Navdi's page

Please cancel my subscriptions for:

Pathfinder Chronicles

Pathfinder Companion

Thank you.

The reviews weren't good and the people who spoke to me said they were thoroughly confused because the opening read aloud didn't tell them what to do.

How is this a good thing?

I'd rather have bullet points, lists of names, short descriptions of events, a brief mission description, and timelines than read-aloud texts. I never use the read-aloud -texts anyway. Then again, I GM in Finnish.

Why doesn't it just say: "These rules don't really work, make something up on your own or use the old 3.5 (ECL = LA + HD) system."

This order has had the status pending for quite some time now. Could you tell me what the status on this one really is? Is it waiting for a delayed product to be included? Are there some other problems with it?

I also noticed a previous order had been lumped together with this one, putting the total cost and weight of the package into probably the next postage charge and value added tax category. Could you give me some information regarding this?

Some comments.

Love the art. Most of it beats the art in the MM hands down.

Like the fact that the animals are correctly alphabetized.

The PDF file is very heavy with layers and slow to load. Makes it very hard to find anything in it fast, for example during a game.

But with more explanations from the person who built the book. My apologies if the additional details were extraneous.

As mentioned above, some of these monsters are actually in the book, they're just kind of hidden. And several others are in the bonus bestiary. The eladrins ARE in there, but they've been re-named to be azatas (since the word eladrin isn't availble; it's owned by WotC).

A dozen or so will NEVER be in the game because they're owned lock, stock, and barrel by WotC (beholder, carrion crawler, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, kuo-toa, mind flayer, slaad, umber hulk, and yuan-ti).

There are some who have been given new names (eladrin to azata for instance).

Some of those that were excluded are in the bonus bestiary.

Some are WotC IP.

Did a quick look-through. Might have missed a few, and there are some who have been given new names (eladrin to azata for instance). And didn't bother looking up the mundane animals or their dire versions. Some of those that were excluded are in the bonus bestiary, some are WotC IP, some are from older open source (dark folk for instance), and some will most definitely not be missed (bye bye, tojanida).

Of the new one's I welcome the linnorm, the sea serpent and especially the SHOGGOTH.

GONE

achaierai, allip, athach azer, beholder, belker, bodak, carrion crawler, chaos beast, delver, destrachan, devil - hellcat, digester, dinosaur - megaraptor, displacer beast, dragonne, eladrin, ethereal filcher, ethereal marauder, frost worm, githyanki, githzerai, gray render, grick, grimlock, hippogriff, howler, inevitable, krenshar, kuo-toa, lammasu, locathah, magmin, mind flayer, nightshade, phantom fungus, phasm, rast, ravid, sea cat, shadow mastiff, shield guardian, slaad, spider eater, sprite, tendriculos, thoqqua, titan, tojanida, umber hulk, yrthak, yuan-ti

NEW

azata, basirond, boggard, cave fisher, cyclops, dark creeper, dark stalker, demon - nabasu, demon - shadow, dinosaur - ankylosaurus, dinosaur - brachiosaurus, dinosaur - pteranodon, dinosaur - stegosaurus, flytrap, froghemoth, goblin dog, intellect devourer, linnorm, mite, morlock, neothelid, phoenix, pixie, sea serpent, shoggoth, tengu, vegepygmy, yellow musk creeper, yeti

They're going up today yeah?

Here's a quick preview!

#33 Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible by Craig Shackleton
** spoiler omitted **

#34 Encounter at the Drowning Stones by Tim Hitchcock
** spoiler omitted **

Actually playing #30 The Devil We Know Part 2 - Cassomir's Locker took us 5 hours to complete. That was, however, because we took very odd tactics in the first encounter (also ran back to the store to buy ladders...)

The other reason why this scenario ran long was because I pretty much added role-playing opportunities to every scene involving NPC-characters able to talk. This included the cultists, the fey and the prisoners.

You forgot about our GM's altar. When a character dies, its player must bring an offering (normally a raw steak) to the GM for him to devour it barehanded. The connectin to Cheliax must be clear now.

But how do you know whether someone is coming to replay or not? This holds a problem in conventions where you might encounter jerks, who know about replaying and just keep kinda quiet, yet are suspiciously knowing about what happens next... but don't say that outright.

