Scribbling Rambler's page

I would like to add some kudos to the people who ran the HQ.
Thought they didn't get to sit in on the fun at the tables, none of us would have had as much fun without their enthusiasm and efficiency. They all put in incredibly long hours making sure the GMs and players had scenarios, maps, Chronicles, ID cards, wooden nickels... and whaterver else we needed to make the game run smoothly.

Apologies to anyone I miss (or mispell): thanks to Mark, Liz, Laura, John, and Noel!

Also, Mark G was a fantastic ambassador for Indianapolis! There was no overlooking the effort he put in organizing the games at Scotty's, helping out at HQ (or wherever needed), and looking after the never-ending treasure chest line.

I'm thinking about an aasimar monk. Still trying to decide what to do with the undine.

PFS Guide to Org Play stated that mounts must be one size larger in previous incarnations. Current Guide removed all references to ACs/Mounts in anticipation of them being migrated to the FAQ.

Betcha didn't know that Mounts migrated ;)

In light of all of the threads subsequent to Gen Con which have inspired so much debate and bad karma, I thought another Gen Con thread was warranted which focused on the most important things: PFS at Gen Con was an incredible success brought about by people who went above & beyond, and the vast majority of people had a terrific time!!

So please, use this thread to share your positive experiences, funny stories, and recognize the folks that made the Gen Con PFS experience such a blast! (No complaints on this thread, please)

I would like to start out by recognizing the most important people, the players. I was fortunate to GM for 48 fun, enthusiastic folks and my brother. I had about 15-20 newbies to PFS, and a there were a couple for whom this was their first ever Roleplaying Game session! I laughed during every session, and was impressed by the roleplaying and ingenuity demonstrated.

One of my favourite memories from this year came out of the Special. The youngest player at my table managed to be the first out of the room of over 300 PCs to break thru one line of defence in the climactic encounter. His face really lit up when the Overseer GM (Tim Hitchcock) worked his character's name into the narrative (I believe it was Aust). The next day, I ran into him and his dad, and they were both incredibly enthusiastic about the session, and about Pathfinder Society.

Let's hear some more!

And, IMO, an archer, even with the feats and equipment I listed, is no where near the damage output that a dedicated meleeist can do.

My experience has been that they cannot match a 2-handed fighter, but that their damage output beats TWF or sword & board. YMMV

Mark Garringer wrote:

Callarek wrote:

You sure about that last one?

Wouldn't that last be a recurring event, so one event with 6 sessions, instead of two events with 3 sessions each?

There is some debate in both camps about this, but I believe the Campaign Management came down on the side of different day, different event for non-convention reoccurring events. I've been mistaken before though, and there is a 100% chance I will be mistaken in the future.

I thought that to, But when I asked Mark he said just adding to the same event for weekly/Bi-weekly/Monthly event is fine.

Either way is fine, but at some point you will have to create a new event, to keep things clear for yourself.

While I know that goblin and skeleton encounter packs would be winners, I would suggest that a Summon Monster series would be extremely useful (especially the lower level spells).

What I find amusing is when it's 80ish degrees in Indianapolis for GenCon, you always have people from up north complaining about how horribly hot it is. I always giggle because this year and about every year, being from NC, it was 100+ degrees with 100% humidity back home, and I found the weather at GenCon incredibly pleasant.

Mind you, I was born in NJ, and oh God I miss snow.

It was extremely hot!

I don't know how you Americans ever get your dogsleds to work!

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

Correct, but there is no exception. Int 3 means 9 tricks + bonus.

My bad. I thought Int 3 could learn unlimited tricks for some reason. Where did I read that?

*wanders off grumbling*

That was a common understanding, but was clarified in the infamous Handle Animals blog a few months ago :)

That said, there are only 11 tricks to learn, so an Int 3 animal is gonna get them all when they have bonus tricks.

5. No, you're still at [INT Mod]*3 + [Bonus Tricks], except for INT 3 creatures. The restrictions on tricks per mod are how quickly you can train them up to that limit. Once you're up to the limit of tricks, you can't teach them any additional tricks regardless of how many scenarios you play.

Correct, but there is no exception. Int 3 means 9 tricks + bonus.

Sorry, Kerney. Josh's rulings are the rules unless they have since been changed.

And I never said that I was "Anti". I just said that Chris was within the rules, and made an understandable ruling based on the scenario.

EDIT: That probably came out more emphatic than intended.
Under the policies about messageboard posts, you are welcome to treat it as a guideline, and ignore it at your table.
At the time of posting, it was an official ruling. So Chris is doing nothing wrong by following it at his table.

