Grand Necromancer

TimD's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter, 8 Season Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,514 posts (1,565 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 77 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,514 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I have more characters than sense and have several that would be in-tier for this.
Full disclosure: I've only done one PbP, but would like to join in the fun as this is one of the few scenarios I've seen come up I've not played or GM'd.

For low-tier, I'd offer:
"Chance" - halfling Pai-Zin Life Oracle 2
"Dapper" - elven cleric of Count Renalc 1 / Swashbuckler 1 (Cha Lvl 2)

For either tier, I'd offer:
"Heilsteinn" - Unbreakable Fighter 1 / Cleric of Immonhiel 2 (Cha Lvl 3.2)

For high-tier, I'd offer:
"Ashfeather" - Tengu Inquisitor of Pharasma 4

I'll update the profile for whichever works best for PbP with all of the current info for the char.


I've only done one PbP, but would like to join in the fun as this is one of the few scenarios I've seen come up I've not played or GM'd.

I have more characters than sense and have several that would be in-tier for this.

***

nosig wrote:

What replay options do we have now?

GM Star Replays and... anything else?

Just the chronicle from doing the PFS survey.


Bit confusing to determine if this is full or not.

If not full, would love to join (I have an insane amount of potential chars for low tier) as I've only done one PbP and would like to try more.

If full, happy gaming to you all :)

***

This is my favorite tool for PF.
Still hoping for a change from "drop" to "enter char #" for those of us who have #'s over 60, but it's still awesome.

Thanks for doing this for the PFS community!

***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
TimD wrote:
I'm not sure what sort of mirror-universe I've stumbled into, but I agree with Tallow on this...
Do-do-do-do, do-do-do-do, "You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination."

I actually had Golden Earring going through my head, but yeah...

***

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure what sort of mirror-universe I've stumbled into, but I agree with Tallow on this...

***

Michael Sayre wrote:
answers to all my questions and didn't even have to reference "42"

Thanks much!

***

Figured I'd get the ball rolling on the GM thread for this as I did not see one already out there.

This looks like it's going to be great fun, but there are a few hiccups I'm finding:

There are two encounters described in this module (A1 and D) which both mention having creatures which normally do not have the ability to verbally communicate engaging in verbal communication. For a non-PFS game, for A1, I'd probably just increase the Int to 5 or 6 and give it a rank or two of Linguistics and the ability to understand Common and Varisian and do something similar for D, but I'm not sure what to do for this for a PFS game day.

For Encounter F, the speed penalty from the breath weapon is specified as cumulative and can result in a 0 speed. I am not seeing any way to free a trapped creature. Again, for home games this wouldn't be an issue, I'd probably just treat it as a slightly more resilient tanglefoot bag, but this is for PFS.

Finally, can we advise the players about the conditions for the 2nd point of prestige so that they can make an intelligent choice about which character to apply this to, or is that too reminiscent of "chronicle fishing"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Doing my "prep" for this for Saturday and just want to say that this may be the most fun and wacky WBG mod yet (especially the understated, but hilarious hijinks potential of "A3").

***

Mike McKeown wrote:
TimD wrote:
Many congrats, especially to HMM (who is probably the most positive person on these boards and makes the Paizo site much less toxic just by her presence)
You forgot her great Filks :)

:) Assumption not in evidence, your VO-ness.

I've not had a chance to hear one live, which from the exposure to them I've had from DragonCon over the years, I understand is the most important, so I can only attest to the creativity.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many congrats, especially to HMM (who is probably the most positive person on these boards and makes the Paizo site much less toxic just by her presence) and Simon (whose PFS tracker is the best thing for PFS I've seen since my involvement in the campaign began).

***

While I'm not positive, I think that some of the dice may have been made by some of the local PFS groups to give out at local conventions / game days / etc. and not just by Paizo. I seem to recall a conversation by some of our former VO staff about ordering custom dice for one of our year-end holiday parties.

***

Delbert Collins II wrote:
*stuff about SCARAB doesn't have competition and 5-Star GMs have always been at war with Eastasia

Rebuttal about 'Competition and Conflict of Interest':

Delbert Collins II wrote:
SCARAB does NOT view any convention as competition and has helped others launch eight different conventions over the years we have been in existence.

