Mike Lindner's page

Like I said if you want recognition or boons, prizes it is best done at the local level, not corporately. Come to SCARAB and volunteer for me and I'll take care of you.

It is offensive to me that you are devaluing the work done to support the campaign because someone is earning a living doing it while simultaneously saying that your work is somehow more valuable because to do not get a pay check to do it.

Maybe I'm misreading your tone here, but I must disagree.

I don't think a local coordinators efforts are more valuable than those of a paid employee, but I don't think they are especially less valuable either. No local coordinator should ever be expected to spend even more of their own time, effort, and money to reward others for doing their part. This is a community where we are all mutually dependent on each other to be able to enjoy the game. Given that, I think that everyone has a responsibility to ensure the health of our gaming communities in whatever ways they can. Someone who is GMing every 4-6 games isn't "stepping up." They are simply doing their part.

Am I surprised and thankful when I go to a con and get a GM goodie bag? Yes, absolutely (and some have been truly amazing). But I do not expect it. Knowing that such things come from the organizer's personal resources means that I am fine with getting a sincere thank you from them. Give me tables of engaged and enjoyable players on top of it (with no drama :D) and you'll see me at the next con for sure.

I have been reading this thread steadily and have given more and more thought to it. As a local coordinator what I want more than shiny baubles as a thank you is better tools to organize game days. Help me by providing tools to show me what scenarios my local players have played vs. not. Help me to know when my local GMs are hitting their star milestones. Help me set up recurring events on the event listing.

As I type this I have an idea percolating in my mind... time to head over to the website feedback area and start writing I think.

I've found 4-18 Veteran's Vault to be a very good scenario and while it can punish poor tactics it is quite survivable for newish players (some XP would be good). It can be an excellent scenario to use for teaching new players both good tactics including working together as a team as well as some things to expect and be prepared for in PFS scenarios.

Honestly, the only real issue I have is with GM skill level. Even with the faction mission stated out directly, I have seem GM screw things up royal. Like forgetting to tell a faction where one of the item they need is...or forgetting an NPC that is faction vital as just some guy over there. I shutter to think what would happen when the optional goal is even MORE vague. I'm okay with the whole table works on one extra side quest deal as it makes things a whole lot easier...but I think the players really should know ahead of time what the extra side quest actually is and not some vague do something over there somewhere.

The problem is that GMs have to juggle telling the main story along with keeping 10 additional side missions in their head that may only have a few lines of text describing them. People can only keep 3-7 things in their head at one time. In a PFS scenario most if not all of those are usually already taken up with the various points of the main story. With this change the GM just focuses on the main story and possibly one or two faction missions that are tied to it. Since all the objectives will be related it should be much easier for GMs to keep the necessary details fresh in their minds. I think this will improve the play experience noticeably.

I hope the requirements to earn the secondary prestige point are not revealed to the players. Keep in mind the description of what will earn the second prestige point - it's not some side quest unrelated to the main mission that you have to guess at blindly. It's going above and beyond to show that you are a capable, motivated Pathfinder Society field agent; that is, that you are deserving of prestige and acclaim for going above and beyond. That you aren't just following orders but thinking and looking out for the greater interests of the society and your fellow field agents. At least that's how I understood it and hope it will work. Prestige and fame aren't something a person gains to great extent by doing the minimum amount of work necessary - not on Earth and I hope not on Golarion.

Overall, I think this new prestige system will encourage players to be more creative and more engaged, and have more of a say in how scenarios play out.

Nothing says that you can't claim to be associated to one of the many other organizations on Golarion, such as the Ninth Battalion. You could interject little tidbits about scouting out enemies of the dwarven kingdoms for future elimination as you play. Some groups have existing ways of becoming an official member, such as the Risen Guard, but short of that just find a group that interests you and come up with a character background for it.

Strong character concepts are (almost) always more fun to play with than a character that is little more than a stat block.

Sior wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

But my real prediction is that all Season Zero scenarios will be requested to be removed from future play. There's no good in continuing adventures set 5 years ago, with different factions and different adversaries. The challenge ratings are ridiculous and the overall feel, to me, anyways, just isn't the same as the newer ones.

I have heard whispers of this being a likely possibility. I don't know if they'll wait till the end of summer when season 5 rolls out or start with this announcement. We'll find out today!

I hope they don't retire Season 0 entirely - without Season 0, Among the Dead makes no sense, and several decent scenarios would be lost. Season 0 gives a nice option for GMs who want to run a second, short session with low risk to players after a really rough scenario.