Well there are no rules saying you can't ...

Actually, there are. It was ruled on by the head of the PFS at the time. I don't know if it ever made it into the FAQ threads, but here is the post:

link

Is it something that a GM might be unaware of, or look the other way on? Yes, of course.

Was Chris following the rules? Absolutely. AND as he pointed out in his spoiler, this was a case where the re-skinning would have provided and in-game benefit which the designer of the mod would not take into account (as most legal mounts are accounted for in the scenario).

I'm a rookie PFS GM who hasn't even earned my first star. I signed up for 4 slots, I wanted to try out GMing at GenCon and still play a lot. For my four slots I was given three different adventures to prep.

That is the rookie stream.

I had 9 slots, 7 different scenarios (2 of which I ran "cold").
They softballed you, Brook.
;)

I was asked how to make the system objective. I said I'd come up with something comprehensive on Thursday. Well I came up with something just now so I will post it just now.

1) There is no way to make what is evil completely objective. What is evil to one person is not evil to another.

2) There is a way to make sure that the player in question can get a fair shake and not be hammered by one hard core GM with questionable subjective ideals.

So here goes:

- If you notice a player about to do what you deem evil, warn them.
- If they continue and do that thing, then mark it on a chronicle.
- To remove a character from play for being evil, there must already be 3 such notes on chronicles from 3 separate GM's. This will help to ensure that a wider range of ideals will be viewed before character removal.
- If the PC is a paladin, the gloves come off for losing paladinhood, these rules only apply to removing a character from play.

The next two options should both be available:

- If the faction mission is deemed evil, then as GM you should allow for creative solutions that don't involve the evil act.

- or -

- If the faction mission is deemed as evil, then ignore the evil act.

That's what I got. Simple and fair I feel, and it allows hard core GM's to state their opinion and old softies to be old softies.

It allows for subjective opinion, but won't penalize the player overly much and gives an objective bench mark for removal.

EDIT: The 3 separate notes from 3 GM's doesn't mean 3 GM's each have to have given 3 notes. Just that there has to be 3 separate instance of evil done, and that a total of 3 separate GM's should have given such a note.

Keep in mind, if you are the only GM that player will ever have for PFS, and you think they are too evil for your table, you have a right to tell that player they cannot play that character at your table. But to tell them they can't play that character ever again needs more criteria than just one GM's judgement, in my opinion.

Hey Andrew,

Just wanted to say that I think this is not hugely different from what the folks like me (who got people so upset in the first place) were talking about.
The only part that is significantly different is the stuff about Faction Missions. And I still don't think that they should be ignored as part of a larger pattern of behaviour.
That said, a player who I would be having difficulty with is likely to be turning other faction missions into evil acts as well. EX: There would be a difference between obtaining an item from a non-villain NPC by diplomacy/reward (Good), theft/intimidate (Neutral), or torture/murder (Evil). And I have seen that happen ("I can't make the Diplomacy check? Fine, I jump him and beat him to death to take the item.")

50 exclusives seems like a lot. Running 40 scenarios (exclusive or not) felt like a lot before and it still feels that way. I can't really imagine running 50 exclusives within a year without going to a lot of conventions and committing myself to only running exclusives. Of course, since I manage to get pretty close to four stars with getting two home games up 10 levels along with a few other random games (and no running at conventions), I'm fine that it is significantly hard for me to get to the next star.

Still, I think it works better than what there was prior.

50 exclusive scenarios is a lot.

While it is a lot, there is not a time limit.

The Field Guide just came out, so try looking again in a few days. It's currently up on the Paizo Store blog.

I would recommend that you get some sort of guide to Golarion. The Inner Sea Primer is great for a quick intro, but you may want to get the Inner Sea World Guide for a more in-depth look at all of the countries the scenarios take place in.

You will probably also want the Bestiary 2 eventually.

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

Why is it different if they are given multiple warnings, yet continue to ignore the rule against evil characters?

In a world where 'good heroes' are more along the lines of serial killer vigilantes, good and evil are very fuzzy concepts.

I think that they are a little less fuzzy than many make them out to be, however.

BTW, Dennis, I really liked the scenario as a whole.
Please drop me an email at the address on my profile so we can discuss it in a spoiler-free environment.

I can't wait to play a gnome pest.

I'm pretty sure that Thea already is.

After getting a chance to catch up on the thread, a few thoughts/clarifications.