Actually, I'm just pulling your strings here. My real point is that if people are going to cheat, they'll find a way no matter which rules are used.

What's this thread doing in the rules questions forum? Its obviously discussing a house rule.

I know its a fine balance, but if the goal is to make things more challenging, I'd rather see three or four more difficult encounters than to try and run a couple extra "grinders" to wear down a party, but again, that's just my preference.

I'm confused here. I was under the distinct impression we, as GMs, were not allowed to modify scenarios when running in the PFS. I remember asking this question last year and received a big, fat official "no." This included changing the monsters to the number of scenes.

Anyways, here's a quote from the Pathfinder RPG rulebook (p. 402):

"Likewise, don’t feel bound to the predetermined plot of an encounter or the rules as written. Feel free to adjust the results or interpret things creatively—especially in cases where you as the GM made a poor assumption to begin with."

Funny stuff.

I think the number of encounters is pretty standard (five + zero or one optional). Then again, you seem to be using the term encounter to describe a combat encounter, whereas a more accurate description would be "scene". I think you are correct, however in that the trend in recent modules seems to be five scenes with combat. I agree with you in that this is way, WAY too much combat for any module, much less one you are supposed to be able to fit into a four hour time slot. I'd also prefer modules with less emphasis on combat and more emphasis on exploration, social interaction, investigation, and such.

I heard the reason Josh puts so much combat into modules is "some group in Finland is walking all over the modules without breaking a sweat". This is true. Most of the modules are cake-walks for us. The answer to this, however, most definitely isn't "more combats". Its more along the lines of "more challenges", meaning less straight up combat encounters, more wiggle room for innovative problem solution, a wider variety of challenges, and maybe as little as two or three well thought-out combat encounters per module. You can't just boost the amount of fighting. It'll only degenerate into an arms race.

Can I get a page reference for Infernal Healing?

I have been looking through the pdf of Cheliax: Empire of Devils and can't seem to find it!

Thanks.

Well, as a capstone to 20 levels of this base class, I'd give the fishmonger the ability to, once a year, sell a fish that grants wishes. After all, there are likely enough deaf fishermen in the world, and fishermen who just do massive gill netting and such, that the cries of "Wait! Wait! If you let me go, I'll grant you three wishes!" must occasionally go unheard, so the magic talking fish must reasonably end up with the fishmonger.

Mattastrophic wrote:

I found is that where the baseline Greyhawk module contained two combats, the ones with the best plots contained two.

Clarification, since it's too late to edit...

*...I found is that where the baseline Greyhawk module contained three combats, the ones with the best plots contained two.*

One approach would be including social encounters that affect the combat encounters. For example: Lets say the group is supposed to fight a group of bandits guarding a fortified townhouse. If they go in the front door just run the combat encounter as it is (difficult combat). If they sneak in, they get the drop on the bandits (combat made a bit easier). If they get really innovative and recruit a few burly villagers to help them, they get reinforcements against the bandits (combat made easier still).

The example above is one way of making a boring combat encounter more interesting. I don't think something along those lines would take up too much space.

But shouldn't I receive the XP even if the character leaves the mission after briefing? It counts as a failed mission for sure, but don't you get XP from failed mission, as per the guide.

"In any scenario, so long as a PC played three encounters, they’re awarded their XP for that scenario." (PSGtOP v.2.0. p. 19)

So the paladin detects evil on the cleric and the cleric comes back *ping* evil. In my opinion, the paladin would now regard the cleric cautiously, but wouldn't have to flee from his/her duties as a Pathfinder just because the cleric detected as evil. If the cleric started committing evil acts, then the paladin would be forced into action, but since acting evil is strictly prohibited in PFS, this becomes a non-issue. What I'm not going to do at this point is declare, "since the PC detects as evil, the paladin now has to receive an atonement spell to atone for associating with an evil character" because, frankly, the character isn't evil.

The other problem is that Pathfinders commit evil acts pretty much all the time. Sometimes its written into their society mission or faction missions (steal this item, kill that guy, arson that warehouse, etc.), sometimes its just "business as usual" (Kill people and take their stuff). So choosing to play a paladin in the Pathfinder Society is really taking on a role-playing challenge.

Yet another problem is the dilemma a non-evil character worshiping an evil deity faces in following said deity's dogma. But this has nothing to do with the OP's dilemma.

