The Disappeared is the main one that I have not played. I could potentially do The Night March of Kalkamedes as well, and switch out of it at Kublacon. Also, God's Market Gamble would probably work. I am trying to switch tables at our store, and just need to find a 2nd DM. :-p
It's unclear from the entry in Additional Resources whether familiar and animal companion archetypes are sanctioned, or whether feats can be swapped. Also, to what degree are archetypes and feats usable with Improved Familiar options?
Some friends who hate power-gaming might blanch at the idea of this book, but I'm excited! Sounds a bit like Planescape for Pathfinder, but with a rules system to support the interdimensional themes.
My apologies if it seemed like I was actually doing PvP, D30. I'm not personally feeling the need to attack you or Petrel.
I am trying to roleplay how Mobled might respond to being compared to an orc. She's a bit of a bully and sensitive to certain slights, like being compared to her people's greatest mortal enemy, who've been holding her captive and torturing her for weeks or months.
Honestly, it would probably be more in character for her to start wrestling Petrel to the ground, but I'm trying to avoid actually have her assault the party...
I totally respect the weird delusional creation that is Petrel, but I don't see a way around an argument in this situation.
I'm pretty out in my gaming, and actively work to weave my mostly gay, lesbian and/or trans characters' love and sex lives a part of my roleplaying. Not usually in a salacious way, although there was that tantric temple prostitute/sorcerer...
In general, i've found gaming groups and Pathfinder Society to be fairly tolerant places, but definitely not always comfortable or fab. I'd put gamer homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism in a few buckets that can be a drag.
"That's so gay,""pansy," or even the occasional "f-g" are common enough at the PFS or home game table. Luckily not too common...
The occasional young male gamer or older meat head has a more irritating gross out moment when encountering an LGBT NPC or my PCs. Sigh.
There is also the typical straight bro thing, making jokes out of hugging each other just a little too long, etc. Not hostile humor, but still annoying.
Mostly, I find that straight GMs don't know how to respond to the gay themed roleplaying threads that I try to feed them, and drop them like a hot potato (no matter how quaint and non-sexual I'm trying to be). This is a drag, especially when the same GM puts energy into developing other PC's straight romances... I suspect this is as much about not wanting to offend by doing it wrong, as it is about their actual discomfort with gay sex and romance. But it still lessens the gaming experience.
Most straight gamers don't say anything when these things surface, leaving it to the queer folks to call bad behavior out. It's pretty rare that a straight gamer realizes they have to actually make an active, vocal effort to create a welcoming space for LGBT people. Usually, I feel like we have to sink or swim. Luckily, the gaming community is relatively tolerant. But folks could do a better job of making it explicitly welcoming.
I've been really pleased with Paizo for actively creating LGBT non-player characters in mods, and hope they continue to build on this tradition.
They've also been pretty ground breaking about trying to address some of the legacy of racism in the industry, like by having a greater diversity of skin tones and phenotypes in their artwork. Still, as I've said elsewhere, there's still room for improvement—the pulp fiction references in their Sargava materials are especially in need of a 21st century tweaking, but that's all been said before...
Having read Mike Brock's post in follow-up to the 'cheaters' discussion, I feel that he and Paizo have addressed my primary concern, which was about tone and inclusivity. I appreciate the great care Mike brought to this latest communication.
Thanks, Euan, for leading a great conversation. I don't know how others feel, but I believe your approach helped draw out some great ideas in a constructive manner. Glad that the Society has you!
Thanks, Mike, for a post that greatly eases my mind as a player and customer. I appreciate the great amount of effort and commitment you have put into your work, and the great care you put into crafting this post. It reaffirms my respect for you and Paizo as a company.
The added detail about the specific problems is very helpful—especially your framing of the Fourth Instance. This was the substantive area of most concern to me in discussion around your previous post. It makes sense that you would want clear feedback about mods, not just have judges tweak without any sort of consistency, and without any sort of feedback or communication when a mod proves clunky.
As a sometimes-judge, I would be more than happy to provide more immediate feedback about scenarios (and that includes positive as well as corrective feedback), especially if there were a standardized form with specific prompts.
It's a pleasure to be able to have open, respectful dialogue with you and the rest of the Paizo community on these matters. Thanks again for being receptive while also taking on leadership of this society of grave robbers.
Unfortunately we have been explicitly told not to do that until official guidelines on permissible modifications are announced, and in addition not to make any posts on the forums that could be read as encouraging such activity.
Hi John! I think we may have met last week across the gaming table.
With respect to Mike, Mark and other PFS leadership, I will happily go along with the former part of that directive, while pressing for adjustments to policies that meet my and other players' needs.