A lot of people are discussing executions. The faction mission in the OP is not an execution.

In my earlier post, I did not suggest that I would declare a character unplayable for performing one evil faction mission (tho I did say that I may strip a paladinhood). I do believe that such acts should be tracked, however, and that a consistent pattern of inappropriate behaviour should be dealt with. I certainly do not believe that a character should be declared unplayable without any prior warning by a GM.

In answer to Matthew M (and others), yes, I believe that this also applies to other characters with alignment restrictions. One of my biggest PFS regrets was not having a serious alignment discussion with the player of a monk after one of my sessions. However, I do not believe that Good acts need to be tracked - they do not offset a consistent pattern of evil acts, and the only character which would mechanically suffer from being "too Good" is a cleric of an evil deity (and they tend not to err too far on the side of Good).

For the overwhelming majority of players, this is not even an issue. Most players are far harder on themselves, alignment-wise, than a typical GM is. However, when you run a large number of PFS sessions, you will come across 1 or 2 who push things beyond reason.

If a player is given multiple warnings, yet continues to fudge dice rolls, or use illegal feats, or lie about their character's stats, I don't think that anyone would begrudge a GM for booting/banning the player. Why is it different if they are given multiple warnings, yet continue to ignore the rule against evil characters?

Ha! Smoked the Cactus!

That would explain some of the sessions you have run...

Hey Thod, glad you made it back okay :)

The fact that you and I are now on the same page does not mean that we are certain where the campaign stands on the issue.

You may have to be patient for a response, especially when you ask during Gen Con :)

The problem is that there are spells with instantaneous effects that clearly should not reverse at the end of a scenario (like cures), and there are spells that have been seen to be problematic if they carry over between scenarios (like animate dead).

I am sure that the issue will be discussed, but it may take a while to come up with an equitable solution.

Seeker is correct (that's why it was Season 0, because it wasn't under PFRPG rules).

The best place to start now is with the new 3-part Intro series, IMO. It will give your players a better understanding of the factions and their leaders.

I'm not a big fan of the "evil" missions either, and I feel that the one referred to would definitely meet my definition of an evil act. Probably enough so that I would remove powers from a paladin or cleric of good who performed it (though I would wonder why they were part of that faction to begin with). Maybe even question those who did not at least protest.

That said, we are approaching 80 scenarios now. That's over 600 faction missions. They cannot all appeal to every player or character, especially the more devout roleplayers, and epecially those who have a rigid code. While I'm not fond of a "Prestige tax" on roleplayers, it's not really worse than those who cannot earn Prestige because of some mechanical reason (like lacking a Skill).

And I support Chris M's policy of tracking questionable alignment moves. A GM is well within their rights to remove a character for being evil, or to remove a paladinhood for evil/dishonourable acts (tho the player should be given some prior indication that it is possible, and usually not for a 1st offense). A player can certainly appeal to a co-ordinator. Either way, notations on Chronicles, or lack thereof, would speak to the history of the character.

Congrats!!

I haven't had the pleasure of playing at a table GMed by either yet.
However, I have seen the hard work each of them puts in for their sessions, and the great time their players have because of it.

And both are great guys to hang with.
A nice change for the 5-star ranks ;)

I guess I'm one of those rules sticklers Jason refers to :)

For me, PA expenditure is one of the hard-coded rules of PFS, and should not be worked around.

That said, there were a lot of other ways around the situation. The characters could have pooled for a raise (I would even have let them use credit from what they were getting that session). The rogue could have been smarter. The dice could have been resolved separately (would have probably saved the rogue).

Or you could have let it stand.

BTW, Nic Logue's character got knocked to -9 (3.5 rules) in the same encounter during the very first running of a PFS scenario :)

I guess I was one of the lucky ones: for the 9 slots I ran, I won 2 racial boons and a Pathfinder Society shotglass!

Drogon: I understand your concern, but I think that you are approaching it from the wrong angle.
Gen Con, PaizoCon, PaizoCon UK, et al should have something special available for PFS players who come out to play (and to be clear, the tokens were also given to the players who came out for the FREE delve).

IMO the question should be: what different special thing can we do for store play?

Jiggy, I think that you over-reacted to Thorkull's post.

He was not accusing you of being cheesy, but referring to a rules interpretation that was actually raised on these boards a while ago.
Try going back and read it as a general answer, instead of a directed comment to you.