Considering that there are season zero scenarios scheduled for Gen Con this year, this does not seem likely.

Keep in mind too that role-playing, i.e. social obstacles, count as encounters as well, not only combat.

I finally have confirmation that I will be attending. Yay!

Mike Lindner wrote:

So far as I am aware there is currently no mention of catfolk existing in Golarion as one example.

There is at least one in

** spoiler omitted **

I think they were also in the Dragon Empires gazetteer?

Nice recollection of 3 lines in the book.

VALASHMAI JUNGLE
Here There Be Monsters
Alignment: CN
Capital: None
Notable Settlements: None
Ruler: None
Government: None
Major Races: Catfolk, grippli, lizardfolk,
xills, various degenerate humanoids, monsters
Languages: Abyssal, Catfolk, Draconic, Grippli, Infernal,
pidgin Tien

Lesser races, such as catfolk, grippli,
and lizardfolk, are quite numerous in the jungle—their
tribes vary in size and outlook, although savagery is
generally the rule in such wild environs.

Mason Whitlark wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Sure. A very few goblins that had worked, essentially as slaves for the Shadow Lodge before the faction came over to the Pathfinder Society, decided once the "evil" part of e Shadow Lodge was disbanded, and they were freed, petitioned and received trial entry into the Society.

The Onyx Alliance attacked the Grand Convocation. During the battle, some fetchlings advised they no longer wished to be chained to the Onyx Alliance and wished to join the Society. They were brought in and the Decimverate decided to allow a select few into the Society on a trial basis.

How's that?

Now I just want to know when all those Ratfolk are going to enlist.

Right after the Abasalon all you can eat cheese and wine festival?

Fortunately the cheese and wine festival is right here, and it never ends. :D

As a 1st level spell caster I enjoy taking the Metamagic Feat: Rime Spell, which entangles the subject damaged by your cold spells for 1 round / level of the spell caster. Then you take the Metamagic Master Trait and have it apply to the a First level spell. I enjoy using Icicle Dagger. This trait allows you to -1 from a certain spell's metamagic level usage.

So at first level I have a spell that on a melee touch attack deals 1d4 points and entangles the target if you even deal 1 damage to them.

I was curious about whether the conjuration considered the dagger to actually be a real dagger, or a spell. Upon looking up the conjuration school in the Players Handbook it says that if it has a duration it's still considered a spell and is held there solely by magic. Therefore the Rime Spell would still actively affect it each round? Below are the terms to make up your own mind. DM discretion I suppose

Icicle Dagger
School conjuration (creation) [cold]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range 0 ft.
Effect one icicle
Duration 1 minute/level
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You create a masterwork dagger out of ice. The dagger deals 1 point of cold damage in addition to normal dagger damage. If the dagger leaves your hand for more than 1 round, it melts and the spell ends. At 6th level, the dagger functions as a +1 frost dagger. At 11th level, it gains the returning property when thrown, melting away and reforming in your hand just before your next turn.

Rime Spell (Metamagic)
Benefit: The frost of your cold spell clings to the target, impeding it for a short time. A rime spell causes creatures that takes cold damage from the spell to become entangled for a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spell.
This feat only affects spells with the cold descriptor.
Level Increase: +1 (a rime spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.)

Conjuration Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter...

The spell isn't doing damage though. The spell conjures a dagger and the dagger is doing the damage in the same way that a Summon Monster spell doesn't do damage, but rather the creature it summons does damage. So you can't do persistent metamagic summon monster and have all the spell-like abilities of the creature be modified by the persistent metamagic.

GM and give them the opportunity to play.

Mike Lindner wrote:

I ran this at subtier 1-2 last night for a group of 3 players + 1 pregen. The basilisk won initiative and turned the monk to stone before she could act. The ranger put some hurt on it taking it below half health with one volley, but Valeros then rolled a natural one vs. the gaze and was petrified. Round two the basilisk made the strength check to bust out of the cage and over the next two rounds chased the ranger down taking her to -1 HP causing the last player, a witch, to run. The basilisk then had a snack of the ranger.

We all learned just how deadly a basilisk can be.

That's an interesting approach. Sadly, there are no tactics for this encounter, but I didn't have the basilisk try to get out of the cage. My logic was that if the basilisk could break out, it would have done so already.

I really wish that they would print tactics, even for monsters who are found in the bestiary.

The tactics are in the scenario.