Which is great, especially if read as "Walmart doesn't consider any local stores as competion - especially as they almost all go out of business shortly thereafter" sort of tone. As almost anyone who has ever dealt with volunteer-driven activities knows, you only have so many volunteers. I can recall with great clarity that in March of 2014 GA PFS had chosen to support a new-ish local convention called SecretsCon. Unfortunately for SecretsCon, SCARAB had contracted to assist another local game day resulted in a divide of local players to the deteriment of both conventions. I'd post the board links, but unfortunately the original GA PFS boards set up by Mike Brock died a few years go. I'd send links to SecretsCon, but they no longer exist either.

As mentioned upthread, this is one of the reasons that a large # of GA PFS members protested the change from "conventions" to "Game Days" for Paizo boon support when the limited boon release proposal was suggested. We had already discovered what is good for SCARAB is rarely (if ever) good for GA PFS.

Rebuttal about '5-Star Hoops':

Delbert Collins II wrote:
I have not added any requirements to get a 5th star and have approved every single person who has ever applied to a 5th star under me. I think you have me confused with someone else.

Prior to the creation of the RVC position, GMs who had earned their five-star status were not required to jump through self-aggrandizement hoops in order to earn their 5-star status.

GA PFS was fortunate to have a truly superb GM, Colin W., who was in every way I can think of, exactly what a PFS GM should be while GMing. At the time, I was a store coordinator at one of the local game stores that Colin GM'd at. Colin did not really care about recognition or about stars, but as is true of most volunteers who set a great example or go above and beyond he did inspire others to care about it on his behalf. To that end, I wanted to make certain that he would get that recognition, preferable as a "surprise" so I outreached to JohnC, who confirmed the # of games he needed (he was already at 11 of the 10 needed specials) in November of 2015 and began the count down so that I could "arrange" to have a VO witness his 150th game and make sure that his 5-star would happen smoothly.
With some delays and trepedition, his 150th game occurred on June 25, 2016 and the information was forwarded to try to get the 5th star stuff finalized in the manner I was told by JohnC via PM to utilize on July 13.

Then we waited...
...and waited....
...and waited some more...

After hearing nothing but crickets, I outreached again on Aug 24 at the same time the VL who attending the game send another follow-up email after checking with our former VC, who advised that the information had been forwarded along with his resignation as one of his last acts as VC. Finally we were told that we would need to send a list of his games. At the time, there was no one in GA who had access to the ability to access Paizo data due to the shift of the VOs. When questioned about if the information hadn't already been sent, the response was "If he[former VC] didn't send the sessions simply put it will not get approved."
So we ended up having to do the one thing that I truly did not want to do and have Colin dig up all of his stuff, making what should have been a "congrats, you're awesome!" moment turn into a "please do more paperwork for this thing that's not really all that important to you" instead.

Not exactly a great way to retain the kind of volunteers PFS should desire.

Regarding timing - all of this, of course, right before our little local convention, DragonCon, with an almost entirely new VO cadre.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Bouchard wrote:
The timing for bringing this up on the forums conceivably couldn't be worse.

The decision, whatever it reasoning / validity, is immediately affecting PFS players and apparently stores in the the removed VO's region.

Much like complaints about when things blow up right before GenCon because PFS leadership implements a change then, the timing is not driven by those who have issues with the decision - it's the timing of the decision itself.

This is also where the "praise in public / criticize in private" aspect falls through as "trust us, it's being handled" only works for so long as things pile up and volunteers find other things to do with their time / resources.

From the POV of someone in the region, but not the state, I've just assumed that the RVC has carte blanche unless they do something that would result in jail time. Maybe that's a good thing. I'm less certain now than ever.

***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to think of GM stars as condition bar for mental trauma...

***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I love that flip-mat / map-pack sheet!
I've been using it for awhile now, it's been one of the best "additional additional" resources for PF I've found.

***

Bob Jonquet wrote:
“Official” documentation is never as simple as it sounds. First, it would need to be universally applicable to all archived specials which could be problematic since they were all developed with different intentions and success math. Second, Paizo would still want it to go through the development team, art and layout, editing, etc. the normal process for any published document. They typically do not have time for such things in their busy schedule.