As an answer to your orignal question:
The best way to deal with rules issues is to take them to the rules forum and try to get them into the FAQ. The FAQ is a legitimate document that you can take to GMs to get a consistent ruling.
While you will still get variation on other issues, the vast majority of GMs will abide by the FAQ, or even clarifications by the rules designers.

I would suggest looking through the classes to get an idea of how they have changed (0th level spells, paladin smite, rage powers, etc), checking out the common feats to see what has changed (Dodge, combat expertise, power attack, cleave have all changed) and looking through the combat chapter, specifically the CMB and CMD rules. That would all hold you in good stead for GMing.

To this, I would add reading the Glossary (it's amazing how many rules people miss are in there), and the Monster Abilities from the Bestiary (tho you cold look those up on an "as needed" basis, a quick skim certainly helps).

I encourage you to try it out! I almost always let my players know that polite corrections are welcome, as I still learn something new/different in the rules almost every week. So you are far from alone, and far from unwelcome.

Kruthiks and Greenspawn Razorfiends don't show up much in Pathfinder modules (funny that).

Just wanted to point out that the Greenspawn (and other Spawn of Tiamat) were actually created for Red Hand of Doom, a module written by some guy named Jacobs ;)

Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:

One more question, what size category is the black dragon, large or huge?

So I guess you guys don't know yet?

The press release says it's on a 3" base, so Huge.

I understand the wishes of people for boxes of "mook" monsters like goblins, orcs, and skeletons.

However, I have more than enough orcs and skeletons. Goblins, I could see getting, because of the unique Pathfinder look.

I would rather the encounter packs were used for the "monsters" that make Pathfinder different. Let's see some pugwampis, sinspawn, and serpentfolk!

From the schedule announced, I think they could satisfy both needs.

Honestly, I have no problem with the price of the main set, or the randomization. I'm more concerned about the excess packaging. And I would want to see a set list, because once again, I already have enough minis of the creatures shown.

Now, the Runelords set is more likely to get me spending...

Ahh...you're no fun, Mark. It was cute watching folks fight over the baron.

Is that what we were doing?

I thought I was warning him away...

I will be running Midnight Mauler that slot.

I have partaken of beverages with Messrs H & D myself, and will have the appropriate amount of sympathy for your plight.

Hi Swiftbrook.
As well as the rule provided by Enevhar, I was referring to posts like
this one by Mark.

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

I don't think this would work either.
If it's not available for ranged weapons, it would not be available for ammunition.

EDIT: And the rules and table spell out which qualities are passed on to ammunition. The rules say enhancement bonuses and alignment pass on. The table indicates which specific properties go to ammo (granted that is almost all of them on the table).

Emphasis mine.

What exactly qualifies as an enhancement bonus? Just the straight +1, +2, etc? What about elemental properties? Doesnt a +1 Flaming Longbow give each shot a D6 fire dmg as well as the regular arrow dmg?

For my reference, only the numerical bonus applies.

Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies.

Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.

However, the table (15-10) also applies a footnote 2 to Flaming, which means that the Flaming property does pass on to ammunition.

I've seen archer builds whose damage output far exceeds the rest of the party in the upper levels of PFS.

There are other ways around this problem (ex. ghostbane dirge)

All I am doing is citing the rules. If I'm mistaken, I'm sure someone will correct me or give a different citation.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the wording.

My understanding of how it works (and I hope Mark will correct me if I'm mistaken):

Season 3 - 1 PA from Faction mission, 1 PA from completion goal
Season 0 - 1 PA from Faction mission, add 1 PA for mission goal
Season 1 or 2 - There are 2 Faction missions, which are still where the 2 PA are coming from. However, to keep it the same as new scenarios, it will be as if one of those Faction Missions was the mission goal. You do not get a 3rd PA for completing the mission.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter which is which. You get 2 missions, which you can complete for a maximum of 2 PA.

It doesn't say melee only, so, while it would not pass to ammunition as a property from the launching weapon (bow, crossbow, sling, gun), I see nothing that says it can't be put onto ammunition.

More importantly for PFS, there is nothing that says it can be put onto ammunition. Which means that you are creating a weapon outside of those listed. Which is not allowed for PFS.

I'm a veteran player. I'm buying three. I know I'll put them to good use.

Yup. I'll be buying a few as well. Including one for me. You never know what you will find useful in a product like this - while it will be close to the core rules, it may make certain mechanics clearer, or have a change which may work as a houserule.

And of course, there may some copies going out to the next generation of Clan Shackleton.

