Mat Black's page

Is anything being organized for Platte-Con in Wisconsin?

to my knowledge, there has not been any contact between the convention and Sean. I'll make sure he sees this, though.

i've got my own ideas on why this wasn't good enough to make it through, but always good to hear the judges' comments.

Circlet of Eldritch Geometry
Aura strong conjuration; CL 12th
Slot head; Price 55,000 gp; Weight 1 lbs.
Description
This headpiece, constructed from the spine of a small animal and etched with ancient symbols, is most often found in the possession of followers of the Old Cults. The circlet gives its wearer the power to bend and fold space in unusual ways, but slowly eats away at their sanity.
Activating the circlet is a swift action. When it is activated the wearer may choose a number of squares equal to their Wisdom modifier (minimum 1) within 30 feet. They may then choose whether each of these squares are considered to be adjacent to them or not, and whether or not they are considered to be adjacent to any of these squares. This effect lasts until the beginning of their next turn. If the wearer leaves the square in which they activated the circlet, the effect ends as soon as they enter the new square.
When this effect ends, the wearer takes 2 points of Wisdom damage, plus 1 point for each time the wearer has activated the circlet that day. This damage cannot be healed through the use of magic. If the wearer is reduced to 0 Wisdom in this manner, their alignment shifts one step toward chaotic. If already of a chaotic alignment, their alignment instead shifts one step toward evil. If already of chaotic evil alignment, there is no additional effect.
The circlet may be activated any number of times per day.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Empower Spell, Greater Spell Focus (conjuration) dimension door; Cost 27,500 gp

I don't believe that the novel chronicles are limited to only one per player.

This is correct. The rules for the Pathfinder Tales boons specifically state that they may be applied to any and all of your characters.

The holiday boons, when available, can only be applied to one character.

The reward itself doesnt so much matter to me. Im GMing with or without them. If you are going to give me an option to voice how I thinhk rewards should be passed out though, I think it could be beneficial to base a reward off of new players registered per GM.

Since you have to be logged into your Paizo account to print a sheet of PFS numbers, Im sure Paizo already has it set so they know which GMs those numbers are all going to. You could base a reward off a GM getting X new numbers passed out to players, with the number being reported as having played a session.

If nothing else, it may encourage some GMs to push for new players harder.

the problem with that approach is that often it's the event organizer who applies for and prints out the new PFS numbers, not the actual table judges. so those numbers wouldn't give an accurate account.

My issue is that in PFS, when what is written is different than what is meant, then what is meant goes out the door. I mean, if I wanted to be a jerk GM, I could insist the new Minakan character made from the Dragon Empires Gazeteer can NOT understand Common unless he pays for the skill. And I'd be completely, 100% technically correct in reading the rules. If I wanted to be a jerk player sitting next to that same player, I could insist that the GM enforce the 'he doesn't know common' rule, since the PFS GM doesn't get to 'house rule' any deviation from the written rules. (RAW > RAI, official sources > thread posts, etc)

ok, we're actually 100% on the same page about that (i brought it up originally nearly a month ago for the exact same reasons). it just sounded to me like you might have been nitpicking some the actual words being used in the original update, but i guess not.

As it appears to be a simple error, just trying to point it out. Near as I can see Mike made his post before the update was made, and the update wasn't made to match what he said. It's either an error, or looking for confirmation that it is NOT an error and his thread post was overruled behind the scenes at some point.

Mike made his post well after the last update was made to the Additional Resources. I'm sure we'll see the correction when the next update happens.

If the Inner Sea world guide saying all tiens know Common trumps the Dragon Empire Gazeteer saying they don't, does it also trump in that no Tiens know Hwan, Minkaian, etc for free either?

the iswg does not "trump" the DEG. if anything, the DEG would trump the ISWG, as it is a newer publication. however, this case is unusual in the the Tien ethnicity is a gerneralized human ethnicitiy, and the ethnicities listed in the DEG are separate, specific ethnicities, and they are all (ISWG and DEG alike) acceptable choices.

Rhetorical question.. I'm assuming the answer is no.. so can we get the Dragon Empires Gazeteer entry updated in the Addt'l Resources so it says they know the languages listed as racials.. and GAIN Common as well?

i'm sure it will be added during the next round of titles being added. to my knowledge, it has rarely (if ever) been updated more than once a month.

i'm not sure what your issue is with the semantics/wording aspects.