As for the second part, as a loyal Society member and Paizo customer, I am not certain how I can give feedback about products and my needs as a customer without honestly sharing my desires and perspective as a player—including my concerns about the policy as stated.
I'm sure my words could be interpreted as encouraging others to break the rules as stated, just as my vocal opposition to Federal same-sex marriage policy could be taken as an encouragement for any given same sex couple to get married, or for same sex couples to file Federal income taxes as married rather than single people. (For the record and super off-topic, I'm a gay man who doesn't love the institution of marriage, even though I support those who seek that right.)
But discussing or disagreeing about a policy is not the same as telling people to break it or follow it. I share my concerns and perspective out of love for Paizo, respect for the people who are creating its products, and fond hopes for PFS' continued success. Both PFS and Paizo depend on open support and engagement with the public.
The biggest issue is that your group appears to be advocating and cultivating an atmosphere that encourages PFS members not to follow campaign rules, regardless of what the rules are. That has to be watched since that behavior will carry over to any rule format the campaign adapts to in the future.
I agree that tweaking clunky mods needs to be monitored, and believe that our local coordinators have done a great job of monitoring it, such that it has not been a problem at our store. I disagree that we should consider tweaking mods to be verboten or automatically cheating, since it adds to fun and the attractiveness of our game.
But I think it's healthy for us to be discussing more sanctioned ways to tweak existing and future mods, to adapt them to the desired challenge and role play level of local play groups. I'm all for creating rules and structures that enable flexibility, but also disagree that judicious adjustments (in the absence of such structured flexibility) is either cheating or a real issue.
Also, I feel that Season 0-2 power levels are often a bit weak, even when I don't optimize characters. That's because I and other players are clever. So giving judges some extra tools and license to adjust to smart ideas is very helpful and needed.
We may just need to disagree on this, Vinyc, and learn to coexist as part of a diverse society. If I'm labelled a cheater and asked to leave, we won't have the opportunity to do so.
Why do you continue to buy product that you are unhappy with "as is"? What is the point of starting off with a PFS scenario if you need to make changes every time to fit your group’s playstyle? Wouldn’t you simply be better off spending that time on creating a home game that is 100% customizable to your group?
Lots of points to respond to here, Vinyc. I don't want to hijack this discussion, so I'll keep my response spoilered for now, and happy to spin off into another discussion thread. However, my post was intended as a sharing of my POV, not to debate with ya.
Why don't I just leave if I don't like mods as-published?:
Let's turn this around a bit. I come back to PFS on a regular basis because of how the campaign is played at the tables, and out of a love for Pathfinder as a game overall (despite there being a fair number of clunky PFS scenarios).
To the extent that my enjoyment of PFS comes from judges not being in strict adherence to RAW, I want to preserve a degree of flexibility. (Though my players when I judge and judges when I play will tell you that I am quite a rules stickler, overall. So are the handful of folks whom I suspect might be labeled cheaters, despite demonstrating an excellent grasp and respect for rules in-game.)
I can feel frustrated with and speak out critically about aspects of a thing without leaving it behind. In fact, the more I care about a thing, the more inclined I am to fight for that thing to fit my needs and wants.
Here's why I keep coming back to PFS, despite finding some of the scenarios clunky and worthy of tweaking:
(a) The overall source material for Pathfinder is pretty stellar. Fun game!
(b) I have befriended many players at my store, and appreciate their creativity. Half of them are the people who actually make PFS blossom and grow in local conventions and stores. They're not more-than-full-time paid employees like Mike Brock and Mark Moreland, but most of my PFS friends are judges and coordinators who work extraordinarily hard to make this campaign happen and to boost the profile of the game in general.
I have joined home and PbP games with some of them. But PFS continues to be a regular spot for us to hang out and meet new, creative players.
(c) In my view, PFS and Pathfinder have benefited from a core base of players who left 4E and LFR in search of a better creative, roleplaying outlet. PFSers are not all heavy roleplayers or story-driven people, but that part of our community is a powerful part of what makes PFS and Pathfinder play experience great. And it's helping the game grow.
I suspect that this same base of users has a lot of overlap with people who want a degree of flexibility, and who may feel like they/we are being asked to leave Society play simply for trying to add quality to clunky, mis-balanced mods.
It is clear, I hope, that I'm distinguishing between judicious tweaks that are rooted in the rules, and outright disregard for rules such as changing the way combat game mechanics work, or pre-reading mods.
(d) I was personally moved a few years ago when Paizo green-lighted my brother, Tom Beckett's adaptation of Burnt Offerings into a (kick-ass) middle school play. I actually met many of them at the closing night.
Paizo's openness to the fan-base and the overall excellence of their product made a true believer out of me. I had already been impressed by the whole creation of Pathfinder, via public betas. This was a company that respected its customers and recognized the importance of balancing game mechanics and creativity.