I don't understand your response to this proposal, so I believe there may be some confusion. The proposal is not "remake the scenario", the proposal is "create a generic conversion sheet akin to the 'secondary success' sheet". There is no artwork and the only layout that would be needed is to make sure that all of the text fits onto the sheet in a manner that is able to be read via both device and hard copy.

Example:

07-00: The Sky Key Solution:
*For Four Tables, the following modifiers apply
**Aid Tokens: modify the available # of aid tokens by [+/- x]. Modify the effects of [specific aid token type] by [x]. If [conditions / tiers are {x}] modify by [x]. Due to the smaller table sizes, the table GMs may wish to remind players to pass along the aid tokens at the end of any encounters in which they are used.
**Victory Points:
***For Part 2: [specify changes in Victory Points needed or accumulated by specific encounter]
***For Part 3: [specify changes in Victory Points needed or accumulated by specific encounter]
**Calculating the Outcome: [exact table calculations for Missed Opportunity, Admirable Expedition, Impressive Performance, Unrivaled Accomplishment]
**Conclusion: [enter any "failure" cost changes here {especially for lower-tier tables}]

*For Three Tables, the following modifiers apply
**Aid Tokens: modify the available # of aid tokens by [+/- x]. Modify the effects of [specific aid token type] by [x]. If [conditions / tiers are {x}] modify by [x]. Due to the smaller table sizes, the table GMs may wish to remind players to pass along the aid tokens at the end of any encounters in which they are used.
**Victory Points:
***For Part 2: [specify changes in Victory Points needed or accumulated by specific encounter]
***For Part 3: [specify changes in Victory Points needed or accumulated by specific encounter]
**Calculating the Outcome: [exact table calculations for Missed Opportunity, Admirable Expedition, Impressive Performance, Unrivaled Accomplishment]
**Conclusion: [enter any "failure" cost changes here {especially for lower-tier tables}]

*For Two Tables, the following modifiers apply
*Overseer GM change: with only two tables, rather than having an "overseer GM", the GMs should delegate between each other which will calculate points and determine conditions and which will read "overseer GM texts". Table GMs may decide to divide these responsibilities in whatever way they deem best for their run.
**Aid Tokens: modify the available # of aid tokens by [+/- x]. Modify the effects of [specific aid token type] by [x]. If [conditions / tiers are {x}] modify by [x]. Due to the smaller table sizes, the table GMs may wish to remind players to pass along the aid tokens at the end of any encounters in which they are used.
**Victory Points:
***For Part 2: [specify changes in Victory Points needed or accumulated by specific encounter]
***For Part 3: [specify changes in Victory Points needed or accumulated by specific encounter]
**Calculating the Outcome: [exact table calculations for Missed Opportunity, Admirable Expedition, Impressive Performance, Unrivaled Accomplishment]
**Conclusion: [enter any "failure" cost changes here {especially for lower-tier tables}]

Normal: The Sky Key Solution has a normal table # minimum of 5 tables.


Michael Sayre wrote:
I just wanted to pop in and drop some clarifications for GMs prepping this scenario.

Thanks.

Clarifications always appreciated, especially before the scenarios drop!
Looking forward to running this one.

***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I had put together something similar a few years ago that I had in a file called "the infamy campaign" with characters going from 2nd to 14th L.

If I were to do it now, I'd probably also mix in some of the Seven Fingers' tomb scenarios as well.

Infamy Campaign Progression:

lvl start - lvl end
2nd - 3rd: Skull and Shackles: The Wormwood Mutiny
3rd - 4th: Plunder & Peril: Rum Punch
4th - 5th: Plunder & Peril: Dark Waters
5th - 6th: Serpent's Skull: Racing to Ruin
6th - 7th: Skull and Shackles: Raiders of the Fever Sea
7th - 8th: Plunder & Peril: Black Coral Cove
8th - 9th: Plunder & Peril: Bonus Chronicle
9th - 10th: Skull and Shackles: Tempest Rising
10th - 11th: Serpent's Skull: City of Seven Spears
11th - 12th: Skull and Shackles: The Island of Empty Eyes
12th - 13th: Skull and Shackles: The Price of Infamy
13th - 14th: Skull and Shackles: From Hell's Heart

***

Simon Kort wrote:
Someone mailed me that 30 was not enough so I gave it 60 for now and am looking into changing the field into a input field instead of a dropdown when I find time.

