You cant attack other player characters, you cant steal (i.e. rogue)from other player characters just examples of too much control by game designers.
Yes... Brock and Moreland are definitely exerting too much control over us. Those crazy game designers, who do you they think they are, gods? Free will or death! We should definitely be able to steal from our fellow PCs!
For example, say I didn't get the maximum amount of gold for a session, BAM. It's time to take some gold from the weakest PC. That weak PC wasn't min-maxed, so it's not like he was going to make it to level 12 anyway. Maybe you should have contributed more to the party next time snow flake! :)
justiceleaguenow wrote:
The point I am making is that if you take away my characters free will to do what he wants, even if its against another character then you diminish my free will and a part of the game that is fun as well as healthy.
QTF.
100% free will, especially if it results in PC deaths, is definitely fun and healthy! I don't know why everyone else can't see that. :)
I understand the basic idea behind no pvp in pathfinder society, it helps keep the piece and avoid chaos. However, to me it promotes an atmosphere of tolerance towards player characters who shall I say "fudge" on rolls ,character sheets, etc. what I mean is in my 30 years of playing D&D we used the pvp to police each other and to weed out the cheaters or "fudgers".
It's not your job as a player, to make other players follow the rules. The best idea is to point it out to the GM or coordinator (because they're often too busy to notice), privately (so the guy can get caught).
justiceleaguenow wrote:
Players must be able to call out other players when something doesnt seem right or at face value is way off the power base. Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group.
So let me get this straight. You want to kill other PCs, because "something doesnt seem right" or you think they're "way off the power base". So basically, you think they're too powerful and you're killing them because of that.
But then you go on to say that you should make your PC as powerful as possible, to "hang with the group". I'm guessing if your PC isn't powerful enough, those PCs are "weeded out" too?
Wow, this brings me back to my high school days. I think these are all swell ideas and should definitely be implemented. Just like in high school, I can pit my min-maxing skills against 2-3 other PCs while everyone else watches. lol.
And vice versa, if I think someone is stealing my thunder, BAM DEAD! Me and a friend or two will just drop on them. Or someone is using too much Diplomacy, DEAD, that's the end of your boring conversation! :)
We also have benefits like holding back your best spells on the BBG, because you never know when your party will turn on you! Whooohoooo!!!!!! It will make the "end of scenario" wrapups so much more fun then just doing paperwork! Monks will actually have an advantage now, they can outrun the rest of the party at the end of the scenario! lol
(Btw, thanks for taking me back to my backstabbing high school days, I really appreciate that. :) )
justiceleaguenow wrote:
and I would love to see that part return to pathfinder society. just sayn....
What can I expect in terms of resources: Just what I bring?
Other threads have compiled this information (like Painlords), off the top of my head I bring:
3 sets of dice, core rulebook, APG, bestiary, and maybe a snack. Pregens are also a good idea and have been used in most of my sessions.
Scenario: Printed copy of the scenario, cheat sheet (scenario summarized one 1 sheet), chronicles (bring 1-2 extra), the scenario summary thing, faction missions, maps (printed, flip-mats, map packs), paper minis for the bad guys, a few plastic minis for the good guys (that are missing minis).
Technically, you need all of the core books, but it can be heavy and I have yet to use more than the core, bestiary 1, and APG.
Lava Child wrote:
What do GM's tend to find hard to handle in PFS?
Everyone is different, but GMs that are new to organized play might have trouble with time constraints. Experience helps here.
The other major thing is organization. Everything that makes a good player, also makes a good GM. Stuff like rolling your dice all at once. Keeping track of multiple opponents hp. Initiative on recipe cards. Basically, the GM should be the fastest player.
Many GMs miss important monster abilities in the game. If you'd ask them at a bar later, they could probably recite the stats, but at that moment, they forget basic stuff. It's best to make simple notes in the margins (or highlighter) about key abilities.
I guess you can get difficult players, but I haven't seen any so far.
About hand signals in combat. I don't think hand signals work very well in intense combat. Unless someone is spending a move action to check with their buddies each turn, nah. If you can see hand signals you're certainly not 100% focusing on attacking.
Even commands that are shouted are often not heard in intense combat. If there are loud effects, even worse.
Seriously, play paintball (or better yet use live ammo), maybe some mass boffer combat and see how well communication works. It's tough! That's been my experience anyway.
They wanted $0.59 per color page!!! Are you kidding me?!? Is that really a competitive price?
My local Staples is great, the color images printed there are better than my color printer. This is especially important for the paper minis I print off.
