|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I think I should have phrased my idea differently: Can GMs voluntarily share their additional resources with new players under a certain level (subject to GM discretion)?
Often times I have no idea what levels or builds that parties are going to have at the tables I run (i.e. Gencon), so how would I know what resources to bring to accommodate the players that do not have the resources?
I specifically print only the exact pages I need for my character from the PDFs and carry them with my character sheets. I have absolutely no intention on bringing 10ish hardback books and 50+ splat books to a convention to accommodate low level players who choose to play a character that don't have the resources for. I don't ever bring those for myself, why would I want to bring them for my players.
Where is the limit on the amount of resources that are "allowed"? 1, 5, 10 What if the person who was supposed to bring the resource forgot and the player doesn't have another character with them?
Also, some things bring entirely more complex aspects to the game. Someone decided they are want to try a summoner because they have heard how powerful they can become should be treated differently then someone who took a trait to get a class skill.
If the the "no resource rule" is shown some flexibility here, players will expect and complain that it is shown in other areas. (Example: it should be the GMs responsibility to provide beastiary for a character that summons.)
As a player, I like this suggestion. This would give a player a chance to try different mechanics out to even see if they like their build before having to invest in a the books.
As a GM, I find this to be a problem. It has already been stated, it is not the GMs job to provide resources for players. Feats and traits are one thing. Those typically play a small role in how a build functions, but take a different class for instance. Time and time again, I have seen it that the player doesn't understand a class they are playing and I as a GM have to explain exactly how things function. This could drag a game to a halt if the GM and player are unfamiliar with a class and they player is just trying it out to even see if they are interested in playing it. This is even more drastic for a new GM.
I find a high initiative most useful for characters that buff and those that use sneak attack. I know some people think that its the bees knees to have double digit initiative modifiers. When the majority of the baddies in scenarios have less than a +5 modifier, it then becomes trying to act before other party members and not just the baddies.
Most of my characters have a +3-6 initiative modifier. I do have one that is +14, but that was unintentional when the character was built (dex based Ifrit Inquisitor).
If I GM 5 games with a character (before playing said character at all), then decide to build something, can I assign a new faction card to said character and immediately check off all the boxes for GMing games, even though I didn't decide on a faction until after those games?
Guide to Organized Play pg 38 wrote:
youdo not need to build the character until you actually play it
So long as the character is only GM credit it shouldn't matter if you have five different ideas and what factions they were, it just matters what faction you are when you actually set down to play the character. Just make sure you have the proper card when you play.
How do these cards interact with 1st level rebuilds? If I change factions as part of my rebuild, do I lose all credit on the existing card (i.e. if I had, say 1 GM box checked, and I switch factions, can I move that GM box to the new card)? What if I change back? (i.e. start as Dark archives, check one box (doesn't matter which). Decide I don't like that idea, switch to Grand Lodge. Decide to completely rebuild character, now it fits in dark archives again. New card, or use old card?)
That is actually a really good question. I'm inclined to say no, because of the "no retroactive credit" and the "if you switch to a different faction you lose all credit on the current card" rules. However, I really don't think it should be that way, at least not to GM credit.
Personally, when I was told these were going to be created last Gencon I was so incredibly excited. I was told there they should be released sometime in oct/nov. So I patiently wanted. I checked the website around that time to see when the release date was, it was pushed backed to Jan. Since then the release date has been moved back to March and now May. That is 4 different releases. I am so incredibly disappointed by all of this. I understand that it is just face cards, but this has been the only new release I have been excited about in the 2014-2015 product line.
I have had a player take a talking, shrunken head from Skykeep, because he felt bad for it since it just looked at a wall all day. He then proceeded to go adventuring with it. When the character seekered out, it was passed on as an heirloom to his daughter (different # character). She now adventures with it.
I would say no, because each card says once per scenario. That is of course unless the goal says that it doesn't prevent you from checking another box (i.e. Grand Lodge adventuring in other nations goal)and neither of those goals allow that.
Please don't make the faction cards part of Core Campaign. Simplicity is the reason I'm so excited about the Core Campaign.
The faction cards are just something extra that each person can have their PC do if they want their character more involved with their faction. Since that is a the primary problem that people had when the faction missions were dissolved 1 1/2 years ago. With this in mind faction cards should be an option for CORE.
i do wonder why they dont update the venture captain list on the pdf as soon as things change instead of waiting for the full update
Because that list is updated very frequently. It changes pretty close to a weekly basis.
Right now, IT has it setup tp automatically update the organizer page whenever the settings are changed when someone is promoted or resigns as an officer. The list in the back of the guide is something that would have to be updated manually and there are things of higher priority that Paizo makes sure gets done before that.
Stefan Hill wrote:
If I was writing a PFS adventure what resources would I be allowed to use. Obviously PFS adventures aren't born, they are written and written under some assumptions. Those assumptions would form our groups limits on developing our non-PFS games, again, because we like the idea of PF CORE.
The authors were able to use any resources available that were not 3rd party. It is my understanding that the authors were not supposed to use information from more than 5 different books. However, that might change, because as of recent (past 2-3 months) the new scenarios have an appendix in the back of the scenario with all of the stat blocks of creatures not printed in the scenario.
Of course the older scenarios, season 0 and 1, are almost all core only, cause the other books were not published yet.
I would like to say this isn't going to happen, but this hasn't been the first time I have seen something like this. Someone asked which scenarios had wizards with pit spells on the Pathfinder Society Facebook Page.
I was not being dismissive of his lack of stars. I sometimes forget that there is other roleplaying other than PFS. He very well could GM for a home group and just play PFS. I have known many people who do that. However, he is talking about making the GMs at GenCon cry over how his character breaks the scenario. That greatly offends me. I have however GMd at GenCon the past 2 years. GMs get the specials and new scenarios (the events that are always filled) the weekend before the event. Giving 4-5 days for them to prepare. That is a huge time crunch for anyone, not including jobs.
Roleplaying should be fun for everyone invovled, not revolved around whether the character is broken enough that it makes it unenjoyable for the person running the game.
The OP is just a troll that hasn't GMd a single game of PFS. He doesn't care about the time and effort that GMs put into making any experience good, regardless as to whether it's at GenCon or not. All he cares about is "winning". So he can just have his fun and be proud trying to accumulate this list all by himself.
Michael Brock, Global Organized Play Coordinator wrote:
This is the evidence pertaining to Paths We Choose
Mike Brock wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:
And those aren't the same thing because...?
When people say dedicated charger they typically refer to a spirited charger with a lance. Beast Totem barbarian could 3 base attacks, 1 attack with haste, and any natural attacks (bite). So you are looking a 4+ attacks. So that's a bunch of extra dmg for 11,665gp.
Guide to Organized Play pg 33 wrote:
Season 0 scenarios were written under the 3.5 rules set of the world’s oldest roleplaying game, before the release of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If a creature in the scenario also appears in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary,Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2, or Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 and maintains the same CR between both rules sets, you may use the Pathfinder RPG stats in place of the 3.5 stats. This is the only substitution allowed in these scenarios.
This particular scenario is written with 3.5 rules. Posions don't have a CR and since the DC and the effects are the same, it is just fine to use the updated version where the wording is a little clearer.
Blue Whinnis is a poison with initial and secondary effects. The initial (1 con dmg) happens when the the 1st fortitude save is failed. The secondary (unconscious 1d3 hrs) happens when the 2nd fortitude save is failed.
The PC will only ever take con dmg once.