Frankly, labeling a significant portion of those customers as 'cheaters' (when those customers are working hard to make PFS blossom and grow) makes me sad, and concerned about the game's future.
But that doesn't mean that I am just going to leave PFS or Paizo. Instead, I feel moved to speak up, and share how (a) loyal and (b) passionate I feel as a Society member and Paizo customer.
No new suggestions with this post. Oh, except perhaps to permit a standard +1 to +2 to trap DCs when playing with 5-6 table size in 0-3 mods (though probably not trap to-hits, since they tend to be very high already).
And truly, emphasizing the need to clear some authorized tweaks for Season 0-3 mods—unless we miraculously switch to 4-6 new mods per month, we will be working with that material for some time to come.
Slightly off-topic regarding the tone of the 'cheater' and DM flexibility conversation:
I want to acknowledge Euan for facilitating this thread in such a measured fashion, and appreciate the similarly balanced tone that folks, including Mark, have used.
I am afraid what I have to say in this spoiler might disrupt that careful approach, and apologize if my words are too strong at some points.
This is slightly off-topic of me to say, but pertinent to the larger conversation:
One thing that I hear from both folks who support GM fiat / flexibility and those who do not support it is this: we all care about PFS, and want it to be the best experience for us as individuals, and newbies who come in the door each week.
Whether we're volunteers who put in countless hours to produce conferences, bottom-feeder (irony intended) players like myself who dislike judging, or Paizo staffers, we pour quite a bit of ourselves into this game. Really important things come into play for all of us: creativity, friendships, grey hairs from trying to make publication deadlines.
I was disturbed by the 'cheating' post by Mike last week, which labeled one side of this discussion as 'cheaters,' a term that's being applied to friends who pour COUNTLESS hours and energy into making PFS grow.
I'm sure Mike didn't intend to disrespect anyone. However, I wish the tone had been more inclusive, rather than off-putting. We need everyone in this community, if we're going to continue to make it grow and deepen in quality. It's just not helpful to cast a good 1/3 or 1/2 of the PFS community as cheaters or villains, when we're all trying to make the community strong. And if we're bringing more players in the door and showing them a good (PG- or PG-13 rated) time, that has direct benefit to Paizo's revenues and the sustainability of our FUN together!
If Mike is reading this: please know I don't mean to attack you. I can tell that you and Mark are enormously hard working. I am a huge fan of Paizo as a company, and feel an Apple-like loyalty to the stuff you're producing. (Of course, I hope the people in your Chinese manufacturing facilities are treated better than folks at Foxconn...).
Frankly, coming down hard on folks with regard to this discussion is a sure way to damage that brand loyalty among Paizo's most devoted fans. I know that Paizo staffers understand this, and appreciate that discussion since last week's post have been more measured in approach.
. . . . . . . . . .
I am a bit of a power gamer myself, although one who highly values roleplaying. I power-game through being tactically creative, and by leveraging the abundance of new rules that Paizo has released outside of the core assumption. I don't spend hours and entire discussion board threads crunching numbers so I can do 500 hp DPR, but I usually create characters that are more effective than Seasons 0-3 scenarios are designed to challenge.
Most of the players in my store are similarly smart. It's pretty common wisdom among us that PFS scenarios are under-powered for skillful players. That's where our judges often crave (and have sometimes 'cheatingly' used) the kind of simple power boosts that Euan is suggesting.
Frankly, I feel pretty bored with the Season 0-2 mods that continue to fill our schedule. Some are great, while quite a few are flat on both story and challenge. It will take time to create enough newer mods that address some of the power balancing issues that we've been discussing. Therefore, it'll be especially helpful to create some simple policies/allowances that can be applied retroactively.
Anyway, it's because of the good humor and friendship of other players, many of whom might be labeled 'cheaters,' that I keep coming back to PFS and deepening my involvement, despite not feeling very satisfied with the scenarios.
Having said all of that off-topic stuff, I like what I'm hearing about mods that include finer detail about customizing for large or differently balanced parties. I also like the sound of designing Season 4 scenarios to be for 6 person tables.
For older scenarios, Euan's suggestion for judicially using advanced templates is a good one. I'd suggest the simple advanced template, and not the one that gives a +4 AC boost. I don't have a particular suggestion for traps, but I don't see a reason to not apply the simple advanced template to monsters with class levels. (I will admit, I have used the advanced template when judging in the past, and avoided applying it to NPCs with class levels—I shared the concern that Mark sited previously.)
I might also suggest a rule about tier mustering: Why not allow players to play up one tier, if everyone at the table consents and acknowledges maturely the risk of character death? My suggestion would be to allow this, but to also stipulate that the character can only get credit at their actual, appropriate tier level.