Matthew Starch wrote:

also, i wasn't simply thinking of opening it up to anyone, but rather to mirror the open design/patronage idea even more closely, giving different levels of involvement to those who donate different amounts... but, as you pointed out, this is about rewards, so that could be an idea discussed more fully elsewhere.

That is still possible with the star system, we can open it up to different levels depending on the amount of stars you have, so it is a reward over all the stars, not just 4 stars.That was my original idea but I was trying to simplify it.

Also credit can be given in the scenario to those GMs who do participate as a further reward.

i definitely like that as an in-between.

Matthew Starch wrote:

this is a good idea, but it's something that i would rather see as a generally instituted policy for anyone rather than just a reward for 4 stars.

personally, i don't see this working as a reward, since it's not something that every 4 star will really want to, or be able to, participate in.

however, as i said, i think maybe trying something like this out (open to the PFS public at large who are wiling to buy into the deal) for one or two scenarios each year might be a good idea.

I was thinking something more low key then everyone! too many chiefs and all. And this was advice as a Rewards so I kept it at that level.

And though I will admit I made this suggestion based on my taste, every 4 Star GM I have met are the most gung ho about PFS and the majority would not give up the chance to get at least a little involved in something like this.

i'm sure a lot of 4 stars would definitely love that opportunity, but i'm sure there are those that, if nothing else, wouldn't be able to participate in something like that simply due to time concerns.

also, i wasn't simply thinking of opening it up to anyone, but rather to mirror the open design/patronage idea even more closely, giving different levels of involvement to those who donate different amounts... but, as you pointed out, this is about rewards, so that could be an idea discussed more fully elsewhere.

I am going to Suggest something that I thought about on my ride back from work and it takes from Open Designs Patron Projects.

This is a Suggestion for a reward for 4 Star GMs.

Take a Multiple part Scenario *2 or 3 parts* with a basic idea for a Story synopsis that will be released late in the season or introduced in the beginning of the season at Gen Con and allow 4 Star GMs to get involved in the design of the scenarios in a similar way Open Design does.

Not only will this let your Seasoned GMs feel like they are really part of PFS and what goes into it but a few of them may learn enough of the design process that is involved with scenarios that you may get some future scenario authors out of it.

this is a good idea, but it's something that i would rather see as a generally instituted policy for anyone rather than just a reward for 4 stars.

personally, i don't see this working as a reward, since it's not something that every 4 star will really want to, or be able to, participate in.

however, as i said, i think maybe trying something like this out (open to the PFS public at large who are wiling to buy into the deal) for one or two scenarios each year might be a good idea.

My suggestion:

Every two-month period, Paizo could put PDFs in the accounts of people who have GMed some threshhold of scenarios over the past period.

/more stuff/

You could offer more PDFs for more reported sessions, but that's way too complicated.

to play off this idea, which is great, and to incorporate the ideas of scale printable maps being more readily available, and the idea of credit:

(this would likely be rather complicated to enact, but just to blue-sky a bit)

perhaps GM's earned points for running scenarios, and those points could vary depending on whether you were running a home game, a local game day, or running at a convention. running a scenario at a game day would be worth more points than running it at a home game, and running it at a convention would be worth more than a game day, say double or triple points, respectively. with the same system, you could also make certain scenarios worth more points than others - maybe running a table of the special at a convention could become a really big deal (not that's it's not already :) )

points could be redeemed for various things with various points. the least expensive being things like the printable scale maps. next step up might be scenarios themselves or perhaps discount codes to redeem on the website. after that, you get into more expensive point purchases - maybe single Battles minis, or PDFs of books, or actual physical copies of certain items like condition cards and the GM Screen.

i know there are downsides (verifying games actually played, cost of distributing actual physical products, etc.) that could be logistically nightmarish, but if there was a system like this that worked, i think it would be really enticing to GM's.

it appears that Bulmahn's yetis have come east to Wisconsin. thankfully, i'm well-stocked on Not Yeti brand yeti repellent. not sure how it stacks up against the more popular Yeti-Off or Yeti-B-Gon brands, but it is less expensive... AND cherry-scented!

of course, i suppose with yeti repellent, you likely get what you pay for.

Yetis stole my car.

