Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

TetsujinOni's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 995 posts (1,007 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 995 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Dan Simons wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
While I sympathize with you I strongly believe that you are wrong.

Then we must agree to disagree. Players should not treat their PCs as buckets of numbers.

All of my players seem to appreciate the reduction in metagaming and increase in pseudo-realism at the table. At GenCon many of my players also said they were going to steal these policies for use at their own tables.

The description of this as metagaming is very troubling to me.

In a convention setting the environment is very loud. Doing things in a concrete fashion that references the rules of the game is not metagaming. My character perceives the world in in-game terms. I understand what my character perceives using the bucket of numbers. Those buckets of numbers are not meta-gaming, they are the way the game becomes more than freeform roleplay.

In home games where you know everyone has a similar idea of what's fun, great. Do you also grab the info off sheets, record damage taken for each PC, and only tell them that the hit they just took only hurt a little or a lot?

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:

So, get a bunch of friends together and play those adventures again, Zach. Have fun seeing the scenarios play out with different characters. Nobody says you can't replay scenarios. The restriction is on replaying them for credit.

I say this, and it sounds so basic. If I were to read this on the boards, I'll roll my eyes and say "Duh."

But I have seen, over and over, PFS players turn down amazing opportunities, such as playing scenarios with the author as the GM, because they couldn't get a Chronicle sheet out of it. I am convinced that, as a community, we're over-emphasizing those things.

I had a great time playing a table of five friends, one burning a GM star replay, one playing for credit, and three of us rocking pregens to fill the table and enjoy each other's company over an entertaining game.

It's not how I'd prioritize my PFRPG & PFS play opportunities, but it was a fun day with friends, and that's worth the time.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Yeah, if I could be using them on a level 2 thornkeep replay to push characters to 3 and still save a replay of Eyes of the Ten for the future....

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

If a GM wants to use them as a way to inform calls they make where there aren't rulings in PFRPG, they can, but you can't expect them to be anything more than a place to get a viewpoint.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

* room size compared to 10' radius footprinting to determine how many perception checks it takes to get a +0 range modification on the DCs of anything which needs to be searched.

* number of things which would need to be manipulated to find the objects hidden within a compartment at the back of a drawer - are there one, two, fifty, five hundred drawers in the room?

There's places where one-and-done, or 30-second-glance around the room won't find things, and a thorough search of the room will take an amount of time. Some scenarios spell these out well when they're part of the plot of the scneario, rather than just part of the mid-tier buff-timing game.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Mattastrophic wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:
Chases stop being interesting story past a certain tier because of things like this, and teleportation, and telekinetic charge, and status - monk-sprint - dimension door catchup tricks, and...

I would not say that chases stop being interesting past a certain tier. Instead, I would say that, just as with every other type of scene in the game, chases designed within a low-level framework stop being interesting past a certain tier.

Just like with adventure and combat design, chase design needs to be adapted to the capabilities of the PCs. The products we have seen from Paizo (I have not seen the second Chase Deck yet, though) have only included chases with low-level components, so it's pretty much up to us to adapt our chase ideas to higher levels.

-Matt

I do not see a way to structure a card-based range-related chase which is both compelling and has any potential for entertainment past APL 7. The subgame it tries to create has its sweet spot between apl 1 and 6, and past that point breaks down rapidly. It might be good as a quick way to telescope out some quick cinematic play in a home campaign at 6-8, but for orgplay, it's just not been that compelling so far. I have a new one to review tonight, so maybe we'll have some new take on things to improve it, but it's more likely to be a 'clue check' with some random crap written down.

I don't think they're a very good version of the skill challenge mechanics that 4e screwed up the first two times they pushed them out, and I don't think they stand up conceptually to ability scaling in PFRPG any more than locked doors or 30 foot walls do.

They can be fun when run well, but they are a mechanic which is unfamiliar to many GMs, still, and have a chicken and egg problem of clunky mechanics, overly specific mechanics, and player dislike related to the familiarity, clunky, and specificity problems.

Cheliax ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

And now the advice: The PC is using an ability which they have paid for to overcome obstacles.

