|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Andrew Roberts wrote:
There is also a boon that would allow Wayang Spellhunter...
Replying to the original question:
I believe that Yes, a PFS GM can allow or disallow certain dice, be they physical or electronic.
One thing that has come up in my local area is:
Can an event organiser or VC prevent a PFS GM from using the dice he chooses, be they physical or electronic.
On a similar note, would you consider it a Jerk Move to prevent a PC casting a Create Pit spell if they don't have a 10gp miniature shovel on their ITS/Character sheet - in the middle of combat, where the success of the spell could have significant impact?
To be fair, Mike Brock ruled the same way two years ago when he GMed Bonekeep for me.
I understand that this is a little late, but it's highlighted my main objection with herolab.
Yes, the rules are 'bonkers' and unclear in a lot of spots. Spots where there might be two or more possible interpretations. Spots where it's up to the GM to make a call.
Using HeroLab, the call HAS been made, and the user does not even know that the point was in contention.
One of the advantages of the summoner class is that it is powerful enough to give you the freedom to take whatever concept you feel like and build it.
One of the disadvantages of the summoner class is that if you set out to optimise it, you'll completely break your character.
The concept you've proposed is sound, will work, and will be more than viable enough to handle what most scenarios will throw at it.
I would suggest: flavour appropriate small race (consider gnome, perhaps halfling): it would be difficult to justify a wayang coming from Lastwall (which prohibits you from taking Wheeling Charge).
Start with 14 str (after mods), and 14 con. Distribute the other stats as you see fit: halfling and gnome both get racial bonuses to Charisma, and even 15 is enough for a character like yours.
Heirloom weapon and Armor Expert as traits (you don't want to take armour check penalty on ride).
If you pour your feats into the mounted combat line, you'll have Spirited Charge by 5th.
You'll be stuck with light armour, so consider Mithril Breastplate (armour check penalty is zero with Armor Expert, so no nonproficiency penalty), or Elven Chain.
There are several factors that have affected matters locally. They are, in isolation, little things, but it adds up to a less flattering experience:
For some players and GMs, these factors compound, making them less enthusiastic.
One thing I'd like to see is a more direct avenue for the GM to give feedback on "that weird occult character" that was playing on my table.
Would be good to see how the presence of one of the new classes affected the game from the GM's perspective.
I find GM fulfillment in delivering a good experience to the table, where I feel that everyone has gained more than just a piece of paper.
The worst thing that can happen is when, as a GM, I'm just there to present combats to powergamers and give out chronicle sheets at the end.
It's when I start thinking "Why am I even here?"...
This has happened twice in the last fortnight, where a character 'roleplays' his way into killing off important NPCs, disrupting diplomacy, and blowing the party's cover.
Knowing that character's race or class doesn't change anything.
A simple solution - if feasible - would be to make it a single sheet that can be folded over. Really depends how much text is required.
(Personally, I make extensive use of my printer's duplexing functions)
I feel that this is a big step in the right direction for Pathfinder Society. It will be good to see these changes in force.
One thing though:
Include full stat blocks for creatures modified by the advanced, giant, or young simple templates.
I hope that this extends to creatures modified by other templates, such as various Mythic templates that seem to occasionally pervade monsters out there.
I try to avoid disclosing my character's class, and rather focus on what he does to contribute. If I claim to play 'artillery', whether I'm bringing a sorcerer, an alchemist, a gunslinger, or a multiclass druid/fighter shouldn't matter.
A class is nothing more than a set of abilities and modifiers. It is the character who defines it.
I was pretty sure that there wasn't a "penalty for failure" clause with regards to taking 10. Of course, if there is, I'd be interested to know...
(Not only because I've been playing a character who has managed to avoid rolling a single dice. He's level 3 now.)
The biggest change that the ACG has done is made it impossible for someone who doesn't devote hours per week into study to know all the rules. Whether this is a bad thing or not is still up in the air...
It's not cheating.
It's still not cool. As I see it, if it happens, it clearly falls into an organisational failure, up there with running scenarios cold. It can generally be avoided with good regional coordination.
Out of the 110 or so tables I've ran, four of the worst five tables have had at least one person who had read the scenario previously on it. This may be a coincidence.
Actually, the guide is pretty clear that you can:
Guide p20 wrote:
I'm also unconvinced. The name on the box has little to do with the name referenced in the code. Also the implication that Microsoft is worried about code 16+ years old from 3rd party programmers, as others have pointed out, is pretty hilarious. When has Microsoft EVER shown that kind of concern for users/3rd party publishers?
Microsoft's concern for maintaining compatibility with legacy code goes back since at least 1983. MSDOS 1.0 maintained calls that allowed CP/M programs to run on it with little or no modification. TWO BYTES were all that was required to port Wordperfect to MSDOS 1.0.