Wes or Jason, one of you may owe me a new laptop if i can't get all this soda off the screen... ;)

hilarious reading, given that winter has finally hit wisconsin, too... seriously, hope everyone stays safe, though. :)

Additionally, the wearer can remove his head as a swift action

this is perhaps my favorite string of words i've read in the last month or so.

If you take one of the Tien human ethnicities, you receive common as a free starting language.

The new non-human races are not currently legal unless you receive access to one through a Chronicle sheet.

Thanks for the update, Mike!

Not to throw fuel on the fire, but Dragon Empires isn't in the Core Assumption, so I don't think you can just say that it "overrules" the older ISWG anyway.

If someone has the ISWG and makes a Tian character, that character starts with Common. You can't say, "Yes, well, this book that's more recent but that you don't own overrules your book, so nyah."

Actually, that's exactly how it could work. Newer books with updated rules items overrule older versions of that rules item. To use a different example, if I owned the Osirion book since it came out and made a character using the Serpent Lash feat, I was expected to update that feat to the newest iteration when the Rival Guide came out. Even if I didn't own said book, If I didn't own Rival Guide, I'd either have to pick it up or not use the feat.

In this case, though, it's a little muddied, because the Tian ethnicity in the ISWG is a "generic" Tian ethnicity, whereas the ones listed in the Dragon Empires Gazetteer are more specific ethnicities. It's currently unclear how all of this interacts, and it's an issue that should be addressed.

Mat Black wrote:

I...it's an eight hour round trip, ...

That means you can play a scenario during the 4-hour trip down. Murder on the Throaty Mermaid doesn't need much in the way of maps.

wouldn't be the first time :) ... we used to run LG mods on the way to GenCon and Origins... once, we even managed to synch it up between two different vehicles...

I'll have to see if i can get some of my janesville players together and head down for saturday... it's an eight hour round trip, but it would certainly be nice to have a chance to play some PFS for a change.

I disagree that they should all know common automatically. If they want to know it, they should take an Int of at least 12.

That actually makes good roleplay sense. Why would Tian Xia send idiots as their ambassadors?

The same reason that there a goodly number of INT 7 Pathfinder operatives running around. But to your question, I would pose another question: Why would the Pathfinder Society spend years training a member without making sure that they can speak Common?

IMO, allowing characters who do not have a way to effectively communicate with the rest of the part under the aegis of "good roleplaying" is kind of a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

As for the case of the Oracle, I honestly think that either they should be able to do the "read lips" trick without spending the rank in linguistics, or not be allowed at all.

I would like to think that the few players who would create a non-common speaking character would use it as a positive role-playing opportunity. However, having seen uber-opto builds, players wanting to directly interfere with other player's actions, and generally make a "legal" nuisance of themselves, I see this as being an exploitable way to create chaos at the gaming table and reduce the enjoyment of other players.

And also very much this.

i would agree. however, as it currently stands, that is not the case. i definitely think it should be added.

i vaguely recall something similar happening near the end of another very popular organized play campaign, when a few races popped up that had the potential not to speak common. it caused all kinds of stupid.

so, here's a question dealing with the human ethnicities in the Dragon Empires Gazetteer:

the additional resources page states that they start play knowing the languages listed. however, none of them have Common/Taldane as starting languages. does this mean that a character of one of these ethicities with an intelligence of 10 or lower could theoretically create a character who is completely unable to communicate with the rest of the party?

or should Common/Taldane be added to these ethnicities' starting languages, as the central setting for the Pathfinder Society is the Inner Sea region?

also wondering about the familiars, because i suddenly have a longing to play a teenage farm-boy-turned-wizard with a pig familiar.

Thanks, Bob. I think we're on the same page.

However, there's a bit of disparity between the wording of the Guide and Josh's ruling, largely due to the ambiguous "in between" scenario time. As far as I'm concerned, Josh's ruling that diseases (especially those that do ability damage) need to be resolved by the time the player leaves the table is the way that it works. I just want to make sure that there haven't been changes to that sentiment. Also I hope it can get clarified for the future - if not in the Guide, then at least in the FAQ.

The discussion that lead to this involved a player's GM interpreting the ruling as the character that contracted ghoul fever kept the disease from session to session until they recovered naturally or paid to get it healed, and did not heal any ability or hit point damage between sessions (though, the same GM may have been under the impression the hp and ability damage didn't heal between sessions even without disease).