For PFS: Those obstacles should therefore be overcome to the extent that they can no longer fail to move past an obstacle a movement enhancement could let them bypass. Do not change the route of a planned chase, as the route is frequently not 'escape' but 'get to'. Use random cards when random cards are called out. If the skill check is social/social, proceed to make them slow down if they're on that card as they have to interact with a person to get the information.

In short.... it's not cheating somehow to fly. It's choosing to have mobility as an obstacle your character is less blocked by. It could just as easily have been a darkness or a fireball.

Chases stop being interesting story past a certain tier because of things like this, and teleportation, and telekinetic charge, and status - monk-sprint - dimension door catchup tricks, and...

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Spoiler:
I wasn't on the table in any capacity, but my take 10 knowledge (local) tells me that it was Midnight Mauler's year 3 version.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

That's not a difference of any consequence whatsoever, Prethen.

Cheliax ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

In remembering that PFS and PFRPG is a game about teamwork and force multiplication, I've had more than a few support characters who will try and work out the best way to make the rest of the PCs more awesome as their primary combat trick, and secondarily remove obstacles / provide out of combat skills and utility. You can do this on most of the casty classes, and with consumables on any class.

Other PCs it's a question of having the right quips, right help, or right way to cooperate.

And some tables, it's having the ability to play an RP foil for someone while both having fun and not wrecking it for the rest of the table. Those can be epic fun.

In short, I applaud the notion of finding how to synergize fun generation... but there's unfortunately no formula for it because of the different fun measurement functions of individual players and GMs.

Cheliax ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Jeff Way wrote:

So having a scanned or copied boon would prompt me to have to audit all that players characters to make sure there were not multiple copies.

I know there are online conventions and there is only a couple of solutions that I could think of. First is that the GM/organizer mail out a physical copy. Second is if the GM/organizer fills out a physical copy fills out everything on the sheet and then scans it in and sends it. The second method would basically eliminate it from being traded.

I know that for the most part people are honest and would not reproduce sheets, but because of the few many have to be inconvenienced.

So on just trading boons, mail them. Con boons are suppose to be special and somewhat rare. Wet signatures only.

Jeff, I stack up boon tokens at local cons and cash them in at GenCon or PaizoCon. I frequently wind up with multiples of the same boon (I'll have to grab my stack of unassigned boons to see how many of what I've got in multiples...) My boons from PaizoCon and GenCon 2013, both from turnins and GMing, have multiples which could be applied across multiple characters and were not wet-signed.

Online play has venture officers to support first-class participation in a growing segment of our player base. Adding $.50-$1.50 per boon granted starts to be an onerous cost for the online VO or event organizer very quickly, and is a topic which I'm confident that Joe Caubo and Mike Brock discussed before the first online boons were granted. I know that I discussed the manner in which the GM boons were going to be filled out with Joe, and he started from your position and ended with mine: the boons were sent out as scans with instructions to be honest GMs. Many of us who GM would rather have stacks of boons to hand to interesting players, apparently.

When Mike Brock doesn't wet-sign boons and doesn't tell his VOs and con organizers that's the rule... I'd suggest you not attempt to invent that rule. Your trigger condition and conclusion of appropriate action seems based on looking for wrongdoing, rather than dealing with the wrongdoing that you might come across in a way that can improve the play experience for your region. Since you've suggested a metric which incorrectly assesses the appearance of wrongdoing... I'd further suggest a step back from your position.

Regarding the OP: Scan, destroy, send to not risk destruction of your documents transitioning the vagaries of international post seems like a creative solution. I'm inclined to think that the end result (2 unique boons in the hands of players) would be acceptable.

These aren't holy relics, legal documents, or stock share certificates. Play honestly and be excellent to each other and Explore, Report, Cooperate.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

So, my reading of no player versus player combat is: prevent situations where the players involved are in conflict with each other.

Character versus character conflicts where they players are engaged in playing their characters and the game make good story.

Players at each others' throats makes terrible sessions.

And then yes, you need some kind of idea of how to decide what to do when things go wobbling down into messy.

The extension of No PVP that we're seeing here rather grew organically over the past three years, as we've moved away from faction missions which could get misinterpreted (the Cheliax and Andoran missions in Before the Dawn 1 could wind up pushing into CVC and PVP territory both, for example).