Joel Spolsky highlights it best:
Windows 95? No problem. Nice new 32 bit API, but it still ran old 16 bit software perfectly. Microsoft obsessed about this, spending a big chunk of change testing every old program they could find with Windows 95. Jon Ross, who wrote the original version of SimCity for Windows 3.x, told me that he accidentally left a bug in SimCity where he read memory that he had just freed. Yep. It worked fine on Windows 3.x, because the memory never went anywhere. Here's the amazing part: On beta versions of Windows 95, SimCity wasn't working in testing. Microsoft tracked down the bug and added specific code to Windows 95 that looks for SimCity. If it finds SimCity running, it runs the memory allocator in a special mode that doesn't free memory right away. That's the kind of obsession with backward compatibility that made people willing to upgrade to Windows 95.
Pretty much the only reason people use Windows these days is because it allows them to run pretty much any Windows program on it, without recompiling or anything like that.
Force people to get new programs, and they'll either keep using Windows 7, or jump ship. I hear linux, BSD and OSX are all happy to cater for them.
Silhren Rilbahn wrote:
I would think that the "excess baggage charges" would be a perfectly good reason not to bring books to a convention.
I daresay that in the last convention I attended, I would have very few characters available to play had they enforced the rules to the letter.
It would largely prevent me from attending any international conventions.
Rereading the as-written rules, it seems that there are a lot of holes in the current system.
A player could have a watermarked PDF on a nonfunctional device, and I would be - as written - able to use that resource.
Yet a photocopy out of the hardcover Advanced Class Guide that's in the boot of a player's car would not be.
I would much rather the latter case to occur on my table.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
There are some reasons why the entire book would be a good thing to have. However, the current additional resources rules don't require it:
Additional Resources wrote:
n order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list
I think we can agree that the only difference between a printout of the relevant pages of a watermarked Paizo PDF and a photocopy of the relevant pages of a Paizo book is the possible ambiguity in ownership.
Ah, it's this time of year again.
It's been thirteen months since this has come up previously, and what I said then still applies.
Basically, we need to prove ownership and to make rules available for reference.
A photocopy will satisfy the latter, and the former should be satisfiable by some form of VO affirmation.
How many times did the following occur?
I didn't hear that happen two years ago.
I understand that given that it's acknowledged that the masterpiece is considerably more powerful that it was intended, and given that it's Paizo policy to refrain from issuing errata until a second printing of the book, removing it from the list of additional resources appears to have been the only solution.
Generally, when a situation arises where several people dislike (or outright refuse) to be on a table of a given, 'legitimate' quality, it does highlight a serious problem.
I've played bonekeep 1, I've run it, and I've prepped it several times.
I've also heard people talk about playing it, and running it, and have witnessed it being run by other GMs.
One thing that I've noticed is that it seems that there are some rulings and effects that don't appear to have been consistent between these runnings.
In the interests of providing "an even, balanced experience to all players" (as stipulated on p32 of the Guide), can someone please explain the meaning behind these effects, and how it should be run?
I'm a little late to the party, and I don't really want to get involved with the whole copyright side of things. But.
You see, about a month ago, my computer WAS hacked. As far as I can tell (from the various logs he left behind), all that the hacker did was attempt to start mining cryptocurrency, but it's impossible to be sure.
Other than removing the intruder's access and rebuilding the machine, does Paizo want me to inform them that a small subset of the PDFs that I have (I don't think the machine had that many Paizo PDFs on it), might be in-the-wild?
Are there channels for this?
I feel that replays of any sort aren't particularly good for PFS. I would definitely be fine with allowing additional GM credit chronicles each season, however.
Of the five worst games I've run, four of them had at least one person replaying.
I am very happy to see the aasimar and tiefling go - Once Blood of Angels/Fiends was released (and made legal) - the population increased significantly.
Several local players have remarked that there is no reason to have anything else.
In addition, the prevalence of these Native Outsiders invalidated several NPCs tactics. (throw away your Charm Person, Hold Person, Dominate Person spells).
I'd like to add that what really annoys me about the new style faction missions was that they threw away the season 0-4 faction missions for those scenarios.
I can accept that for the new scenarios, it might be a good idea to add new faction missions, but to throw away five seasons' worth of faction missions in exchange for - what seems to be - watered down 'secondary success conditions' seems to be folly.
What I'd like to see would be the reinstatement of the old faction missions when running season 0-4 scenarios.
I am bumping this thread, partly because there hasn't been an official ruling on this, and partly because of a worrying conversation I had with my local VC, who claims that:
"If a monster is uniquely described in a scenario/module, it's extremely rare."
To the extent that a 32 on a knowledge check would be insufficient to garner any information about the (weakened) CR10 monster at the end of Carrion Hill.
And, on another occasion, that a knowledge check in excess of 30 would be required to get information about the monster described in Bonekeep 1.
Bonekeep 1 monster:
The CR7 rat demon
I think that some guidelines - even something like "unless specified in the scenario, the knowledge DC of a monster cannot exceed DC 15+CR" - would help improve consistency.
Hmm... Looks like I represent minority Prestige Classes here..
Arcane Trickster 5
It was the GM's opinion. The VC and PFS management didn't contradict it. It happened late last year.
I have had the misfortune to experience a rather severe case of a GM significantly changing a scenario, not only making it a lot harder and resulting in a failed mission, but making what we played so different from the printed scenario that I felt we didn't really play the printed scenario at all.
The way this was handled ("you didn't die, suck it up, the chronicle stands") has coloured my views of Pathfinder Society ever since.
I'll add Aquatic Druid with an Inquisition to the list.
Chris Sharpe wrote:
Wishcrafter is definitely bad, unfortunately I think it'd be hard pressed to tell my players to use a racial boon to make a terrible character in Pathfinder Society
I would be willing to mail an Ifrit boon across the Tasman if someone wanted to use it for this purpose. Just give me an address.
Mark Stratton wrote:
So the player knows that GMs have a problem with his character, and you yourself were frustrated by it. Yet he plays the character anyway.
Seems like 'jerk' behaviour.
Shouldn't the player show some responsibility and consider how the GM feels about this?
I find that the existence of a 'hard mode' is counterproductive: it gives powergamers a 'justification' for powergaming. In organised play, a character who intends to play on 'hard mode' will not always be in a 'hard mode' scenario, playing with other players of similar disposition.
I am not in favour of increasing the difficulty of encounters in PFS scenarios.
Pathfinder Society is now mature, with a large catalogue of scenarios to draw from - which are still (for good reason) sanctionable and reportable.
A change in difficulty level invalidates this large asset, as the encounters are trivialised in comparison to the new, harder scenarios.
It is better for a concerted effort to discourage the playerbase from creating such characters that trivialise encounters and cause threads like this to be created in the first place.
Build your characters so that they ARE challenged by the scenarios; don't insist that scenarios are created to challenge your characters.
When a GM is running a scenario and is continuously having encounters trivialised, they start thinking 'Why am I here?'. This causes burnout, and I have experienced it.
We have a thread where a GM wishes to refuse powergamed characters from their table, with several responses amounting to "suck it up or leave". I contest that a cultural change against powergaming would be more useful advice.
I would like to note that Andrei and Stephen White have (implicitly or explicitly) put a lot of effort into curbing powergaming in their local area (Melbourne, Australia), and it is one of the best places I've played PFS. Continuing a power spiral will invalidate their work in this area.
So you 'want a DM to challenge you and the best builds you can make', yet you complain when a GM makes the combats harder? Even though a GM isn't ABLE to challenge 'the best builds' (without 'cheating'), due to being constrained by the scenario?
I don't see how you can have it both ways - unless you intend to encourage even more power creep in PFS...
The dangerous precedent is the fact that a player who creates a legal character in line with books he owns would be required to know every subsequent Paizo publication's content that *may* 'revise' any item/class/feat that he has taken, to ensure that his character remains legal.
You're suggesting that every PFS player should buy every Paizo publication (and read them cover-to-cover) on the off chance that they might change something they've already taken.
If a published item is incorrect, and a corrected version is available in a different book, then the incorrect version should be removed from additional resources. I will reiterate my point regarding the APG staves - their prices are about 50% of what they should be, so when UE came out, they were removed from the Additional Resources list. This does not penalise anyone, and removes an unreasonable onus from players.
A player is not required to have the most recent copy of a rule - there are at least four legal sources for the infernal healing spell, and if a player were to present me a copy of the Gods of Golarion version (which stipulates that for a sorcerer/wizard to cast it, they must worship Asmodeus), it would still satisfy the additional resources requirement.
As I see it, if multiple legal sources of a given option exist, any of them can be used.
This is the first time I've heard that the 'newer book has priority'.
In other cases, including the living monolith, and the prices of APG staves, the ruling has simply been "remove the incorrect item from the Additional Resources, then allow the old one to be grandfathered in."
In this particular case with the brass knuckles, I can see the case for not grandfathering in the old item.
Still, I think that a 'newer book has priority' rule would set a dangerous precedent, and require a player to keep up to date with everything Paizo publishes in order to continue playing a legal character in PFS.
I would hope that the scenario writer would have the statblocks that they intend to use written out /somewhere/, in order to develop, and playtest the scenario. Even if these were presented in a supplementary, less-polished PDF, it would be useful.
I believe that Paizo is releasing approximately two scenarios per month. Playing more than twice a month is therefore unsustainable. Luckily, if you're a relatively new player, there are a Lot of scenarios to keep you going for at least a few years.
I believe that the intention is for PFS to be a marketing opportunity to encourage players who can commit to such regular gaming to consider Adventure Paths.
The easiest way is with Polymorph Any Object, which, purchased as a Spellcasting Service, would set you back 1200gp.
If a Kobold is 'related' to a dragon, you will have a Duration Factor of +9, which is enough to make it permanent.
It seems that the VC and VL in my area are stating that Eyes of the Ten are to be retired soon, probably by the end of this year, and are encouraging local players to aggressively level up their characters in order to play it by then.
I have not been able to get any second source backing up this information, and would really like to know if there's something else going on regarding this.