So, a dialog has begun on the Pathfinder Society Facebook page that has become, essentially, a question about how to deal with diseases (particularly diseases that run the risk of death, like ghoul fever) between sessions.

My recollection was that the way it worked was as Josh Frost indicated here some time ago. I've been searching through the forums, but couldn't find anything updating or contradicting this, however, I wasn't able to find anything in the FAQ, either.

So, am I correct to presume that Josh's initial ruling is still the benchmark for how this works? Are there any plans to assimilate this more detailed explanation into a future version of the Guide?

sometimes i just wonder why people ask "why," when they know that there's not going to be an answer that satisfies them.

i think the reason that it was done as a roll is that those who originally designed the system just didn't want characters to be able to rely on X amount of gold after each scenario - they felt it was more dynamic for it to be a variable amount.

as for dice rolling at the end of the session taking too long, then have them roll the result at the beginning of the session while everyone is getting their dice out, note down the total, and then add in any extra modifiers that pop up after the end of the scenario (like leveling, etc). in my opinion, using the "it takes too much time" argument for something like this is just not a real concern, because there are always ways around that.

thanks guys, both valid points.

now i have to make a druid so i can have a dimetrodon animal companion.

Can a GM sign one of for himself (same character as the GM credit goes to), or only for players?

Yes.

And, if you play a different character during that time, can you ge a second sheet?

No.

I really love these holiday boons. it's a great idea, and i'm loving the frequency with which they are appearing.

so, a thought occured to me. maybe it's a compromise that's been brought up already, i don't know (there are a LOT of posts to wade through).

one of the complaints about the proposed rules change is that the rules as they stand help lower level characters get up in level faster to catch up with the others so everyone can play together. i'm not sure that i totally agree with that, as low than module level characters have to wait to get those chronicles...

anyway, what about a compromise that would allow players to temporarily de-level an existing PFS character by up to four levels in order to play a module that they would otherwise be too low to play. no leveling upward, no making a new character of an appropriate level and linking it to an existing character.

while i would like to see people be ok with the idea of playing mods at the levels intended, i personally wouldn't mind this as the beginning of a compromise. just my two cents.

Drogon wrote:

stuff

By your numbers it looks like you have a larger amount of Regular players then I do if you have been able to run that many High Level.

I don't have that.

I still say telling people to go home should not be a goal to fix a problem and I won't do it.

And I schedule my Games regularly and they sign up to attend, been doing that since day 1.

no one is saying that it's a goal. but, sometimes, it's something that's unavoidable. an an event organizer, i've never had to turn anyone away, but there have been some times where it's been close. if it had come to it, i would have had to let it happen because, sometimes, there's just no way to make it work.

part of what makes it work is that you need others who are willing to bend a little bit so that things go smoothly. if you've got a group full of players who say it's their way or else, then you've likely got more problems than just a level gap. (that wasn't specifically directed at you, DM. just a nebulous, general 'you.')

Mat Black wrote:

After spending about 20 minutes figuring out the various permutations of what could be run at this point (every four weeks there would be enough players for two tables), I've come to the conclusion that the entire thing busts open at this point. I've seen enough that I'm convinced that as long as a group is willing to work together, and do some occasional replaying and change up GMing duties now and then, the level gap is a myth. YMMV, but for me, this is enough data to debunk it. If you also consider that by this point, approximately 14 new modules will have been released, then there is more than enough room for players to stick together in a group like this. Again, this was all derived from Thod's original basis, and I did not set out with an intention of disproving the theory to myself, or anyone. I was just interested to see how it would pan out with the other factors.

You aren't factoring in turn-over whatsoever. Try doing your figures again with the following:

1. Every other week randomly select one of the current recurring players to stop coming.
2. Every week add a random player type (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly). However, also include these three new player types for players:
A. The person who only plays once.
B. The long-lost, returning player who may or may not become a regular again, but still wants to play with the old crew today -- even if they are now much higher level.
C. The coordinator's nightmare, the "sporadic package deal". A group of three people who never sign up in advance or play on any set schedule.

Without being able to grow to four or more tables and with high turn-over, this can definitely become a big issue.

There a huge number of things that aren't being factored. As I said, this was extrapolated from the idea of the original post. This also doesn't factor in sickness, outside convention play, days where the group can run two scenarios, etc.