I think the bottom line is that Cooperate needs to trump individual PC 'motivation to destroy thingy', and a middle line between BNW's position and Bob's is where I currently think my philosophy puts me. I don't know that I can articulate it after dragon-time in Runelords, tonight, though.

Cheliax ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

- When the Tag Teamwork Tacticians are back this year and glad to see you as their GM again.
- Same guy, same pc, a year later, asks for more advice because he liked how the last set worked out.
- You've got 2 fathers, their respective sons, and a random, and it's NOT a bonekeep you're slated to run that slot.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Gunvaldr Gislasson, -1: LN male Humanoid(human) Polearm Fighter 12 / Sohei 1. Has old Crane style and likes it that way.

Agris of Kazel, -2: CG male Humanoid (gnome) bard 10

Adelaide Aksin, -3: CG female Humanoid (elf) hexcrafter magus 11. This *is* a multiclass prestige class, I swear.

Venture-Captian Colm Kenrick, -4: CN male Humanoid (human) Urban Ranger (Ranged) 12/Fighter 2. IMO, this is the best rogue build for PFS....

Sazdio Myan, -5: NG male Humanoid (human) Agility-patron witch. yawn.

Shaian Trickfoot, -6: NG male Humanoid (gnome) cleric of milani 10.

Ephreda Mona, -7: who the hell knows what Ephie is gonna wind up. Where I intend to spend an Ifrit boon....

Asoka Hitomi, -8: CN female Humanoid(Tengu) rogue 4/lore warden 2. natural attack rogue.

Nagger Juut, -9: LN male Humanoid(human) fighter 6/sohei 1. crane wing and still likes it. offensive shield with an open hand for trickery. needs moar feats.

Lucille Chieni, Drakeleer of Drakeleer, -10:NG female Humanoid(human) lore warden 2, musket master 3, trapper ranger 2. Or Librarian 7, if you prefer.

Orson "Spells" Karella, -11: NG male humanoid(human) thassilonian specialist (Greed) 3 (Eventually bloatmage)

Helen Geerholt, -12: Oracle of Battle 1. Might dip 2 fighter for feats if I feel starved. Protege of V-C Kenrick above.

Clarabelle Brokenforge, -13: N female Humanoid (dwarf) dinosaur shaman menhir savant druid 1 (all).

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

[Reportering]What's your next PFS career move, Caubo? Playtest punching bag for Care Baird's next writing opportunity?[/Reportering]

Seriously, thanks for the efforts you have made to make the online play community a first class segment of PFS, and congratulations to IronHelixx on the recognition that he was doing this level of volunteerism already.

I'm guessing that part of what made this a change instead of part of the initial group of online VOs is that Jesse wouldn't have left his local group hanging without helping train up another volunteer to take over his VL duties.... (I do not expect confirmation, but wouldn't object if commentary occurs ;) I tend to speculate in that fashion about things which aren't in the public's need-to-know bucket.)

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I'm far more interested in how the mount boon from last GenCon with the Kobold racial mount is going to play out.... Is it going to be like the season 0 adventures, or is it something we'll see in a convention boon for Season 6?

Stay tuned, Pathfinders!

Cheliax ****

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I just assume the society doesn't care about survival, just Explore, Report, Cooperate.

They can just send more people to get your report posthumously, speak with dead is a thing.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

No map extracts are OK... I'm queueing a ton of deletes based on that clarification from Liz.

Recreating the maps (including recreating a version of a mappack map) from scratch would be OK, but using extracts is very specifically NOT OK.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Thursday, August 14
Slot 1 (0800-1300): OFF
Slot 2 (1300-1800): #5-08: The Confirmation (1-2)
Slot 3 (1900-2400): Gen Con Season 6 Special: The Paths We Choose (3-7)
Friday, August 15
Slot 4 (0800-1300): OFF
Slot 5 (1300-1800): #5-17: Fate of the Fiend (7-11)
Slot 6 (1900-2400): Gen Con Season 5 End Special: Legacy of the Stonelords (7-11)
Saturday, August 16
Slot 7 (0800-1300): #5-17: Fate of the Fiend (7-11)
Slot 8 (1300-1800): #5-08: The Confirmation (1-2)
Slot 9 (1900-2400): Bonekeep Level 3
Sunday, August 17
Slot 10 (0900-1400): #5-08: The Confirmation (1-2)

I'm also hoping 5-17 has cool terrain. Similarly on the 5-24 back pocketed.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Development for encounters for a 12-13 subtier should take at least as much time as development for 7-8 and 10-11. Development for 14-15 will take as much time again, at least, based on the increased complexity of interactions to make GOOD story.