Creatures: Two grumpy basilisks squat in the pen (in Subtier 1–2, one of the basilisks is off elsewhere under Zincher’s Arena, hunting). The basilisks gaze at anyone they can detect. If foes retreat, the basilisks attempt to burst out of their pen and pursue them.

The witch and ranger had moved back around the corner toward the entrance, so the basilisk pursued.

I have a Wayang.

Having been through all that, he now uses what he learned to serve the Society as an alchemist to pay back his debt of freedom. Well that and he really had no where else to go.

As Starglim noted, you sign your own sheets.

I kind of want to get all the VCs to send Mike their GM chronicles for signatures now.

Tamago wrote:

I just want to raise the issue for the campaign coordinators. I know that there is a lot of talk on these messageboards about scenarios being too easy, but please keep in mind that it is quite possible to swing the pendulum the other way and make things too difficult.

My 2 cp...allow GMs the flexibility to adjust encounters by changing the number of "mooks". In a home game I can do that, but in PFS I cannot change the mechanics.

Nope. This one change could make me stop participating in public play. I am convinced that this one change would kill more PCs than any overall increase in scenario difficulty.

It's also worth noting that season 0 scenarios were originally written to be used with D&D version 3.5, before Pathfinder became a separate game. Apparently, there's some minor translations necessary to make all the stats and everything line up properly if you're going to run those. I've avoided those for that reason.

Except for 0-05: Mists of Mwangi which was updated to Pathfinder and is an awesome scenario.

Welcome. Let me introduce you to Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, and over there in the corner is Mike.

I think having the blurbs in the first few pages would help more for those people who've played tons of stuff quickly figure out if it's one they can play.

It seems pretty simple then. Set up warhorn or a similar mustering tool and get the other GMs to start using it. It hurts both the GMs and the players to run scenarios cold constantly.

Mike Lindner wrote:

Also, I really don't see why a stat block should count towards a word count limit at all.

I just saw this specific question, and it jumped out at me as something to answer specifically.

Because authors don't always get their stat blocks correct, and they have to be reviewed and corrected. The Excel sheet is not foolproof and there is stuff it doesn't do. That takes Mark time during his day. His time is also valuable. He's got so much time to do so much work, and still have a weekend and time for his family. And he works his ass off to keep up with the pace.

(EDIT: This applies more to stat blocks that have templates where the stat block from the relevant Bestiary is altered. I can't speak to the matter of stat blocks that would come directly from the Bestiary without modification.)

I once grappled with the same issue. "If it's a PDF product, what does word count really matter?" It matters because someone has to read, proof, correct, or develop those words. They also have to go through layout- but that's a whole other department I don't know much about.

You can shave a lot of production and develop time with a short stat block.

And yes, that time is then put off on the customer. You're absolutely right.

It comes down to reconciling whether the extra prep time is worth a hopefully better scenario in other respects.

So the solution is simple. Turn Mark into a lich. :D Then he'll have plenty of time. I'm sure there won't be any nasty side effects like him trying to take over the world or turning Washington into Nex.

Really though, I do understand this limitation, but it's still rather frustrating since it seems to go in the opposite direction from my own ideal.

And to be clear, from what I understood it's that the stat block isn't just counted towards the word count, but applied towards some limit set overall such that an extra stat block means less descriptive text for the scenario. This is what seems wonky to me.

I really just wanted to get my own perspective heard so that when the folks in charge think about these things there is weight on both sides of the scale.

Word count Don. Production costs.

First off, let me say thanks for providing a perspective from the other side of the fence.

The reason that shortened stat blocks annoy me most is that it may save the writer and developer some time but that time is spent once. The cost is that every single GM has to spend that time when running the scenario. From a certain point of view, it's really making the scenarios more expensive: not in dollars, but in the valuable time of the customers. It's hard for me to see how putting that additional burden on the GMs is worth it. Also, I really don't see why a stat block should count towards a word count limit at all.

I wish each scenario had an appendix with the full stat block (with all templates applied) for every creature in the scenario, broken up by subtier (all lower subtier creatures, then all higher subtier creatures). This could still exclude common spells, feats, etc.

Okay, that's my rant for the day.

Bestiary feats are not legal. You cannot combine natural attacks with a flurry of blows. So your choices are (at level 1):
* flurry - 2 unarmed strikes (no claws or bite)
* full attack - bite, claw, claw (all primary attacks)
* full attack - unarmed strike (primary), bite (secondary)
* attack (standard action) - bite or claw or unarmed strike

Bite attacks do P, B, and S all at the same time.