I print off faction missions, in color, on my color printer, and I've noticed it eats quite a bit of ink, and ink cartridges aren't cheap.
So I used to think it was a rip-off, but it's actually ok for what you get. The only problem is the service charge, so it's probably better to print a bunch of stuff at once.
Maybe I missed something... but if the BBEG hadn't "activated" yet, how did the ninja and ranger know to attack it?
Delirium:
1) What Alexander said. I could stop there but...
2) You can also get the information, if you're tricky, from the Morlocks.
3) The description calls him thin and bony, not dead. Even if he looked dead, it's not like we ever encounter undead that wants to hurt us in PFS, right? :)
4) It makes sense to check stuff out at a closer range... invisible.
5) When is there ever a good guy at the end of a PFS scenario? At this point the party has seen a minimum of 4 encounters and maybe as many as 9. There's no exit from the room and the minotaur is right there. Pretty obvious.
6) 95% of the time it's a good idea to kill everything you meet in PFS. :)
So yeah, that's what happens most of the time with a competent group and a non-scenario changing GM.
If you don't want to allow them to full attack on the 1st round , it gets harder of course (they will likely do 15 damage in the surprise round). When they win initiative on the next round (Dex helps), they can full attack and finish the job.
It's still a win, with only 2 PCs, before the BBG can act.
And remember, there are 4 other PCs who can (hopefully) contribute 4 points of damage over the surprise round and (maybe) a full round.
In that scenario, I say the BBG dies sometimes without acting and most of the time within 1 round, doing minimal or no damage. It's possible the players made bad choices or the PCs are mostly melee, but even then they'll only be delayed 2 rounds.
Anyway, that scenario is not a good example of protecting the BBG.:
Maybe if:
1) He was awake to start the encounter, so he could buff and not get taken by surprise.
2) He had tremorsense or was buffed with See Invisibility (his tactics don't list him as pre-buffed)
3) He was buffed with Mage Armor (not on his spell list)
4) Toughness feat
5) Had mooks like perhaps 4 animated objects (chains) (to knock PCs off the ramp or to grapple archers), or perhaps even a dominated Nuar at subtier 4-5.
If he had all of those things, maybe he'd last a little longer. That would involve changing the scenario though, and since that can't be done, we're left with him dying in the 1st round most of the time. Yay! :)
Putting a limit on something actually fosters MORE creativity because the person can no longer just take the obvious/easy/lazy/simple/whatever route that they might otherwise have settled for.
Sure, I agree, and the limit is the framework and spirit of the scenario.
I'm just curious, as a player, are you satisfied if you just smash every encounter in a scenario, knowing that 50%+ of the party doesn't even need to be there? Do you like it when an encounter is over in 1 round and most of the party hasn't even acted yet? I'm just curious.
Jiggy wrote:
Anyone can make an encounter harder if they're given free reign. But only the creative GMs will be able to keep it interesting while sticking to the scenario as written.
I've 'played up' most of the time recently and we still stomped everything, sometimes embarassingly. In your statement above, you're basically (unfairly) calling those GMs uncreative, because not only did we play up, we did it with ease. I don't feel they were uncreative, I feel like they played the scenario by the book, and that was the result. Mediocre gaming. I WISH they made changes, maybe my review would have been different, but at least I would have had a lot more fun.
My point is, if a GM can't change anything, there's only so much he can do. You can't have both consistency and inconsistency at the same time.
I think your statement above is not very fair as well as not being very nice. Any GM that makes changes does it for the players, for their enjoyment. If I'm not making my players happy, I'm not happy.
While I'm glad you liked my previous quote enough to remember it, quite frankly I'm just tired of the entire re-skinning debate and I just want it to be over. Clearly I'm in favor of re-skinning, I strongly prefer creativity.
Jiggy wrote:
The rule does not kill creativity, as you suggest; rather, it encourages GMs to be creative instead of simply throwing more mooks/HP/AC at people.
Well, it kind of does. I personally never add mooks, hp, AC, but I do make changes. 95% of the time, for the better. Small changes that keep the spirit of the scenario enhance it, they don't detract.
I guess to each their own, but the lack of creative input into scenarios account for all of the mediocre experiences I've had in PFS.
As a GM, I don't want to be a robot that recites the scenario, and I don't want that from my GMs either.
I don't necessarily need 100% consistency between GMs for a scenario to be interesting, I'd rather assume each session has it's own FLAVOR (and hopefully it's not bland!). This isn't a job and this is supposed to be a creative game, for everyone. I'm actually very shocked that most GMs would prefer to be robots, but this explains a lot I suppose.
Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and move on.
So, I guess you missed the 225 post thread were this very thing was addressed HERE and the large outcry was that people didn't want seven player tables banned.
The problem is, the system doesn't break down only for 7 player tables, it also breaks down for 6 player tables. It even breaks down when comparing a level 1 party and a level 2 party; a scenario that challenges a level 2 has a good chance of TPKing a level 1 party.
GMs are looking for solutions to the scaling problems that we're having. Telling us that we can't modify scenarios isn't helpful, it's just antagonistic. In addition, it's not even realistic since there's so many missing details that aren't included in the scenarios, GMs make up stuff all the time. You have to.
Also, we need a bit of a reality check, almost every GM has tweaked scenarios from time to time. In my experience, most of my GMs have made tweaks: fluff, stats, added hp, add mooks, etc. Is Mike Brock going to tell me he hasn't done this in the past? Sure he has.
Also, the scenario tweaks I've seen have only made the scenarios better. Have some faith in your GMs.
Anyway, disappointing answers, answers that kill creativity. I think a softer approach such as "we strongly prefer" to be much better (so GMs can make minor adjustments depending on their group), but I suppose you're almost forced to make that your official answer, so I guess I don't blame you.
But we are experiencing a big problem. Almost 2/3rds of our society are nothing but fighters who have no desire to use their intelligence or even use patience.
Hold on, is that a PC problem or a player problem? :) Or perhaps people are roleplaying their PC well?
I see no problem with fighters kicking butt. Are you saying they're too good at it? Or are you saying that they turn every challenge into combat challenge?
Here's how I see it.
Problem #1: PFS, especially old scenarios, are far too easy. People can disagree all they like, but it's true and posts like yours just further prove it's a fact.
My home game has a number of experienced players with weak classes (sorceror, ninja, rogue), and they trash everything. If that combo can trash everything, 3 fighters can trash everything.
Problem #2: When there are scenarios that gimp characters (for example melee PCs), these players get upset about it. So it doesn't happen very often.
Problem #3: Players get upset when you throw skill challenges at them they can't complete.
I wish that scenarios were written in such a way that there were multiple ways to complete a task, if you were missing a skill set, the task (combat challenge) doesn't become impossible but it becomes extremely dangerous (which would probably make those PCs happy as well).
Problem #4: In PFS it's beneficial to kill just about anything you meet. My players joke about it all the time. PFS is mostly combat challenges. The non-combat challenges add some damage, but it can be soaked up between encounters with wands.
Problem #5: It's true fighters do a lot of damage. It's also true there are many other classes that can do a lot of damage. At Gen Con I've had Inquisitors, Zen Archer Monks, and Summoners do almost the same damage, but they had much more versatile characters.
Lady Ophelia wrote:
So what do we do to balance fighting players with those who wish to actually play the game?
1) Part of "playing the game" is fighting stuff. Fighting players are playing the game.
2) If you have a player that just wants to kill everything, it's more of a problem with the player than the class. How you deal with that is a separate thread.
3) If the scenarios are too easy (in combat), ramp them up in some way or ask for more challenge from the organizers.
4) Play more roleplaying orientated scenarios (read reviews and find out which ones are mostly RP).
5) Ask for more scenarios that promote a better mix combat and roleplaying in reviews.
I find this thread funny. Last week, we had a table full of newbies die. The entire table. Something about a ship full of explosives going boom. The week before that, we had a samurai that crit failed, essentially sepuku'd himself, then got aoe'd by an enemy alchemist's bomb while at negative hp, thus dying. I think it's just your group.
1) There's no penalty for failing to crit. There is no penalty for fumbling either (besides auto miss). This isn't Rolemaster (which is cool btw).
2) What scenario did your ship blow up? It just sounds like your GM is being a jerk tbh. What kind of GM powertrips like that and kills a bunch of newbies with instant death stuff?
In my opinion GM style/experience is the most significant aspect of difficulty.
I recall the discussion of one of the older adventures in the GM section of the forum - some think it was way too easy and others too difficult. The crux of the matter ended up being some GMs running an encounter knowing all the tactics and other GMs not realizing important abilities.
I've had the most experienced PFS GMs and in my experience, it doesn't make an easy scenarios any less of a cakewalk.
I see what you mean by different GMs running a scenario differently, but party composition and player ability is a more significant factor. The GM only becomes a major factor when he makes major modifications to the scenario.