The other problem is that the appropriate framework of story to put those adventurers into are fundamentally different than the framework of story in which you put a subtier 1-2 table. They face different challenges with different mechanisms of resolution because of their vastly different capabilities.

Trying to fit both into the same event's wordcount can be very narrative-bending. Some of the better-received Living Greyhawk BIs were hundreds of pages to accommodate the need to have encounters that made sense across different APL bands - APLs 2 through 16, by even numbers, in their case. The writing and development time when doing this in a professional manner as Paizo is doing is just not feasible.

Hell, I was concerned we might not see ANY GenCon special this year due to time budgeting issues. Knowing that we traded 5-Ex being new content for 5-Conclusion and 6-00 both being things is great, and I can't wait to see what the factions have turned their attention to this year.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
thistledown wrote:
Looks like sczarni's getting shorted a bit

For someone who has two Sczarni characters in the low end of levels, it seems strange to say this... but good. They don't fit the Society narrative well.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:


I would rule the components are fine. They would happen to be all over the floor and would provoke one up.

I would also allow him to spend a full round action that provokes gatheirng them all into his pockets.

bonus points for making it cinematically funny / panicked / etc as they do so.

Cheliax ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

... you see that you have once again been handed the table of a father and two ten-or-less year olds plus three veterans of the previous two OrgPlays you've GMed for. And you're running Bonekeep 1. And they really don't pay attention when you give them the mandatory disclaimer. Or the to-me-not-optional "No, really, I meant what I just read".

Cheliax ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I'm gonna go with the dissenting opinion and say "Mike and this VO need to talk about where the line is between inclusiveness and geek social fallacy 1".

There is no PFS rule, no guideline, and no statement that a VO can make that can require EVERYONE be able to come to an event.

Hypothetical example that makes the forumalation of such a rule a non-starter: Store Employee A has a restraining order against Person B. Person B will not be allowed into a public PFS event at the store. Event organizer is aware of this and removes any signups that Person B makes for that event.

Public posting of an event has not been and will hopefully never, ever be a 'contract' to seat all comers, nor will it be a contract to seat in a particular order.

It is, however, a 'contract' that for those players you seat, you will run the game according to the Guide to Organized Play.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:
stuff

The bow monk at your table I had the pleasure of playing at when he died I felt horrible I did not do more to save his character. I went over the tactics in my head and have a plethora of thigns I could have done better to keep him from dying. I will remember that moment for the rest of my gaming expereince as I watched him blankly stare at the table when the dice pounded his character. Although that is part of the game and makes me love it more, but still memorable.

And I do, having you mention it, remember there was a zen archer that was running around grabbing bows off of fallen (redacted) and then not staying away from scary things.

There's a difference between remembering people's actions and antics, both in-character and as players, which I do try to do (and might remember better if I was interacting with him at a future con, I hope!), and keeping a kill tally. I've still not convinced myself that I should keep notes of 'stuff' about tables I've run in general...

So I think the point I'm trying to make is that we seem to agree on this, but from different angles and emphases.

Sometimes the revolving door of death (one of the reasons to prefer running high level games: death is generally a clearable condition at those levels, especially once the chronicle comes with enough gold for a raise in your own loot...) is epic story, and sometimes it's your dice / my dice decided it was time for your character to die. Remember the epic ones, and clear the condition on the 'oopsies' if you're not playing Hardcore Mode like Fatespinner does...

And I do feel a little guilty about a feral alchemist and a 13-year-old's PC in a Blakros scenario... but no guilt whatsoever about the two preteens in Bonekeep. We warns 'em and warns 'em........

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:

So, confession time: I have no idea how many times PCs have become objects on my tables.