Any chance this is still on your list?

... um, asking for a friend
<.<
>.>
<.<

***

Arutema wrote:
TimD wrote:
In similar vein, I'd like to see some follow-up on information that may have been acquired from a certain general in 07-00 about far away Azlanti colonies.
I wonder if those aren't the off-world colonies that make up the Azlanti Star Empire in Starfinder times.

Likely so, but ...

A) I don't really do SF and would prefer to see something in PF.
B) it would be apt and a fun future easter-egg if their attitudes in SF were partly formed / cemented due to interactions from murder-hobo flavored Pathfinders long, long ago...

Add me to the list of folks for:
Gloomspires finale
What's behind the door #1 (from 02-17)

... and adding to my list:

I'd like to see a callback to a certain Minotaur Prince as well, whom I don't believe we've seen anything of since Delerium's Tangle (barring a very brief mention in a faction mission in Season 3...). Given his previous ties to GM Torch, this could be a way to wrap / continue that particular storyline as well.

Something involving kraken so that we can see Captain Tanner finally get his revenge.


I know Paizo folks are rolling into convention season, especially with PaizoCon coming up, but any chance we can get the maps list for this one?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Focusing on paladins using poison seems odd when the real gem in the Code change is the removal of the "you WILL cause party conflict" clause about cooperation with evil from the 1E Paladin code.

I'm also hoping the "casting an evil spell" is removed as I can see the "will you use the wand of infernal healing on the dying infant?" conundrum for the next round of "paladin falls" drinking games.

***

This one was fun to run.
Fortunately for me, the PCs' actions limited the Keystone Cops factor between her tactics and the tactics of her guards in this encounter.

***

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
So the only really real data likely coming out of Core is that while there are still people playing it and loving the challenge it provides, it is by far the minority of what you find in PFS.

It's a legal form of replay available to everyone, not just those with sufficient GM stars.

Based on BobJ's stated standards about replay and the fact that complaints go "up stream" as a RVC he would have the most information about cheating-related complaints of that sort than anyone outside of Tonya.

That said, as I'm not actually in support of unlimited replay, I suppose I'll follow over to the new thread...

***

@BobJ (due to think thing that as you're an RVC I would you'd likely have access to more / better info)

Has the current "open replay option" aka "Core campaign" been generating significantly more complaints about the type of behavior you are associating with replays? - all of the (admittedly second- or more-hand) information I've seen regarding regions where Core is doing well seem to indicate that the limited replay options opened by Core haven't had the noticeable negative effects that were anticipated by many who campaigned against no replay at all.

***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does she fly? You can dim door above a target if you're flying.

Actually, you can't:

Per the prd, conjuration effects:
"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

Also her tactics and her bodyguards' tactics do seem to be something at odds with each other, but it should be kind of funny to watch them scramble to keep up with her.

***

Alex Wreschnig wrote:
unless she dimension doors directly above a target

If you read the conjuration effects in the magic section, you'll discover that you can't actually teleport or dimension door into mid-air, so sadly that's not viable either.

I was equally confused about this particular opponent's tactics as well, as they seem to cede the combat to the PCs in a very strange manner and (as you observed) PCs will know to 5' step one way or the other to deal with reach weapons. Looking at the terrain, it may be possible to finagle some things regarding heights of boulders, steps, etc. which aren't specified in the scenario.

Regarding the chronicle sheet, I'd argue this has one of the best chronicle sheet's I've seen outside of Season 4, though not necessarily for the faction being featured, but I've not seen as much Season 9 so I may be out of the loop.

***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would very much like to see a table reduction for specials, especially after 2.0 launches and it becomes even more challenging to schedule the specials.

RE: Boon / scenario requirements - I would recommend a sheet similar to the "secondary successes" sheet be generated to convert them and avail as a download containing the affected specials.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Also, let us remember that organized play is a marketing platform for Paizo. It would surprise me if they wanted PFS1 to continue any longer than it naturally will. They are unlikely to make significant rules changes to artificially force it to continue. It is not likely to bring much if any revenue since they won't be producing new content for 1E.