This isn't how every group is going to go, and yes, real life messes up the patterns. But, for me, it's enough of a baseline to show that there are solutions to the level gap that don't *require* sanctioned module play to stay the same or similar. YMMV.

Mat Black wrote:

After spending about 20 minutes figuring out the various permutations of what could be run at this point (every four weeks there would be enough players for two tables), I've come to the conclusion that the entire thing busts open at this point. I've seen enough that I'm convinced that as long as a group is willing to work together, and do some occasional replaying and change up GMing duties now and then, the level gap is a myth.

So I am experiencing a Myth in my group good to know!

Asking Players who do not want to GM or are not good GMs is not always an Option.

If I am going to start asking players to replay for no credit, I might as well cancel PFS play here since it equals the same.

I wish people would stop denying it exist if it does not for them

I'm not trying to deny that there are groups with level gaps, I'm saying that, for me, it's a busted myth. As long as people realize that the paradigm of OP requires some give and take, including things like GMing or taking small hits here and there, it's not a problem - from my POV, it only becomes a problem if your group lets it become a problem.

Also, for the sessions where some of the theoretical players played without credit, a scenario that had already been played could have easily been substituted and would not have greatly affected the outcome.

okay, so my brain is sort of locked into this topic now, so let's examine what the data would look like if modeled after the parameters of society play.

sadly, i don't have any charts or spreadsheets, so you'll have to read. a lot.

so, as a pfs game requires a minimum of four bodies to get a table going, let's say hello to our data points:

We will presume that one of the original 6 players (probably Player A) has the basic human ability to extrapolate consequences and sees that the group will eventually run into level problems and/or experience GM burnout. To head this off at the pass, the agreement is made that while Player A will be the main GM, others will have to step up to the plate. To help with this, Players A, B, C, and D also agree to use the slow advancement on their "main" characters, when they can (not during the intros).

We will also presume that to kick things off, the group decides to start on a day when all of them are able to attend.

The players are starting today, with the number of modules that are currently available (90 regular scenarios, plus 3 intro scenarios). They decide that it is best to start with the First Steps series, and then begin at the beginning. This is happening in an alternate reality where sanctioned modules were never allowed into the campaign in the first place.

For character stats, character level will indicate the level of the character during play. * indicates a character gained a level at the end of the scenario.

So, before the new players join, Players A, B, C, D, and E all have 4th level main characters. Player E has a 3rd level character. Players A, B, C,and D have 2nd level secondary characers. Player E has a 1st level secondary character. With the exception of a few of the weekly players having to replay a few mods for no credit, everything has run more or less as normal. No real level gap is apparent. Let's see how adding some new players changes things. The agreement is made with Player G that as soon as hir main character is caught up to other weekly player's main characters, s/he will also start using the slow advancement. Players A, B, C, and D also agree to start slow progression on their secondary characters as soon as possible.

Week Twenty-nine: Where I end

After spending about 20 minutes figuring out the various permutations of what could be run at this point (every four weeks there would be enough players for two tables), I've come to the conclusion that the entire thing busts open at this point. I've seen enough that I'm convinced that as long as a group is willing to work together, and do some occasional replaying and change up GMing duties now and then, the level gap is a myth. YMMV, but for me, this is enough data to debunk it. If you also consider that by this point, approximately 14 new modules will have been released, then there is more than enough room for players to stick together in a group like this. Again, this was all derived from Thod's original basis, and I did not set out with an intention of disproving the theory to myself, or anyone. I was just interested to see how it would pan out with the other factors.

I would like to see a way to level a character in the midst of a module. I have played in one module (via PbP) and it is my understanding that all of them level you at some point during the module. I'm not sure how you would do this though. I'll think about that for a bit...

i forgot to mention that this is something i would like to see as well. as most of the modules seem to be written with the idea of characters gaining a level during the module (an anecdotal observation, but one that i've gathered by reading a lot of people talking about how deadly the modules can be).

thanks for putting the numbers together, Thod. they're very illustrative, but there are other factors that aren't being taken into account. for instance, if we're talking about three players initially, there is another factor that is, by necessity, occurring at the same frequency as player A - the GM (or, as is likely, a number of GMs).

one of the things that i've always heavily pushed when starting up PFS groups from scratch, is that while i'll be more than happy to be the main GM while things are getting established, there has to be a point when others step up to helping with that responsibility. often, this is going to be the player a types, especially when new players start entering the equation.

(you may very well have covered this point in part two. i haven't gotten there yet, but i wanted to mention it right away.)

edit- and actually, the more i look at the numbers, the less they make sense. if these three players exist in a vacuum with a nebulous GM who never plays, player A is unable to play at a frequency other than that dictated by player C. to make this feasible, you'd need to have three player A's (let's call them A1, A2, and A3) as well as at least one GM who runs at the same frequency of players A1, A2, and A3.

I think people underestimate how challenging it is to come up with 10 individual side plots that are interesting, don't interfere with the main plot of and adventure, aren't totally redundant, and have any chance at all of challenging players (they are supposed to be a little challenging). It's like trying to tell a story and run a bizarre mis-matched scavenger hunt all in one go.

Neil Mansell wrote:

Plus there is an issue of word count and it must feasibly be connected to the interests of the faction in question. Oh, and it mustn't conflict with any other faction missions.

Very difficult to do.

Oh, I don't underestimate it at all. I'm not asking for an epic story for each resolution, just more than "you talk to person x, and he tells you the unspecific information that you need to know. achievement unlocked."

For example:

Spoiler:

In the specific example above, it would not have taken anything to add in that they are sending large quantities of basalt and copper. Word count would not have been affected. There would have been no change to the amount of work put into writing the mission, and the end effect would have been a more satisfying resolution from a player's point of view, plus a launch pad for an author somewhere down the line to draw upon for an adventure idea.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Nothing that's going to take up more words, nothing that's going to increase anyone's work load. I'm not asking for BETTER faction missions, I'm just asking for them not to have a hand waved resolution.

One of the small disappointments I had during Season 0 of the campaign was the lack of specificity of some of the faction missions. They really are an opportunity to give a great narrative element to the campaign, but far too often, they fell somewhat short of that and really just seemed tacked on.

During the two years that I've taken away from the Society, I've still kept very (some might say obsessively) up-to-date on the changes in and direction of the campaign. I was really happy to see the addition of yearly story-arcs, more factions, and other elements of the campaign. I've since moved to a new area with no PFS presence and decided to get it started up. I was very excited to jump into the current season and introduce new players to the ongoing storyline.

While I wasn't terribly disappointed, I did have to give a little sigh as I was prepping The Frostfur Captives and noticed that the faction missions are still a little flat.

Sadly, it's the exact sort of thing that I was disappointed in seeing during Season 0, and I'm a little disheartened to see that particular specter still hanging about. Granted, I can certainly make up the details (and I probably will), but to me, the lack of detail is a gigantic missed opportunity for a springboard for future plots - not just for events in future scenarios, but for upcoming modules, Adventure Paths, novels, and more.

I'd like to make a request/plea/suggestion to the authors, writing directors, and whoever else has a hand in these things, to try and utilize this great opportunity to its fullest extent going forward.

Okay, so I managed to get through the first two pages of this thread before realizing that I just wasn't going to make it through 5 more pages. Also, it seems that all salient points had already been brought up by about halfway through the second page. So, this is just my two cents about the proposed rules, with the caveat that all of the sides of the debate, even the ones I don't personally agree with, have good and valid points.

To preface, I've only played three actual PFS mods, though I've run well over 20 sessions (lack of stars aside), but I've never had a chance to play or run any of the modules. Honestly, they've always seemed a complete tangent to the campaign, and there's never been a need for me or any of my players to turn to them. That being said, what I would like to see for sanctioned module play is real risk, real rewards, and as much continuity as is possible in an organized play environment. I don't like the idea of having proxy characters (pre-gens or otherwise) or having artificially de/leveled versions of your characters. I think playing a sanctioned module should be a very special sort of event, a major undertaking. While I deeply and viscerally understand the issues that can arise with level gaps in smaller groups, I really dislike the idea of using it as a level catch-up. I would be perfectly happy for sanctioned module play to be level-appropriate characters only. To go even further, I wouldn't even mind lower than average Prestige awards, but very cool and special rewards on the Chonicles.

As for allowing sanctioned module play for characters above 12th level, I'm all for that, too. It's obvious there's a desire for it, and I think that modules are, in general, a much better solution than producing a lot of special scenarios.

There's been a bit of a tangent discussion of the pre-gens rolled into this discussion as well, so I'll comment on that as well. In my opinion, pre-gens serve two major purposes - to add to a small party to round out abilities that aren't already represented, and to provide players new to PFS a way to join in a game in a sort of walk-in fashion. To emphasize those points, I am whole-heartedly behind the idea of making the pre-gens a little more optimized, along with adding pre-gens for the classes that don't already have them. One of the other things that I would really like to see is to have character sheet versions of them available, as well as the stat block versions. The stat block version is incredibly useful for a GM, but is less than optimal for a player - especially a new player.

So, all in all, I quite support the proposed changes - admittedly, though, it is because it more closely supports my idea of what place modules should have in the campaign. Even if it comes down to making absolutely no changes to the way modules are currently played, though, it won't affect the way that I run my Game Days or my view of the campaign as a whole.

Also, I think it speaks a lot of Mike that he made the announcement, and opened it up to debate, opinions, and criticisms.

Boon Companion -- Seeker of Secrets.

that's what i was looking for. thank you!

So, I'm looking for a feat that would allow a multi-classed druid to use their character level to determine the level of their animal companion. i've looked through the APG, UC, and UM, but the closest i've come is the feat that lets a cavalier use their character level to determine their mount's level.

i'm looking specifically for a PFS character, so it would need to be something that would be in the additional resources list.

does anyone know of such a feat off the top of their head?

I really wish I was able to make it down there. I attended a few years during the LG days, and GamiCon was one of the high points of each convention year. Great location, great people - an all around great time...

If anyone is on the fence about going GamiCon, get off the fence and go. You won't be sorry.

I know the store "I'm Board" in Middleton, WI (right next to Madison) is trying to start up PFS.

I'm down in Janesville. If folks in Middleton need any help getting started, get them in contact with me and I'll be happy to provide them with anything they need.

Can someone please explain how prestige works with the first steps adventures?

I don't know how much to assign when they complete the adventure. Anyhow help would be appreciated.

this has come up a number of times. a quick search through the forums for the words "first steps prestige" would have pulled up this post.

hope that's a helpful answer.

i'll be running First Steps, part 2 on 12/03 and was thinking that changing

I for one dont want to see ANY involvement in PFS in PFO or vice versa - they should be completely spearate things & have no influence on each other in any way, shape or form

so, out of curiosity, do you also think that there shouldn't be any crossover between the Pathfinder Tales line and PFS? What about the Pathfinder Modules and PFS? I'm just wondering where you would draw the line between what product lines interact with which other product lines.

personally, i think paizo's ability at cross-marketing their products without going overboard is one of their strengths, and if they were to do it with PFO, i'm sure that they would do so in a pretty good way.

so, the announcement of PFO has me pretty excited. i haven't actually been interested in an MMO since back when Earth and Beyond was still around.

so, as the game is still in development, i think it would be a Good Thing (TM) to do some community brainstorming for things that we, as would players, would like to see in the Online game that could enhance or support Pathfinder Society.

one of the most obvious ideas that jumps out at me is the ability to earn special boons for PFS characters based on accomplishments in the game. i'm thinking that there would be way to send pdf's to subscribers when they achieve said goals. now, of course i see that there could be some possible abuse with this sort of system, but i think if boons were kept to small benefits, like those in the holiday chronicles, or time-sensitive, they could be pretty easily managed.

i'm sure some people will have a knee-jerk reaction to the thought of people that play the online game getting benefits that people that aren't playing don't get, but i think the idea is a good one to discuss.

who else has some ideas?

Jason S wrote:

I have mixed feelings about the boons.

On one hand, I like the idea behind them, however I'd rather have my players EARN the item from a short encounter (roleplaying or combat) related to the season. What I really want to do, is spend 10-20 minutes introducing the players to the roleplaying flavor of Golarion, rather than just give them free loot.

Then write something up and do it. Feel free to share your short encounter here in the forums. In a perfect world, I would love to do this. We simply don't have time. But, if fans want to create short roleplaying encounters that introduce the boons, by all means I highly encourage it. I would love to actually see these and I am sure that more than a few GMs would appreciate them. Unfortunately, we simply don't have time here at Paizo to add extra workload.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Mike. Personally, I would love to show up at a Game Day and have a little 10 to 20 minute pure roleplaying encounter as a sort of prelude to the actual adventure. As long as there isn't any gain other than the Holiday Boon, I don't see any reason why people shouldn't do this for themselves. I'm now planning to this very thing for our Game Day in Janesville, WI on Dec 3rd.

Also, Mike, you're doing a great job. The "trust the player base" attitude is very nice and refreshing. I'm loving these holiday boons and I'm looking forward to other great new innovations that I know will be coming.

Dragnmoon wrote:

I am soo confused on what you guys are asking for...

The Pregens in the Beginner Box are the Same Iconics the PFS pregens are....So where is the problem here?

Same names, different builds.

BB Valeros: Power Attack

PFS Valeros: Two-weapon Fighting

This was part of my original question, which was if there had been any thought given to mechanically rewriting the PFS pregens to be mechanically identical to the BB characters. However, as it's since been pointed out that the BB characters use a 15-point ability point spread, it's more or less a moot point.

Mat Black wrote:

1) Are the pregens from the Beginner's Box society-legal? I thought I remember hearing somewhere that they were going to be, but I just wanted to be sure.

No they are not, you can get the Legal PFS Pregens here.

Just to make sure I was clear, I am aware that the characters in the Beginner Box are not the "Legal PFS Pregens." My question was if they were PFS-Legal - i.e., using the PFS character generation rules, could I build a character identical to the Beginner Box character? (minus the wizard likely having scribe scroll)

Mat Black wrote:

2) Assuming they are legal, can new players use them similarly to the existing PFS pregens - i.e. play through a beginning scenario, but then apply the chronicle to a new non-pregen character?

If no to number two, then has any thought been given to changing the stats for the PFS-legal pregens to match those in the Beginner's Box so that using them would be easier?

So, since they are not legal...

You can still do this with the Legal ones I linked above.

As indicated in the original post, I am aware that you can do that with the existing PFS pregens.

ummm.... Stats or Format?

Stats need to keep with the PFRPG not the Beginner box, there are differences, the Format should stick to the PFS Character Sheet, which currently they are not. The format they use is not really good for players IMO. I would prefer if they went away from the bestiary format to the Normal Character sheet format.

My point was that if the Beginner Box characters are built using a PFS-legal point-buy, there's no reason not to update the existing Society Pregens' statistics, keeping the same format, to match the statistics in the box. This would let those of us already familiar with the game to have the characters in a format that we are familiar and comfortable with (because we all know how much most gamers detest anything that is different from what they are used to ;) ), while at the same time allowing the pregens from the box to be used by new players for their first game. I'm not advocating a "either or" situation - there's absolutely no reason that we can't have both.

As I will be soon be starting up a monthly event and may have some players that are new to Pathfinder (and possibly some who will be first-time roleplayers in general), I was excited to see the pregens for the Beginner Box posted as a free download. I was hoping that I would be able to use the new-player-friendly format.

However, upon further inspection, it appears that while they are they same iconic characters, there are some statistical differences between the Beginner Box characters and the PFS pregens.

So, this leaves with a couple of questions:

1) Are the pregens from the Beginner's Box society-legal? I thought I remember hearing somewhere that they were going to be, but I just wanted to be sure.

2) Assuming they are legal, can new players use them similarly to the existing PFS pregens - i.e. play through a beginning scenario, but then apply the chronicle to a new non-pregen character?

If no to number two, then has any thought been given to changing the stats for the PFS-legal pregens to match those in the Beginner's Box so that using them would be easier?

So, I started playing and running PFS back at the very beginning of the campaign (event #13, oh yeah!). Sadly, I didn't get much of a chance to play, but I did manage to get up to 3rd level before the actual Pathfinder RPG released.

Since the release of the PFRPG, I have not had a chance to play, but I did run a few sessions after the rules for GMs getting credit for running scenarios were introduced. So I've got a few more scenarios that were (theoretically) applied to that character. However, since I knew that I was not going to be playing, and have not had a chance to play since then, I never took the time to update the character from 3.5 to PFRPG.

Now, I am looking at having some potential opportunities to play, so I've got a weird situation. Am I able to update her using all of the current additional resources allowed, even though there have been GM rewards that have (theoretically, anyway) been applied without updating. Or am I constrained by only the resources that were available at the time?

Of course, this is all contingent upon me actually finding what I did with the actual character.