I don't think it's a helpful thing to track. I'm more in Bob's position of telling the story and mediating combats. If the story is well-told, the players remember what happened, and were engaged both in combat and in story, then it's a good day.

I would disagree. When a character dies at my table as a GM or player it is usually an emotional experience and it carves into my memory. So to respect the emotions somone put into their character I will remember it.

I do feel slightly guilty, and I refuse to ever be proud of a characters death as a table I GM. I have seen people high five eachother over it. So I am glad I have not seen any of that here.

I'll be proud of deaths where the players enjoyed the story, including the one whose PC became an object. The ever-popular Osiriani Risen Guard that needed to die for $concept, perhaps?

The deaths are no more and no less than part of the lifecycle of the game. They deserve no more and no less memory than any other event in a character's life.

(And, when there's an epic relay race of getting the breath of life scroll to the guy who can cast it so that he can save his ex who is not-his-kid's mother from a long dirt nap... that's memorable, whether it was BoL or a heal from -con+1....)

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

So, confession time: I have no idea how many times PCs have become objects on my tables.

I don't think it's a helpful thing to track. I'm more in Bob's position of telling the story and mediating combats. If the story is well-told, the players remember what happened, and were engaged both in combat and in story, then it's a good day.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Between giving Krune quicken on the rod of runes and having the Wishtingency work as a wish instead of a 3rd-level dispel magic

Greater Dispel Magic, actually.

I'm not aware of anyone using AMF against him, due to lack of access. Generally speaking, clerics and wizards prefer not to shut themselves down to potentially shut down the enemy.

Quote:

Krune used a wish to cast contingency

before entering stasis. If Krune is ever affected by a spell
effect that would impede his ability to teleport, that spell
effect is targeted by dispel magic (CL 17th).
Looks like regular to me. He is one level too low for his contingency to contain greater.

Perhaps we should read that as "targeted for a dispel magic counterspell" rather. I've not had the contingency fire yet in my runnings....

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Majuba wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
SKR wrote:
• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.
A monk using a two-handed monk weapon can flurry with the weapon and his unarmed strike.
Such a monk does not get x1.5 Str with that two-handed weapon however. That's somewhat the point.

I'm not familiar with the sourcing for that last, pointers?

Cheliax ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Scott Young wrote:

Jiggy, that is exactly what the Lamplighters are; an organization of people who want to actually be Pathfinder Agents as outlined in the campaign background. Currently, there are no character creation rules which require this, and it's always bugged me. The Grand Lodge training system must be the least efficient college in Golarion to spend three years training agents, and then sends them on delicate investigations or undercover missions missions with no skills beyond murder.*

* Yes, I know some people would rather have an all-combat campaign without all the Pathfinder Society investigation stuff. Maybe in an ideal world, there would be a Pathfinder Society OP campaign and another one which is more mercenary-based or free-will. But that's not where we are.

Yeah. Though I think the Lamplighter credo that was started from went too restrictively in the other direction.

Murderers who know they're only kept around to make sure the squints can do their jobs, and do that job well, should have a place.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Scott Young wrote:
There is a creed for the Lamplighters, but frankly Jiggy nailed most of it
It's funny; although I figured Lamplighters would show up on the list, that's definitely not who I was thinking of when I wrote my post. ;D

Rather sounded like the Grand Lodge to me....

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Avatar-1 wrote:

Putting in your class and level helps other players choose which of their characters to bring.

This is worth mentioning, because a lot of people seem to love either omitting it for no reason or entering in a "Light Infantry" class or similar. Granted, sometimes it's worth omitting if you don't know yourself what character to play.

So, I've got a character with 2-3 classes. Which one do I put in?

Archer / Artillery for some.

Light Infantry for others - it means "Not a Tank", damage-focused build that might be assumed to be a tank if I don't tell you this instead. Could be a TWF ranger, or a monk, or a brawler fighter (or the brawler fighter could be tanky.... or the monk could be tanky.... and a zen archer.... and .... )

Expecting class-based signups to be communicative is something I don't understand - you can build too many different roles out of the same classes in PFRPG, let alone multiclassing.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

We've had a longtime member of our community who exhibits many symptoms suggestive of a spectrum diagnosis that I am not qualified to make.