In fact, I suggest that this should always be the case—if table mustering means that the average level is four (even though I'm level 2), I should always just get Level 2 rewards, even if we play 'up.' This would help prevent character power-level bloat...
I'd like to suggest a variant treasure system that lets crafting characters discover useful components over the course of an adventure, even if stranded in wilderness (see Smuggler's Shiv). And then balancing that sort of system against more pre-generated treasure troves.
One home brew rule that I've encountered is using Craft (Alchemy) or similar skills to roll on a table similar to the Pathfinder Society Day Job table. We would only use this when encountering unusual things, like magical beasts or strange plants.
Something that fits this overall spirit but which has been play-test proven would be great.
Well, thanks for letting me shed PC blood for the first time, Chris. (Petrifying nightmare-synthesists doesn't count). I can't think of a better sport in coup de grace death. But I still feel bad.
The elf looks more like a weird bunny/bat-eared furry than the elves I imagine. I would tone down the ears just a bit—perhaps have them just peak out of the hair instead of looking like they're glued on over the hair...
The rogue is classic and very versatile. Good work.
The Mwangi woman is great too. I hope you'll be producing a healthy amount of brown-skinned humanoid figures, representing a variety of roles. Especially as you *hint, hint* start publishing more stuff about even more of Golarion's, er, global south and east. Vudra, please!
I might suggest sharing a nice beer and making peace since the parties in question are in the same region. Painlord and D30, you are both awesome and I'd hate to see a PbP flare up get out of hand. :-/
However, I heard somewhere that the night before one is married, one gets a free move action and Freedom of Movement for the duration. Alas, Remove Fear is not one of the benefits.
What he really wants is a bump to his quick mount/dismount.
(I'll let you decide the context for that comment yourselves.)
Knowing Finneas is in trouble, Glimmil begins to pump his little legs to rush up the stairs. He releases the short leash keeping Cog at his side and tells his canine companion to "Go help him, boy!"
Double move for Glimmil puts him at -K,-7 I believe on the spiral stairs.
Attack Trick DC10 1d20+7
Double move for Cog should put him at the creature.
I am a horrible, terrible rules lawyer, but I think that's three move actions — handle animal + double move.
However, I heard somewhere that the night before one is married, one gets a free move action and Freedom of Movement for the duration. Alas, Remove Fear is not one of the benefits.
I have a suggestion for you about site organization: I'd like to suggest that your reorganize the PRD in relationship to messageboards, and actually provide space within individual rule records to link directly to discussions related to that rule/spell/item/etc.
For instance, I currently have a question about Alchemical Allocation—the way I read it, I could buy a potion of heroism once, and just keep it around as a sort of extra spell book, just using Alchemical Allocation on that one potion, again and again. Seems a bit crazy to be able to use a 2nd level infusion for a 3rd level potion, but I like the idea!
If I go to look up Alchemical Allocation on Google or the messageboards, I'm likely to get a whole bunch of different posts that mention it in passing, but don't actually address rules questions. I may or may not be able to find a response from a Paizo official, which is particularly important for Society play.
I only said that boon companion could work for the eidolons in Pathfinder Society.
This is an error on my part. The Boon Companion feat does NOT work with an eidolon. See here for details.
Totally understandable ruling. It would, however, be helpful to bring in some official feats, prestige classes, etc. that make the summoner a bit more easy to work with multi-class wise. Especially since the quite narrow skill selection makes it fairly inflexible in terms of different character concepts...
player or DM looking for a pathfinder game. LOcated in Central SF. Thanks.
Hi there,
I know this is an old post, but if you're still looking for a player, I'd be interested. I'm a 39 year old gay man who's been gaming since I was a wee lad. I'm known for creating slightly weird characters with a social bent, and creating back story that complements the DM's vision in unexpected ways... Let me know if you're interested!
I'm in downtown Oakland. Can host, although I don't have the biggest game table.. I'm generally a player. I've played Pathfinder and love it. May have one other player/DM who generally prefers home brewed worlds and needs some convincing on Pathfinder. Gay guy here, who likes about 60% roleplay/40% combat.
I'm in Berkeley, and was interested to find some more players/DMs,
hopefully who are interested in playing both with the Pathfinder Rules, and in Golarion...
I'm 29, do massage therapy, and would like to find a group of pleasant, interesting, open-minded people, who also enjoy a game of D&D, with a balanced amount of role-playing and "action".
Hey there! I just moved to the area from Portland. Another friend of mine and I are looking for players and/or DMs. He DMs some, I'd like to at some point. My preference is for groups that like to bring creativity and improv to the game, with a decent amount of action to keep things spicy. I'm 38 and gay, my friend is in his mid thirties and straight.