Counter-point to that is that I'm pretty sure Paizo wants to sell through their remaining PF 1.0 product and with the "must own" restrictions, PFS is probably their only way to do so after 2.0 launches.

***

DJ Cheezy-Churl wrote:
And I think a lot of Secondary Success Conditions might involve drink and drinking.

Sold.

***

Concur that QC would be a concern, but more particularly continuity across regions.

Interesting info on the OPF. Most of the time when I've asked about it, I've gotten something of a brush off. That's actually very encouraging.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RE: factional First Steps quests - I like that thought, but would also like to see something specific with differing VCs and for both "newly confirmed" pathfinders and "Seekers", especially to emphasize that differences in how those characters might be viewed by the Society as a whole and bring in some differences in missions from the different VCs / faction heads, etc. (ie "you've learned from you interactions with Drengle Dreng - you may cross this boon off of your chronicle sheet to recover from the effects of fatigue from lack of sleep" type of thing)

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:
TimD wrote:
...unless there was an online region...
It seems you missed this blog

No, I saw it. I spend unhealthy amounts of time on Paizo, though less now that 2E has been announced.

As we're discussing something that was historically based on physical regions, the comment was based on if that trend would continue, which would make online somewhat anomalous in that someone would be effectively able to be in two regions at once.

Bob J. - concur, but as usual ... bug vs. feature. :)

***

SCPRedMage wrote:
TimD wrote:
nor does it specify that the enemy who smote you is your target.

Uhh...

Smiting Reversal wrote:
Three times per day after being targeted by the smite attack of an enemy, you can immediately make an attack of opportunity against the target.
That kind of says you're making it against the enemy that tried to smite you, to me...

Sure. So when you've specified you are attacking the creature in melee with you and the Destruction Domain archer with Greater Invisibility hits you with an arrow from 25 feet away, where does your attack go? - to your "target" that you are in melee with or the person who destruction domain-smote you with an arrow that you have no way to know that it used a smite and probably don't know where it is?

***

I think the issue is more in the mechanics of how the adjudication of the feat's mechanics and how it is written, namely "smite" doesn't generate any real discernible effects, nor does it specify that the enemy who smote you is your target. This would also trigger on destruction domain ability, possibly a channel smite, and might have even stranger adjudication for situations where someone can trigger a "smite" effect for someone else (is it the wielder of the weapon or the originator of the smite effect?)

I think it would be fine if the feat's wording was cleaned up a bit, but can see why it's not legal as-is.

***

I could see doing a Regional Program for scenarios that would expand outward after a short amount of time (and possibly editing) - especially if there was an overarching team that would review before general release. What might be even more interesting would be the possible background info / development for the local lodges that might make their way a bit further out into the world. Adaptable regional quests would probably be the "tamest" and easiest to handle. Something akin to the 3-7 evergreens with static encounter possibilities, but with one or more regional encounters and a regional VC to give the mission.

If this did not go through the normal RVC tier of things, I might even be interested in assisting via writing / editing / creating templates, but I doubt I'd be interested supporting it for anything other than general play / GM unless there was an online region as it would likely fall in with the current RVC tiers of things.

***

A common issues since the days of Gygax vs. Arneson styles of games is that not all players and their GMs will mesh in their preferences on various gaming styles. While the normal advice is to make sure that you mesh with your GM &/ or gaming group this would be a bit more exacerbated if you add in a payment factor, especially if the players have differing (or even mutually exclusive) preferences in their gaming styles.

Most of these threads come from someone intending to try to start to charge to GM. If you are an exception and pondering hiring someone to GM for your gaming group, I'd recommend making sure you group knows what types of games, the styles of play they prefer, and that you have a plan for when things do not go according to preference. Once you've done that, then I would check with the local gaming communities about GMs who either prefer or can GM in the preferfed manners.

***

Bob Jonquet wrote:
This was apparent when they went back into retirement and there was a concerted effort by a particularly large amount of the community to make special schedules and "speed runs" in order to lock in more assimar. No other race that has been introduced has seen this type of activity.