Sometimes very active management of a player's interaction with their table can help things a lot. Just try not to be That Jerk while you do it. Catch me at a con some year and ask me about how terrible it is to feel like being That Jerk That Time actually created a net beneficial outcome.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Matt Savage wrote:

I'd let GMs do the one thing Living Other Guys got right:

My Realms.

Strict rules for it, of course - like the other guys had. But the guys in Houston did some wonderful stuff with My Realms.

The rules for My Realms let you do some astonishingly dumb stuff.

We did some cool stuff with it in Upstate NY as well, but Simplest My Realms Ever with waves of gnoll minions...

It was good as a gag, but not the interesting event that my friend and I worked up with the shootout scene from The Gunslinger, or my Boat Trip As the Adventure, complete with a boat actually big enough to be a deepwater vessel for Atlantic conditions.

Still and all, we already have a program that's way cooler than My Realms for credit: campaign mode APs or Dragon's Demand (and Wardens, soon, I hope).

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I would eliminate the 1 xp per scenario abstraction, and use the logical consequences of using real XP values to eliminate the need for the new APL calculation mechanic.

Seasons 0-3 would still require an APL bump to correct for their 4 player assumption.

Closely followed by removing the non-PFRPG core deity requirements.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I believe the last discussion of 'moar content please!' cries led somewhere useful:

What would we have to increase the cost of scenarios to, in order for PFS layout to contribute enough revenue to break even on the additional personnel to make +1 scenario/month realistic?

Cheliax ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Talon89 wrote:
Undead Mitch, ask the GM to step in or say to the table... that you would like to go through the scenario without the bias which they currently have. Tell them your not comfortable with the Meta-gaming, most players hate being called that.

Upfront: I'm tired and a bit rambly, but this thread is putting a lot of onus on the players (and some of them deserve it, sure)... I've got another angle that I think could use to be discussed.

Jerk behavior can start with the author. Conversation assumed to happen before the adventure starts:

VC: "Get on the boat, we'll brief you right before you have to start the mission. The voyage will be several days, but I won't tell you a thing until the day you're doing stuff."

PCs: "Oh, OK. So we shouldn't do anything to adjust what we're bringing, or preparing in our spells, to make sure your special secret mission succeeds, huh?"

VC: Nope, you don't need to know anything until then.

And this is supposed to NOT wind up in PCs calling the VCs on failing the third tenet?

Because the VCs are Pathfinders as well, so they need to Cooperate so they have Exploration to Report.

I've dealt with a couple of couldn't be bothered to listen to the briefing tables as a GM. They're kinda funny to watch. We tend to schedule players likely to ignore the briefing together for limiting the possible splash damage. I still think that the best thing to do if you want the players NOT to react to the patterns of behavior their PCs might have observed with venture officers might be to prepare the content of the VC briefings with a more .... team-player tone FROM THE VC, and point out before you start (when you do any your-table-runs-like-this things like initiative cards, player introductions, etc) that you try to run the VCs as more professional than they have tended to be written, so please try running with the adventure instead of against it as a starting point....

It's a thought. I'm still mulling how much I like or dislike it as it increases the likelihood of varying-perception in the players who experience different GMs running different NPCs with different interpretations, but...

Damn, as a GM the VCs kinda piss me off. They can't be so abusive to the Pathfinders working for them and expect good results long term, so I've had to interpret that as some (many) of the VCs actually WANT their agents to die.

Sheila surely seems that way in PFS.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Michael Brock wrote:

John and I chatted about this topic yesterday in our weekly meeting. We've decided that the extra paperwork it would take to implement a system where alignment shifts truly work and are consistent from table to table simply isn't worth the harm it could do to the campaign overall. In my home games, and I'm sure in John's, we both take character alignments and shifts very seriously. However, it is just something that can't be done very well in an organized play setting because some people here hit the nail on the head. If you track evil, you also have to track good, lawful and chaotic. The extra paperwork and added stress on a GM simply isn't worth it.

The system we have in place is pretty good now, and implementing any additional changes at this time wouldn't make it better. We don't want to make global, campaign sweeping changes for no gain, and possible greater loss.