And, while I understand the concerns about international shipping, it really should be part of the Rules Subscription. It's a rules product. While it may be a small inconvenience for those who do not want it to un-subscribe/re-subscribe, it doesn't hurt anyone to have it available for those who want it.

Solution: Buy a batch of 50 +1 Ghost Touch arrows for 8301 GP.

Expensive, but you only need to use them when you have to, and it leaves room for other enhancements on the bow.

I don't think this would work either.

If it's not available for ranged weapons, it would not be available for ammunition.

EDIT: And the rules and table spell out which qualities are passed on to ammunition. The rules say enhancement bonuses and alignment pass on. The table indicates which specific properties go to ammo (granted that is almost all of them on the table).

Hey All (and especially Dragonvan),

I'm sorry to say that I will be unable to organize things for Fan Expo this year.
This is due to other commitments on my end. Hopefully, we will get things in place for next year.

As per Disclaimer #1, my Saturday evening slot is now Shadow's Last Stand Part 2, not the Delve.

Any AP you pick is going to require a LOT of rework. I do remember there were some regular board members who used to do it though.

That said, I think that the story and thematic elements of Council of Thieves might be worth a look at for a single character.

Just a friendly note, if you every play at conventions where I'm running Pathfinder: that doesn't work at my table. You actually have to wear the shirt, and to have been wearing when you make the attack or saving throw you want to re-roll. (My reasoning: the faction shirts are there to advertise the Pathfinder Society and Golarion. They're there to get passers-by to realize how cool PFS is. That doesn't happen when all they see is a wad of black cloth in front of you. Wear your damn shirt.)

Yeah... while I like seeing people wearing the faction shirts, I can't say that I'm a fan of having someone at my table who's been wearing it for the whole 4-day convention :)

Okay to be fair I was quoting the Monster Ability from the Bestiary, which if you look at I think you'll find to be matching my original quote.

This is an interesting conflict in rules. But still not super relevant to the fact that ability damage makes a cleric who wants to heal unable to heal. And then useless. Which is unfun. And for those of you from the peanut gallery metagaming and DM fiat is not an acceptable solution.

Yeah... not much of a conflict, when you only have to look up what Ability Damage means.

And when your original post calls the designers out for this "broken" mechanic, and you don't know how it works, I would say that's relevant to the discussion.

The monologue often goes something like this with stat damage: So wait, I lost how many hp off the top? And then I've taken X damage, so I'm ... conscious? Yes, I think so. Wait, no, never mind. I fell down. Hah! That's a lie. I'm still up. My turn now. I hit you! I do 23 damage ... no, sorry, 21 damage. Wait, my Strength is how low? I can't power attack anymore. Dammit. Uh, make that 14 damage.

I'm not agreeing that ability damage is a horrible mechanic. It has a place and is part of appropriate challenges. However, stat damage making an appearance in every fight is not fun for my group and especially not fun for the cleric who has to fix it out of combat after feeling helpless in combat.

Melissa, it appears that there may also be some confusion between Ability Damage and Ability Drain.

Ability Damage just applies penalties, without reducing the stat - ao it doesn't affect pre-requisites for feats (for example).

EDIT: And I also think this mechanic changed a fair bit for PFRPG, as you no longer have the different effect based on whether your score was odd or even.

Well, one of the rewards for Andoran's success to this point was the new faction symbol for Season 3, so the timing is appropriate :)

I think the new symbol really pops! You silly anarchists may be incredibly misguided, but at least you look a little better. ;)

In the interests of Full Disclosure, and because people are unlikely to cancel with under a week left:

Thurs morn: Midnight Mauler
Thurs aft: Sewer Dragons
Thurs eve: Delve/TBD

Fri morn: Midnight Mauler
Fri aft: Midnight Mauler
Fri eve: Hitchcock Sheds Your Blood Under Absalom

Sat morn: Delve/TBD
Sat aft: Wroth of the Accursed (Canadian version)
Sat eve: Delve/TBD

Sun morn: There are other rooms at the convention???

Disclaimers:
These are all subject to the whims of the Dread Paizo Overlords.
My dice have been nasty lately - killed 3 PCs in my last 2 sessions of Runelords, and another in PFS.
Hungry Tired Neil gets cranky. Do not come between him and his sammich.

Just a note that we'll be awarding GM credit for a full slot's worth of delve tables. You can spread those over the full 4 days as needed. Email Liz if you want to try to get more slots under your belt.

Awesome! I was wondering about that, but didn't want to complain because running the Delve is going to be a lot of fun!!