Disingenuous at best:

A) Paizo staff supported trying to lock a few races that were about to be forcibly retired due to closet whining on a VO-only board whose toxicity is legendary even if the details discussed there are protected by NDA.
B) "Speed runs" were about as widespread as that pandemic of edited photocopies and people being mugged for their chronicle sheets in parking lots. In a campaign of tens of thousands, it's unlike the number of people who managed to organize "speed runs" numbered in the dozens. EDIT: I'm sorry, hundreds of thousands, not tens of thousands.
C) Of course no other race has seen that type of activity - no other race has been legalized and then removed.

The echoes of that decision and the even more poorly implemented decision to penalize GMs with APG Summoners will probably haunt this campaign for years to come as trust was damaged in both directions by both decisions, so I applaud Paizo staff for their transparency on this rather than leaving it to the Bog of Etern- VO Opinions to determine.

***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The most positive thing I can say about the aasimar/ tiefling mistake is at least it wasn't the "we are going to penalize you for GM'ing instead of playing" that the APG Summoner mistake was.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Its the individuals fault for paying money for PFS specifically without first consulting the Guide, a VO, a GM, another player, the PFS specific message boards, etc. Im glad it worked out for you.

... or they checked, made sure it was legal, real life interfered and when they came to play that character found out that they now can't play those characters.

[Edited to reduce grar]


Hmm wrote:

is there a developer post listing thise maps somewhere?

Hmm

I snagged it from the product description under the 2E playtest area of the site.

***

Bob Jonquet wrote:
With respect to more liberal replay (up to and including unlimited), I assume we are all in agreement that a character should still be restricted from having the same chronicle applied more than once. The difference being player replay vs character replay. The latter should be a hard 'no'.

Barring the "checklist of 'I helped make a table'" I suggested, I concur.

I would also not care if someone had both a GM credit and a player credit on the evergreens that can be different each time.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see a mix of the options and think that Hmm's "Option 5" should just be implemented in general with the caveat that I also think that some other scenarios should be explored for open replay as well (Murder on the Throaty Mermaid, to be specific - but any other scenarios that may be different each time the scenario is run, if there are any others).

I am not a supporter of true unlimited replay, however, I think that a mixture of "enhanced GM stars", a cool-down period of 2-4 years for PC chronicle sheet, and an option for "generic chronicles" to help in assisting organizers make tables would be the optimal solution.

While I understand that Paizo is not intending to support 1E via scenarios beyond GenCon 2019, I would also request that the faction sheets for season 11+ (assuming that faction sheets continue) would be pertinent to both 1E & 2E or that some other solution be put in place to allow for the faction sheets to continue for the 1E campaign.

Chronicle Cool Down & Generic Chronicle Sheets:

Cool Down: For the cool down period, I would suggest implementing a policy that any player can request to sit at a table to play and receive credit for a scenario that they have already played so long as they have not played that scenario in the last 2+ years (I'm thinking 2, but could see up to 4). The GM should have the option to NOT sit a player at a their table, per normal for "replay" / "I've GM'd this" players, but for organizer sanity the GM should probably advise if they have more extreme views for this type of replay than they do for "I've GM'd this" players.

Generic Chronicle Sheets: One of the issues I can see arising (especially for smaller lodges) is having issues seating tables. To that end, I would suggest a "generic chronicle sheet" be created that would allow a table GM to incentivize players who may have already played a game to fill a table, while preventing "chronicle farming" that was apparently prevalent in other org play campaigns. In my head, this would look like one of the "specials" sheets or one of the more recent "all quests" with a break-down of levels for slow & normal track. The chronicle would need to be completed by the GM to note the name and number of the scenario and the chronicle would either offer nothing but gold at generic-by-level rates or offer have an option similar to the quests where the GM would note the character completed a scenario and the level the character completed it at and the PC would have the option to "build up to" reward tiers on the sheet by making tables, much as the recent quests have done, in order to get a secondary reward (nothing huge, something like bonus prestige point[s] that won't go over max, ability to purchase one item as if fame were increased, discounted spell casting services, a free wayfinder upgrade, or maybe the ability to purchase some consumables at higher than base casting level).

As a bonus (and if the Paizo folks would want to do this) it could also be expanded to allow generic chronicles to be done back and forth between 1E & 2E for pre-gen play credit, which might be particularly useful as 2E is just taking off as well as CORE & