7 fights). For many subtiers, this pushes each and every encounter in the "epic" threshhold (APL +3). This is too much. If you want to make one encounter epic, that's ok, but making 6 encounters epic is just too hard and too time consuming, and you'll never finish the scenario (one way or the other).
I print my scenarios double sided. Having said that, I make up a cheat sheet that contains all of the important information on the scenario, encounter by encounter, including faction missions and skill DCs. I could effectively run the scenario from the sheet alone, except for stat blocks.
I like the cheat sheet, because it keeps things running fast, as well I never miss any details, because everything is summarized. And I never have to flip pages, except for stat blocks and exceptional descriptions.
When I played it on my rogue, we also kicked her butt. I had no idea she even had a wand. The encounter didn't seem that hard, but we did (and guessed) all the right things. It *could* have gone badly though, we must have made the saving throws. Which is kind of my point, either the boss is impotent or just trashes you.
But if no one returns, then I think there are a couple of options from the Field Guide that can be bought, but are there any other ways for body recovery from a TPK?
Like you said, it costs 5 PA to recover the body, and only 3 PA if your faction is the Shadow Lodge.
I personally like to avoid TPKs. TPKs discourage many people, sometimes enough to quit playing the game (or PFS) altogether.
I prefer to avoid it upfront though, by scenario analysis, selection and critique, and advising subtier selection based on party composition.
Save or die spells are tough. Either they don't work and the boss goes down like a chump, or they work great and you potentially have a TPK.
At events such as Gencon, I like the option of taking my t-shirt out of my backpack, although I wear it where possible. With 5 days of gaming, it's really nice not having to wear the same t-shirt for all 5 days. It's nice for EVERYONE :).
Also, I'd like to note that the rules say you have to wear the t-shirt, it doesn't say for the entire session. If a GM is a real rules stickler, you can always throw it on for the roll and then take it off.
I don't particularily agree with the "floating t-shirt" concept, the t-shirt should belong to only one person, predetermined at the start of the scenario, if it's not worn. It's owned by whoever has it, if it's not stated up front.
I'd rather PFS be slightly relaxed regarding re-rolls than ultra strict. Having said that, not many people have the t-shirts, including my entire home group.
Posts