I don't think Samuli is looking for any kind of declaration or ruling on the issue, rather he's probing for ideas on how to best role-play situations that might arise due to this these two characters participating on the same mission.

Assuming the cleric isn't violating the paladin's code by committing evil acts, there really shouldn't be a problem. After all, the cleric's alignment isn't evil, he/she just pays homage to an evil deity.

As in not taking the Long Walk, as is mandatory for any retiring Judge? Or did you mean surviving to retire to take the Walk?

The game will probably contain a timeline allowing you to set your game in any period. My personal preference would probably be sometime after the reign of Chief Judge Cal, but before Hershey. In my mind Hershey is still a street judge. ;)

What if we could leave replaying to Pregens only but somehow reward a person filling a table using a Pregen?

Reward them with gold or PA to apply to their lowest level character?
Only allow one "fill the table" reward per table?

So, yes, running a pre-gen for GM reward -equivalent benefits would be acceptable.

Thank you, Hogarth. That's exactly what I'd like to avoid, that is, the situation where players can grind through sessions just for the rewards. This isn't role-playing at all in my opinion.

Sure, sign me up. You can bunk on my sofa during your stay in Finland.

Not all stories will be for everyone. I do think that will get some people worked up.

To avoid confusion as to who put what into who's mouth I'll just spell it out for you. Non-linked one-shots with little more plot-content than "go get McGuffin X, kill everything between your group and said McGuffin" are definitely not everyone's cup of tea.

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Now, that said, what if replay looked like this (condensed version):

1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.

I'd be fine with it assuming the different character gets full credit for the replay.

What makes it hilarious is that there is a dungeon within walking distance of Absalom that has matching flavor: the Spire of Nex. Add a table that randomly changes the layout and description of each room and you're good to go.

I think Paizo and/or GM's could do something a lot more interesting with the Spire, but it is practically written as the replayable dungeon.

"Captain! There is trouble on the holodeck! Again!"

If replays are allowed, how about designing the adventures to include more variety? For a given Act, how about giving a few options per tier? Obviously NPC's would be too difficult and lengthy to include multiples, but what about Bestiary creatures? Give the GM a choice of a Spider Swarm or a Centipede Swarm. Give alternate energy sources for creature/NPC special abilities. For casters, provide alternate spell blocks. If there's 3 tunnels, have the GM decide which tunnel leads to which rooms/encounters.

How's this: once a year Paizo puts out a module ideal (from what I take is the preference of at least some of the people against meta-plot in this thread) for the pick-up replays gamer. It would consist of a dungeon with five rooms. For each room there would be an encounter chart on which the GM rolls randomly when the group enters. This module, and only this module, could be replayed indefinitely, since it would be different each time! Ingenious! And no pesky fluff or plot getting in the way of a good old fashioned slug-fest! Roll for initiative, its time to role-play!

Yes, I am indeed joking.

It will be a plus for some, maybe even a majority, for others it will just be over looked. As long as most every one is happy, so be it.

How's this: once a year Paizo puts out a module ideal (from what I take is the preference of at least some of the people against meta-plot in this thread) for the pick-up replays gamer. It would consist of a dungeon with five rooms. For each room there would be an encounter chart on which the GM rolls randomly when the group enters. This module, and only this module, could be replayed indefinitely, since it would be different each time! Ingenious! And no pesky fluff or plot getting in the way of a good old fashioned slug-fest! Roll for initiative, its time to role-play!

Yes, I am indeed joking.

Why? Why would you quit PFS altogether if replaying is allowed? Why do you think that every other PFS player in Finland would also quit playing? In another thread, you said, "In Finland, our active PFS player pool is about 30 strong, with five active Dungeon Masters." Do all 34 feel the same as you?

The most likely outcome of allowing replays in PF is a complete break-away from the main Pathfinder Society global campaign, which would then be replaced by a localized version (a very large and organized "home game" if you like). We'd still be using the modules and the basic structure. We'd just "house rule" said replay-rule, along with a few other rules we don't agree with. The replay rule would end up being the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. Then again, I'm sure the global campaign would do just fine without this rather small, albeit very vocal minority of players.

If I were to pick up (or play in) PFS modules, I don't need a complex storyline -- no matter how well it would be written; I want an easy-to-run adventure in which the "action" can start right from the start. I reserve complex storylines over-arcing campaign plots to my home games, and that's enough for me.

DM4hire: Some good points. However, I can't resist nitpicking your terminology somewhat:

Metaplot

The metaplot is the overarching storyline that binds together events in a role-playing game. Major story events that change the world, or simply move important non-player characters from one place to another, are part of the metaplot for a game.

Metagaming

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.

So, what's in store for season 1? What kind of plotlines and scenarios are already being planned or even written? So far we've had precious little information regarding these. I'm supposing the next batch of scenarios will be out on the last Wednesday of this month, that is September 30th? Give us teasers! ;)

The whole point is that RAW Lehmuska is absolutely correct, even though his interpretation is against the spirit of the rules. This is what's called a rules loophole. And yes, I am aware that its easy to fix with a house rule. However, for example in an organized play environment, we don't have that luxury. Until an official errata, the rules are that a cantrip that gets metamagic'ed is still a cantrip and follows the rules of cantrips.

dieing is not a real issue. if I die I'm not sticking for an hour or more on the chronicle or scenario sheet that said heres for nothing. if I you don't have the sheet it didn't happen work both ways. an I think that was posted as much some where.

EDIT: On the issue of no replays or replays allowed: Allowing replaying of scenarios is something that really shouldn't happen in any kind of campaign continuity. If I wanted to replay adventures I'd play a computer game or a board game. If replays are allowed in PFS I'll most probably join NiTessine and call it quits for society play.

1) This scenario has a lot of good atmosphere in it. Be sure to give as much beef as you can to the city of Kibwe. I personally described bits of it as 19th century African town where the British roamed. I made many of the locals speak Polyglot instead of Taldan, too.

Merging the two encounters worked out quite well. I'd imagine the howler encounter might have felt more like a random encounter if Nangi wouldn't have been involved. That being said, the encounter was way too easy. I think it lasted all of four combat rounds. Also, I don't really see how a group might end up fighting Nangi, so why is there a statblock for him?

The ghost encounter was funny. This is what happened: The barbarian and the ranger ran away and the three Chelaxian casters just hung out with the dead guys until they'd heard all of the lyrics bits, then blasted the ghosts with evocation and conjuration. Again, too easy.

The giant roaches got fireballed and finished off with arrows. A pointless encounter.

The Andoran quest -elves were just laughable as an encounter. Our skill monkey -halfling just snuck past them with skill roll totals of 50+ while the rest of us used diplomacy skill roll totals of around 40+ to convince them stop worrying and start loving satan.

The end boss was a breeze. Three save-or-sucks on round one and that was that. He didn't have the chance to cast a single spell.

Boy did the barbarian love this adventure. He got off one shot (at a ghost). Everything else was solved with Conjuration, Evocation, Diplomacy or Stealth. Pathfinder RPG really fixed those problems (the skill system and the power of arcane magic in comparison to fighter types) with the original game, yes sirree (The Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit problem).

"Massah, we no go further! Is tabu place! Is EVIL!"

If I understand you correctly, your proposed solution to the specific situation I gave is to completely ignore (except for purposes of determining NPC's reaction) conflicting experiences of meta-plot; in consequence I'm not clear if what you actually want is meta-plot or more frequent use of highly detailed recurring NPCs? :-?

Now let's say four different players come together from different groups at a convention to play your Scenario #9. Of these players, two have played Scenario #17 before, and both of them and a further one of the players have played Scenario #3 before. One of the players has not played any of these scenarios before, but is going to play Scenario #9 later at the convention.
Furthermore, one of the players who has played Scenario #17 got the 'good' result for Sir Gull, whilst the other player 'failed' that scenario in a way disasterous to Sir Gull's career.
Now what is the GM running the game, looking at...

etc etc.

This is all about the GM listening to his players and reacting. Anecdotes and customized responses are a great way of creating a sense of continuity and hooking player interest. Yes, I am aware that this is a trick, since the continuity is really illusionism. Its meant to create a sense of continuity without actually forcing a series of events.

And, Navto, if someone just plays one of your first two sample scenarios, there's nothing that jumps out as an oddly-shaped fact or piece of plot.

This can be done. Continuity adds immensely to the gaming experience and while it might require some hard work on the writers' part its totally worth it in the long run.

Regarding the comments about meta-plot elements forcing you to play scenarios in a specific order: I can think of several ways of implementing a meta-plot -structure or other continuity elements without actually forcing anyone to play scenarios in any a particular order.

I'll give you an example. Say the meta-plot element is the rise of a new member to the decemvirate. Let's call him Sir Gull.

Scenario #3: The Pathfinders are sent on a mission to retrieve an important artifact. Sir Gull is personally overseeing this mission. If the mission succeeds, Sir Gull will get a personal prestige boost.

Scenario #9: The Pathfinders are sent to investigate a misdemeanor by a prominent member of the Society. If the mission succeeds, said prominent member gets b&##* slapped by the society leadership, opening up a position for Sir Gull's ascension to the decemvirate.

Scenario #17: The Pathfinders are sent on a ruse mission, which gets botched at the first hurdle. The real mission turns out to be something different involving the double dealings of competing venture-captains. If the mission succeeds, one of the venture-captains (Mr. Gull again) comes out ahead. Clues uncovered (foreshadowing for the future) casts a shadow of doubt on the real motives of said venture-captain.

There, three modules involving the short storyline The Rise of Sir Gull. These can be played in any order.

Wizards copying spells into their spellbooks from scrolls found during scenarios or from the spellbooks of other wizards (PC or NPC). How does this work in PFS? Lets say you have two PC wizards participating in the same mission. Assuming they have the time and money during the scenario to buy the necessary components, are they allowed to copy spells from each other's spellbooks?

Let's assume these two wizards are on about equal level and co-operate on most missions they play. Every time one of them learns a new spell, the other one copies the new spell into his own spellbook as well (again, assuming they have the required time and money available during the scenario). This means these two wizards effectively gain double the amount of new spells each level. When the wizards are of a high enough level, the cost to copy spells isn't really a problem anymore.

A wizard finds a scroll with a new spell during the scenario. He copies it into his spellbook. The scroll vanishes, obviously. Then it reappears on the chronicle sheet. Of course the other wizard in the party can also copy the new spell from the first wizard's spellbook.

Color me perplexed.

Anything that helps the world come alive is a definite plus. Meta-plot, when carefully used, is a great tool for making players come back to the game time and time again. Meta-plot works. Proof positive, the immense popularity of television series with strong, elaborate and very long meta-plot structures. I for one would really like my character's actions to matter. There should be more in-game reasons for accomplishing missions, otherwise you're just looking for excuses to kill people and take their stuff.

As for changing the GM rewards/day job items: the GM rewards system came about after a thread wherein I asked for everyone's opinion on just such a system (a thread very much like this one). It started with the release of v2.0 of the Guide in August. Within hours, folks were asking for changes. Where were they in the previous year when I had the thread open asking for their opinion?

Personally I'm for GM getting a copy of the chronicle eaten.

I think the DM should get full XP, prestige award, gold and access for the module he has eaten.

GM's should:
1) Gain XP as if they had played the scenario,
2) gain prestige benefits as if they had played the scenario,
3) gain gold as if they had played the scenario,
4) NOT gain any faction rewards, and
5) be able to play in any scenario they have not yet GM'd.

I like the idea of GMs getting one XP and one Prestige Point per scenario that they eat. They should also get the gold as if they had completed the scenario.

I'm in for: the XP, gold depending on character's level (I know there's some table in the DMG, but I can't find it. Wealth gained by level divided by 3), and maybe the equipment access... depending on the character's level. E.g. the DM's 1st level character couldn't get Tier 3-4's equipment access even if the group plays it on that tier.

I'd prefer full GP for tier. I'm still giving up all access and 'special' bits.

I agree with most of WHat Josh has recommended EXCEPT:

50% gold will mean that the PC will be incredibly behind.

I live in Oulu, so I haven't yet played in any Society games, but we do have several local groups that have switched to PF RPG, though. Once I've moved to Helsinki I'll join the games over there (I think they're also running PFS scenarios at Fantasiapelit?).

Get in touch when you move to Helsinki. Contact info on the website.

We truly are; they even mentioned it in the biggest Finnish RPG magazine (it was part of a glowing review of the Pathfinder Setting and Pathfinder Society). I don't know why, but I, too, felt instantly inclined towards Cheliax (even before I knew that it's everyone's favorite faction over here).