Since we're talking about scaling, I've often thought it's a good idea to do a little scaling, even within subtier 1-2. The difference between a group of level 1s and level 2s is almost as significant as playing up. If we're eventually going to do some (official) scaling, I'd like to see scaling within subtier 1-2 as well, so that you don't TPK the level 1s and level 2s don't walk the scenario.
I have four PCs that I've played (fighter, rogue, cleric, monk), but I've made maybe 9 PCs in total. Just in case I need a 1st level. :)
I looked at the number of scenarios available, and you can level around 3 PCs to level 12, assuming you don't permanently die. So spreading the lower level scenarios around multiple PCs isn't a great idea, unless you don't get to play often, which is my case.
At Gen Con it was hell trying to find a low level scenario that none of the players had played before in the "Classic Scenario" slot.
I think it is a good idea for the GM to make sure that the PC's are challenged, but your idea of 5000gp handling a death is a little off. First a raise dead is isn't 5000gp, it is a 5000gp diamond + the cost of a 5th level spell caste by a minimum 9th level caster, 450gp. Plus this leaves the character with 2 permanant negative levels. The cost to restore those, 1280gp per level.
Yes, it's 5450g, I was just approximating.
You don't get negative energy levels when you die in PFS btw.
My point is, even if the party has a death, when playing up they're still ahead.
They are used mechanically, but they are not really the same nor working together. I doubt Cheliax really is working with the Shadow Lodge, unless it is to manipulate them.
In terms of secrecy they are. For example, you have a mission that says "Destroy book X without anyone seeing." As long as it's Cheliax and Shadow Lodge only see that the book is destroyed, everything is ok.
Also, if one faction gets a returns an item, that's enough for both factions.
Keep in mind this is a HOME game (it's not a convention where you run things straighter) and he wants to make things more challenging. Like any good GM, you don't necessarily throw the book at the group, you tweak here and there.
Regarding death, at subtier 1-2 you gain arond 500g, at subtier 4-5 you gain around 1500g. If you have 6 players, as a group they're gaining around 6000g extra by "playing up". If one of them dies (5000g out of party treasure), it's not the end of the world because they're still making more money than if they played the regular subtier.
2)MVP(choosen by your fellow players)
3)Best Kill(usually meaning using a unique strategy)
4)Most failed rolls(In life we learn from our mistakes the most)
5)Best use of a Skill/Spell(simular to best kill, means unique use)
This promotes competition, but also allows people from all classes to compete and does not reward min/maxers exclusivly.
Getting a little off topic here, but I tried that for years with my old home group with different players. I found it rarely inspired anyone for long and never improved anyone's play, and the same guys always got picked week after week. Although I tried for years, that was definitely a failed experiment.
I don't think PFS needs these kind of individual rewards.
I witnessed the same thing at Gen Con, but I've seen this kind of thing occur for years. I also don't like it, because the best player NEVER gets chosen, it's always the most popular player, whether that player is a new player, has friends at the table, is a woman, or a child. They get the votes. Always.
It would be more fair to allow the GM to pick, but even then you'd get GMs that pick the same way, but at least there would be more chance. There's always going to be bias.
I guess if you don't like it, the solution is to game with four of your friends, decide who gets the boon ahead of time, and then allocate it to that person.
A random roll at the end isn't bad, as long as everyone knows what to expect up front, before the session begins. Then everyone can have fun without worrying about gaming the system.
In terms of secrecy, the new factions are essentially the same faction as their counterpart. They're working together and I'd expect they'd know about each other.
If you really want (and you're not running the game at a convention), you can make up new and similar missions for the new factions, but we're really not supposed to this, and you're changing the difficulty level for accomplishing the mission.
Having said that, I don't see why season 0-2 faction missions have to be that much easier (because of overlap) than season 3 faction missions however. The biggest reason they don't go back and retroactively make new missions for the new factions is because it would be too much work.
Well, since your group are six level 2 players, they're APL 3 and can play up to subtier 4-5. Depending on the scenario, things can get deadly, but I'll leave that for you to figure out.
Just make sure you don't softball it, if they're playing up it's ok to kill someone, because they're still making more money than at subtier 1-2, even with a death, as long as they share the cost.
If you're so inclined (and don't want to tell us about it, wink wink), you can make other changes as well. Such as:
1) Change the listed tactics to something more optimal. This is the first thing I do.
2) Change spell selections. Sometimes spell selections are terrible and doesn't allow the NPC to be effective or sometime's even thematic.
3) Change terrain or the environment, so it's more defensive for the enemy.
Climbing, jumping, difficult terrain, squeezing, range, can provide a lot of challenge, especially at low level.
A lot of the time, GMs and players aren't even using the rules for ranged combat properly. They aren't including the range modifiers, allies in the way providing cover for the enemy, cover, etc.
4) Some people have added more mooks to the combat. I don't do this, but it works for some GMs.
Sure but it's a long list going back since September 2009. So;
Dralkard Manor,
Asmodeus Mirage and
Silent Tide featured.
more recently
Feast of Ravenmoor
Heresy of Man - almost lost a 5th level PC on the 1st of Oct.
Dralkard Manor: Killer scenario which was since been retired.
Asmodeus Mirage: Killer scenario which has since been retired (for numerous reasons).
Silent Tide: I just ran this with 4 2nd level PCs and 2 1st level PCs and we walked all over subtier 4-5. Maybe your DM changed it without telling you.
Feast of Ravenmoor: Module. These seem to be more challenging on average.
Heresy of Man: Killer series that is supposed to be more balanced now.
So yeah, if you're going to play all of the killer scenarios (most of which have been retired), I guess you're going to find it challenging. I would also bet your GM modifies the scenarios extensively for combat.
However, even though a 7 player table can kill the fun in a game, it is ok if the need arises. You either want to keep the game fun or you don't. You can't really have it both ways.
Not all of us have had horrible experiences with 7 player tables. It depends on the GM and players. It's undesirable, but as long as it's rare, it's ok.
There's no question it has the potential to be a lesser experience. Does that make it a "bad" experience? Not necessarily. My seven player table at Gen Con this year (during the special) was actually a very good experience.
My only horrible experiences have come from 4 and 5 player tables. Yours have only come from 7 player tables. So?
Michael Brock wrote:
Of the 78 games I have GMed, 12-15 of them were 7 player tables.
Michael Brock wrote:
As a convention coordinator for four cons over the past year where we ran 80+ tables at each, most players at 7 player tables at those cons had a lessened experience due to the 7 player table.
So either there was a lack of GMs or there was a lack of organization/planning or tables. The coordinator *could* have turned the 7th player away, but he CHOSE not to. Why didn't he turn the 7th player away if it makes for a 'lessened' experience? If you were *forced* to turn the 7th player away, how does that help the organizational dilemma which wasn't solved in the first place?
And in 30 games I've GMed or played, I've had 3 seven player tables. So what you should be asking yourself is why you've had so many seven player tables? And if you dislike them so much, why did you organize them as a coordinator and why did you accept them as a GM?
Michael Brock wrote:
I'm a skilled GM, but no matter how hard you try, the combats are cakewalks
It's been my experience that most scenarios are cakewalks even with 4 players, so of course it'll be too easy with 7. It's almost a given that I have to change the scenario tactics, at least.
No PFS Scenario has ever been a "cake walk" for me.
Even We be Goblins can be deadly...
Every scenario was challenging? Can you list some of them?
Yes, 'We Be Goblins' is deadly (especially if played non-intelligently), but you're playing Pregens so there's no risk of losing your PC. WBG is an exception, not the rule.
lastblacknight wrote:
The energy at the table starts with the GM; if we are having fun then they will...
Fun and challenge are separate topics. Yes you can have fun while walking over all encounters, and yes there can be a lack of fun by walking over all of the encounters (it's cumulative). It's always better if the PCs don't crush everything.
I don't think it's a matter of making scenarios deadly, it's a matter of giving everyone something to do and making sure the BBG doesn't die in 1-2 rounds while doing 10 or less damage.
And the rare well-balanced party may have fun, but the unbalanced parties tend to wind up with issues of various sorts, from someone being totally eclipsed, and noisily complaining about it, to failing the scenario because they have no one who can locate X clue.
You can also have unbalanced groups of 4 players that experience the same thing. If anything 7 player tables offer more variety, not less. I don't think that's a valid argument against 7 player tables.
Most groups will let Gali go. He's crazy and the least threat.
Just because Hafshi "fights to the death", doesn't mean she dies. When I GMed this, my group took Hafshi into negatives via lethal damage, stabilized her, used smelling salts, and let her go.
That faction mission caused a lot of inter-party strife and faction friction. Good scenario, but lots of party friction in it.
Most PFS scenarios are easy, and then there are the rare scenarios that contain wicked death traps.
I don't think the desired goal is to kill PCs, that deters play. Kill count is an undesirable statistic imo (unless you're Kyle). Our job isn't to deal out death, our job is to deal out fun.
I think the goal is to offer a challenge, with at least enough challenge so that the PCs don't walk over everything. For me, many scenarios aren't achieving that goal (without modification!), and I'm not entirely sure why balance is so hard to achieve. It's like the authors have these amazing minds for creating great original stories (which is an amazing and admirable skill), but they don't know how to balance encounters (or perhaps lack proper playtesting).
Suggestion: Have a volunteer group of GMs that playtest scenarios. These GMs should be "critical thinkers" and not fan boys / girls who approve of everything. For each scenario, pick 2-3 GMs (out of the pool of GMs) for overall feedback. The GM with the best feedback gets the final product for free. Maybe a star (or achievement) system could be implemented for this as well.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
At times, DM's bend over backwards to assure that characters do not die.
Well, I think this is the main problem. You can increase the challenge level all you like, but if GMs are unwilling to lower the BOOM, no one's going to die. An even greater problem is created if you increase the challenge level, increase the rewards, and then have GMs unwilling to mangle a PC when needed.
Lots of GMs are guilty of softballing PC death, but how should you stop it? I don't have the answer to this. It's a habit for most GMs.
Btw, I have no problems softballing and making it easy for level 1-2 characters. Although PF veterans can't relate, killing the PC of someone new to PF is the best way to have them never try PF again.
This is just an observation, but have you ever noticed how ruthless and brutal most GMs are when it comes to killing pregens? I find lots of pregens die compared to PCs, and it's not only because they're not optimal or because of the players. With GMs, it's like the kids gloves come off with the pregens, and/or they're specifically targeted for the "really nasty" stuff. Anyway, it's kind of funny.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Should there be a voluntary campaign in which, by player consent, there is a greater chance of character death and/or character reward?
Well, there's always the option of playing up (although apparently it's scorned if it's planned), and that's where I've seen the majority of PC deaths. Even then, I've seen GMs save PCs from dying, and those were the "obvious" saves. I'm sure there were less obvious ones I missed.
Yes, I wish there were some scenarios that are supposed to be more difficult that offered *slightly* better rewards. And hopefully they'd be labeled "hardcore", so that players would know what they were getting themselves into.
If a pro-7-table coordinator regularly acquires additional players that he has to send to extant 6 person tables run by mean ol' "humbug, I hate 7 player tables" judges, those judges can refuse to accept the players. After this hypothetical event, the coordinator might say "Gee, ol' humbug constantly refused to accept a seventh player; he must not be a team player. Having determined that his selfish actions are not good for PFS, I will never invite him back to judge for me." This is a somewhat extreme example, sure, but a lack of drastic action does not mean some building, unspoken resentment is absent.
Completely unrealistic. There's no way that a "6 player limit" GM wouldn't get invited back to an event when the event is already in short supply of GMs. lol.
I also don't think it's realistic that a PFS coordinator who would get mad or have "hard feelings" towards a "6 player limit" GM. I think almost all coordinators are appreciative to their GMs, for whatever they can do.
I think the rule is ok because it stops wankers from trying to power game re-skinning in organized play. There's nothing stopping me from waving it for home play.
Wherever possible we try to avoid it (in store) and I never allow it to happen in my home game, but there are times when it's necessary.
We ran a 7 player table at Gen Con for example, and you know what? It was still good.
I ran a 7 PC table of Frostfur Captives and it was also good, everyone was fast.
Tbh, whether a 7 player table runs fast or not depends MOSTLY on the speed of the GM. Of course if you have newbie players or players who insist on rolling one die at a time, sure it's going to be slow. What would normally take 5 seconds takes 1-3 minutes.
If you're getting complaints about 7 player tables, the GM in charge should just say "NO". If I disliked them that much, I know I would. Tell these GMs to stop letting their players and coordinators walk all over them. Grow a pair. :)
So you'd wish to see a percentage instead of a set sum? Say 50% of all your PP?
I'm saying that if the cost of switching factions reduces me below 0 prestige, I should still be allowed to do it. When you're out of favors, you're out of favors.
Mechanically, I think the current cost is correct. It's severe but fair.
Auke Teeninga wrote:
You'd better be sure Guaril Karela owns you some favors before you decide to leave the buisiness.
You want to work for the Silver Crusade? Then you first have to pay penitence for those sins you commited in the name of freedom.
I'm not sure I agree with your examples, switching factions is a clean break.
For example, even with the mafia, Guaril's threats mean nothing since factions can't conduct open warfare in the Pathfinder Society, especially against other factions (which you'd be a part of).
If you wanted to switch to the Silver Crusade, it makes absolutely no sense why I'd have to do more jobs for Cheliax (or most factions) in order to serve penance. Do more shady dealings to serve good??
To join Taldor, you have to pay homage and do jobs for another faction (instead of Taldor)? OK, that makes sense (sarcasm).
Chris Mortika wrote:
It seems that zeroing out Prestige and cutting Fame in half should be reasonable.
Half of your Fame comes from Pathfinder missions, so it doesn't make sense to reduce your Fame by 50% (unless your value to your faction is a complete unknown, which is unlikely).
Slightly reducing Fame may make sense from a realism point of view, but mechanically it doesn't work because the penalty is too severe, losing your prestige is already bad enough. Losing Fame would make the PC too weak compared to other PCs. If PFS didn't want PCs to switch factions, instead of making the penalties so severe that no one would consider it, it should just be disallowed.
In addition to Mountain Pass (flip), Campsites (map pack), and Forest (flip), I found the following items useful.
Village: For the village I used the 'Village Square flip map' and it worked out nicely. If you have the room, you can also use a few tiles from the 'Slums map pack' (it's a fishing village).
Lodge: I had a map of the horse stalls and I didn't find it was useful to create. Not only will most PCs not go into the horse stalls, but you can run it abstractly if they do. Also, the lodge map already consumes the entire table, the stalls just won't fit.
I’m eager to hear what folks think of these homages, both what you think worked well, and what could make the campaign’s internal continuity even stronger.
It's fairly obvious that players like continuity and homages, it makes the world feel real and gives it meaning to the campaign. Familiar allies, villains, places, ... this is why APs are so popular. Although PFS scenarios are more independent (and fit into nice 4-5 hour packages), players still want to see it. So where it makes sense (or where an authors idea is overflowing), more series, especially three part series, are welcome.
It would be nice if there were more scenarios themed to certain regions, to bring them to life. Yes yes, we have scenarios in various regions, but it's not often that the particular cultural flavor is really exposed in the scenario, unless the GM has read other source books and adds a bunch of additional material into the scenario himself.
Anyway, homages are great.
Quote:
both what you think worked well, and what could make the campaign’s internal continuity even stronger.
What has worked well? Grandmaster Torch (who has elevated himself to a faction leader!), the Shadow Lodge story arc (although I'm not a fan), Blackros museum stories (although I hope that 4 scenarios is enough), Eyes of the Ten (although not many have experienced it), re-occurring NPCs (VCs), and my person favorite are groups like the Red Mantis working their way into scenarios (from APs).
In the future, I'd like to give my PFS players little tastes from various APs, things like Hell Knights, various famous NPCs, etc. Easter eggs (nods to other scenarios) are nice as well.
What hasn't worked well? I didn't really like the penalties in 'Rescue from Azlant Ridge' that were incurred in 'Bloodcove Disguise'.
Before the Dawn:
You make your presence known in a pirate city and the penalty is that more monkeys attack??? I'd strongly prefer that penalties make sense, for example I would have preferred if more pirates attacked the PCs in the first encounter, or delayed them so that they were attacked by monkeys on the way there.
Also, although it probably doesn't work that well in terms of deadlines, it would be nice if the same author wrote all or at least most of a series. The work would be (theoretically) more consistent. Right now what prohibits us from using some series is that parts of the series aren't written well, so we don't bother with the entire series. (But I suppose it works the other way as well, just not with me).
Some of your upper level series don't seem to have worked very well (Heresy of Man, Echoes of the Everwar), but I'm not really sure why that is. The concept was good (and I'm going to try them anyway).
Quote:
Further, what NPCs, locations, magic items, or dangling plot threads would you like to see woven back into the Pathfinder Society tapestry in scenarios to come?
I'd like to see slightly less humanoid opponents. Yes, humanoid opponents speak and allow for roleplay, but it's just nice to see monsters sometimes.
NPCs: Iconic parts of Golarion like Red Mantis, Hell Knights. Any repeated NPCs really, like Skeldon Miregrold. :)
Locations: Ustalav, Nex, Geb, Mana Wastes, World Scar, unique locations.
Magic Items: I'd like to see some artifacts that we've retrieved haunt the PF society or have "things go wrong" when they're investigated or stored. With that many artifacts and magical things at our disposal (that we don't use...) something is bound to go wrong.
Plot Threads: None.
You're doing a great job so far in season 3, keep up the good work.
It doesn't say "need", it says "costs", which is open to interpretation.
I don't think it really makes any sense at all, that you'd actually have to gain more standing with your current faction to change to another faction. That's like saying that for me to work for another company, I first have to become VP of my current company before making the change. Which is a little silly.
There might be a purely mechanical reason for the rule (is there?), but the rule itself makes absolutely no sense in terms of realism (fantasy or otherwise).
Here's what I've learned from posting on the messageboards. You have 100+ people reading your posts, of course *someone* is going to disagree or find fault with what you're doing. It's human nature.
I'd say go ahead and make changes that make the game and story better, especially if it's just a "fluff" change (the mechanics are the same, the cosmetics are different).
Regarding the faction missions, it's a good idea but it's extra work (that I don't want to do), and the season 1/2 faction missions look so nice when printed out properly. (I'm planning on playing more season 3, since my home game is all Shadow Lodge).
Having said that, if you re-write the fluff of the faction missions, please post them in the relevant scenario thread.
My home group is APL 3 (4 level 3s) now and decided to play up to subtier 4-5. We didn't have a healer, just a wand of infernal healing between encounters.
I thought the scenario played well at APL 3, but I was surprised it never felt dangerous. The last encounter didn't come close to TPKing them, but they made their fear saves. Da'Tunga had trouble hitting the strongest fighter, so he wasn't very effective. Still, it wasn't a short fight and I think the fight could have swung either way if they didn't make their Will saves, they just got lucky.
"Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness."
That seems pretty unambiguous.
Kind of. A magical light source of the same level wouldn't increase the light level, it would remain the same. Hopefully it's just poorly worded, because it's fairly confusing and it's not entirely logical why an equal level spell wouldn't counteract its counterpart.
I didn't know that. Also, I'm more irritated that DCs aren't tiered in certain ways in the modules, and this creates weird anomalies (such as trivial or impossible checks) that don't seem intentional.
Paizo has been scaling skill checks btw.
Used properly, scaling skill checks aren't bad. For example, the skill checks made in Frostfur Captives in Act 2.
However, most of the time scaled skill checks are annoying. Often it feels like I'm playing the video game Diablo (where everything feels the same regardless of your level). I think as you gain levels and powers, most (not all) skill checks SHOULD be easier.
The biggest problem with scaling skill checks is that it makes spellcasters even more powerful than martial characters (as if they weren't powerful enough already!). Spells are nearly always better than skills by mid-level.
Consider the following. Why should I bother with:
- Acrobatics/Climb/Swim: When I can cast fly?
- Diplomacy/Intimidate: When I can cast Charm Person? Besides Diplomacy is static.
- Disable Device: When I can cast Knock?
- Escape Artist: When I can cast Dimension Door and Teleport?
- Heal: When I can cure everything with spells?
- Linguisitics: When I can cast Comprehend Languages and Tongues?
- Sense Motive: When I can cast Detect Thoughts?
- Stealth: When I can cast Invisibility?
- Survival: When I can cast Endure Elements?
etc.
My point is, you don't want to make skills any weaker than they already are.
Also, if we're talking about faction missions, keep in mind that you want martial classes that can only dabble in skills to have a chance at success.
In summary, I'm pleased with the limited scaling that Paizo is currently doing in their scenarios.
Actually, even Daylight doesn't work against Deeper Darkness because they're both 3rd level spells; you need a 4th level light spell to counteract Deeper Darkness.
Quote:
This spell does not stack with itself. Deeper darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.
Overlapping areas of light and darkness spells (that aren't used to dispel each other) must be resolved. If Deeper Darkness and Daylight overlap, the spells either:
1) Cancel each other in the areas they overlap; or
2) Daylight increases light conditions by two levels and DD reduces it by two levels, effectively canceling each other.
Either way, the effects cancel each other and existing light conditions will prevail as if the spells didn't exist.
If it's case #1, non-magical light sources will work.
If it's case #2, the spells offset each other, but non-magical light sources won't work. Darkvision will work however (since it's not
supernatural darkness).
I'm not sure if case #1 or #2 is correct, but I've always ruled case #2 because I feel darkness spells would be too powerful otherwise.
So my question for y'all is this: what would be a good scenario to start him out on?
Ideally he'd GM something he's already played, because he already knows the story.
I also wouldn't correct him during the game on anything scenario related, it will erode his confidence (every GM has their own version anyway). If there is a major rules transgression, point that out but be silent otherwise imo.
WalterGM wrote:
Should I sit down with him and explain some things to him? If so, what?
Explain to him how you prepare for games, step by step. Show him what you use to make games run smoothly. Teach him any "tricks". Provide him with any maps, so he doesn't have to buy/make them. Minis too.
I could give you examples, but they would be how I prepare for tables and my tricks.
Posts