Keep in mind this restriction, "The item cannot be activated to provide just one of these two effects; they are always activated simultaneously."

Feather fall can only target a freefalling object or creature and ends as soon as the target hits the ground. It is my argument that activating it while on the ground would then only provide the invisibility effect. Since this is expressly disallowed, you cannot activate it unless you are freefalling. Simply while airborne, such as using a fly spell would be arguable.

Now, as far as single use vs. unlimited use goes, if the item is indeed incorrect, then I do hope this is clarified. I agree with the above posters that it shouldn't be errata'd just for PFS; it should either be in a FAQ or the item should be disallowed in PFS until a correction appears in the errata or a FAQ.

jreyst wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Mike Lindner wrote:

The Snapleaf wondrous item found on page 319 seems to beg for some errata. It allows for nearly constant invisibility, including in combat, for just 750 gp since there are no restrictions on when or how often it can be activated. And it's slotless to boot!

It's a one-use item.

Maybe I'm missing something but how would one know that by the text? I suppose one could infer it by the name including "snap" as in "I suppose you're supposed to snap it in half when you use it?"

Honestly, I think I had the same question when I first saw the item submitted to RPG Superstar...

I have to echo jreyst's comment. I looked at the linked thread of the original submission and the text indicating it is supposed to be single use was removed when published in UE. Please add this to the FAQ or errata when you can.

There are some items that seem to be single use with the assumption that people can identify them as such without explicit wording, such as the Apple of Eternal Sleep, but there are others such as this where I don't believe it as so clear. Hindsight being what it is, it would have been nice to just have a little icon added to items that are single-use or a table of them somewhere; a standard symbol to indicate it would also eliminate the need to spell it out in every entry.

Here's a list of spells that specifically target humanoids and so cannot affect outsiders.

Bungle
Canopic Conversion
Charm Person
Daze
Daze, Mass
Dominate Person
Early Judgment
Enlarge Person
Enlarge Person, Mass
Fairness
Ghoul touch
Hold Person
Hold Person, Mass
Mad Hallucination
Moonstruck
Reduce Person
Reduce Person, Mass
Sentry Skull
Skeleton Crew
Sotto Voce
Unconscious Agenda
Vocal Alteration

As a GM who acknowledges I can really suck sometimes, I would love to know how to do better. Please, if your GM asks if you have any comments about how they can improve (and you have some), then SHARE THEM. I try to make a point to ask if there's anything I can improve or anything I did that people liked and less than 50% of the time does even a single person respond.

I didn't do this all that much at Gen Con because I often didn't have enough time to give folks my attention after the game when I needed to go running around to grab some food, use the restroom, etc. before being back for the next slot. I'm now thinking about making my own comment cards for the next convention I GM at though. Thanks for the idea.

I have a simple solution. Make more brownies, lots more. Cut off the edges for the heathens and save the middles for the good, righteous folk of the world.

Indeed, thanks for the clarification. All this learning is making it increasingly difficult to make rules mistakes at the table, dagnabbit.

I'll just put it this way: I don't particularly care for medically unwarranted plastic surgery. I think you should be happy with who you are, warts and all. But I don't begrudge others access to it.

roll Will save against this thread... 1. Rambling time!

What you are actually suggesting is not just changing how someone looks today, tomorrow, and into the future (like taking a new class at level up), but changing the chalk drawings the PC's parents hung up as a kid, changing the PC's school portraits, changing the PC's friends in his/her formative years, etc. You are retroactively changing who that person is, their personality, their history, their reasons for being who they are today.

My highest level character has a trait he has never used. Okay, there was one exception but that was just so I could use it, it actually just wasted a turn in combat for me. But that's part and parcel of who he is. If he had taken, say, Reactionary (just another trait after all) instead of Attuned to the Ancestors it could have significantly altered any or all of the combats he has taken part in.

These retroactive changes don't just change that character's story, but in terms of a unified game universe they change the history of every character that PC has ever interacted with. A character I might have saved if my initiative was higher at the time is still dead today. Or in the opposite case of dropping Reactionary, a character I saved from death now has no reason to be alive because I would have been sitting on my hands instead of dispatching the enemy that killed them. This is why I think breaking the continuity of who a character is is not a path we should tread.

With that said, I welcome first level retraining. To me that is a reasonable compromise acknowledging that few people will get all the mechanics right from the very start for the character they want to play. Let's take our first level retraining, hash out some great characters, and live with their eventual flaws just as we accept the flaws in the meat bags around us. That is after all what makes us who we are.

To me the best reason to not allow rebuilds apart from the mechanics of running an organized play campaign in any sane fashion is that it brings up the obvious question of "who are you exactly?" You could adventure with another character for numerous scenarios then one day they show up but you can't recognize them. But then, yesterday you were a sunder happy fighter and today you are a smite happy paladin.

Remind me, who are you?

Just as players are a collection of their experiences, I feel that PCs are too. Last time we played we almost died due to an ambush in a darkness spell. Today you have 120 ft darkvision as a built in racial ability. How does this make sense?

I think if you want a rebuild you're essentially asking to create a new character already.

I used poker chips for defense points in part 3 and it seemed to work well. The chips also worked as a means of tracking the progress of setting up defenses for the town with each chip being 5 villagers. I made up note cards for each action and the PCs just shifted their minis and the chips around the cards for each day of preparation.

Kyle Baird wrote:

For this specific scenario, if raise dead isn't an ability the party possesses, is it assumed that the PC has to travel back to the material plane to get raised? Does that force them to lose out on the boon since they must purchase spell casting services?

A PC could buy a scroll of raise dead just in case before departing on this mission (which is reasonable by 7th level) or just buy a 5,000 gp diamond to keep on-hand if you are playing with a cleric of 9th level or higher. In any case, a PC who needs to be raised and who can't have such an effect be taken care of by the party on hand must return to Absalom to get it done and would sacrifice the boon in the process (which seems a small price to pay to get to play Part II at all considering the alternative).

If a character dies and needs to go back to town to be raised, does that force a choice of: someone else in the party must carry them back, themselves forgoing the chance at the boon vs. the dead person must pay the (additional) 5 PP to have their body recovered?

On a different note, if there are additional restrictions placed on getting the boon beyond just playing them back to back, please note this in the scenario description; I'm talking specifically about being stuck "in scenario" and not being able to purchase spellcasting services, perform day job checks, etc. DMs/coordinators should not have to dig into the scenario to provide the up front info to potential players that you are asking them to do.

Along those same lines, if a player does choose to stay "in scenario" and they then miss the chance to player the subsequent part, can they opt out at that point? If not then there is the real potential of making a character unplayable until the local coordinator decides to reschedule that scenario (if ever).

This is a very good idea, but you need to make sure the cleric is carrying the scroll in a scroll case at her side at all times so she can withdraw it as part of her move action to get up to you and still cast it as her standard.

Just get a spring loaded wrist sheath for 5gp to go with the scroll. Then it's a swift action to get the scroll in hand. The first thing my sorcerer does each scenario is straps a sheath with a breath of life scroll to someone who can cast it with clear instructions on how to use it should I hit the dirt.

There is some inconsistency in the descriptions of a number of prestige classes. Not all prestige classes that grant an increased level to a spellcasting class have text granting the same benefits of increased spells per day, spells known (if a spontaneous caster), and effective caster level.

Of particular concern to me is the wording for the Divine Scion class which states:

Spells: When a divine scion gains a level, she gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in a divine spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class. She does not, however, gain any other benefits a character of that class would have gained. This essentially means that she adds the level of divine scion to the level of whatever other divine spellcasting class she has.

If the character had more than one divine spellcasting class before she became a divine scion, she must choose which class she adds each divine scion level to for the purposes of determining spells per day.

Notice there is no mention of increased effective caster level or spells known for spontaneous casters. So as written if I were to have 5 cleric levels, then take 3 levels in this prestige class the character would have an effective caster level of 5, not 8.

Prestige Classes and Spellcasters: Does a wizard (or other character that uses a spellbook), receive bonus spells to add to his spellbook when he gains a level in a prestige class that grants an increase to spellcasting?

No. The increase to his spellcasting level does not grant any other benefits, except for spells per day, spells known (for spontaneous casters), and an increase to his overall caster level. He must spend time and gold to add new spells to his spellbook.

—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10

Can this be clarified to indicate whether the Divine Scion or possibly all PrCs with "+1 level of existing arcane/divine spellcasting class" are supposed to grant all 3 benefits?

For reference:
The wording is similar to the Divine Scion for the Diabolist, Cyphermage, and Harrower PrCs.

Some PrCs leave out the bit about gaining spells known but do grant an increased effective caster level, such as Genie Binder, Balanced Scale of Abadar, Spherewalker, and Crusader.