We trust our GMs to adjudicate the rules fairly and intelligently, especially when an alignment shift could drastically affect a character, such as a paladin. If a GM makes a mistake, we expect them to talk with the player(s) to come up with an fair resolution.

Thanks for all the feedback in this thread. It does help John and I to evaluate the environment of the campaign on tough topics to keep it the best organized play out there.

This sums up my belief of where we stand, what the discussed changes could have done, and leads to an outcome I support entirely.

Thanks, Mike.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I agree, above minimum caster level items of cure spells to help the occasional bad table comp / cursed wound heal-checks-versus-death spiral wouldn't be a bad thing.

At the usual costs, so they're still going to be costly.

A note for Lou: level 1 anythings aren't 'expensive consumables', to me. Dweomer's essence is about where those start to come in.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

This is not intended as a slam on Josh, but a serious question - I've been consistently disappointed by one author's writing in PFS, and want to find an adventure of his that shines...

So, I'm curious, in tangential relation to this, if anyone can point me to an actually good adventure that Joshua Frost wrote.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

OK, let's talk about briefings where the only reasonable response of a PC is "Why in the planes are you telling us this NOW instead of oh, last night when it would've done us at some good for preparation? You send specialists out to do a job that involves (task most dungeon crawling pathfinders don't need to worry about) and don't let us know what we're doing until we're LEAVING THE GODS DAMNED BOAT? We could easily lose you the pathfinders we're supposed to save because of YOUR failure to plan. You've been on this boat with us for how long?"

The Series:
This of course was Heresy of Man 1. The remainder of the series includes things like creatively incorrect math in the BBEG's stat block in part 3.

Of course, a lot of the writing in that series is almost as bad.

Sheila heidmarch:
Sheila is obviously a Lissallan cultist, based on her reported actions in Race for the Runecarved Key 2

Cheliax ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

There was some significant ... displeasure... when Krune used a SM to get good-subtype creatures to fight the PCs.

It's consistent with the narrative, though, so I discount it as just .... player unhappiness with how evil can manipulate good in PFRPG/3.5.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
FurtiveZoog wrote:

The Beard - Yeah, maximizing playing opportunities is one reason I always go for six players, in addition to not wanting to be as likely to kill characters.

In Season 4, they started making inside adjustments of modules for parties of four as opposed to the default assumption of six. Don't remember if that's still true for 5.

Still true in season 5.

Cheliax ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

You should seat the number of players for whom you believe you can run a fun game.

Don't softball the tactics.

Don't change the tactics out without the players' having invalidated the villain's "plan".

Adjudicate things fairly.

And then death happens.

The sentiment that "dying sucks" and should be avoided at the cost of narrative and NPC tactics does a disservice to the actually potentially dangerous adventures like Rebel's Ransom, Dalsine Affair, QFP 1 and 3, Waking Rune, In Wrath's Shadow, and Storval Stairs, as well as the dangerous is what you bring to the table with you adventures like Empyreal Enlightenment, Fortress of the Nail, or even first Steps 1.

The players have a responsibility for figuring out how to mitigate a TPK - dead PCs *will* happen, even at low levels.

There's no good to be found in the proposal to start a new PC higher than first without having to assign some kind of earned credits to it, though. This organized play campaign was designed around character progress being tied to playing on either side of the screen, and learning how to survive in a PCs-are-more-powerful-than-default campaign is definitely not an item that I consider to be a bug.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

So, just to confirm - there's no official swap for the illegal Vital Strike feat on the thugs, so we should run it with that feat available?

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Good luck, Mr. Luckett.

Cheliax ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I hate the 'murder-hobo' moniker. A lot.

The fact that the secondary success conditions push (relatively hard, IMO) to move the PCs away from being "murder-hobos" is a very very good thing.

Though I do want to GM a table of 4-20 that goes murder-hobo on the secondary succes condition someday. The fight should be interesting.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Criik, I don't see that text on page 20 of the Season 5 Guide to Organized play, where are you quoting from?

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

For tier 7-8 it's kinda move-countermove.

AT 9th, though, forget it - the game is nuke tag more often than not.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Nope, Mike banned it before Guide 4.0 went live at GenCon.

There was NEVER a time when that item was legal.

1 to 50 of 995 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.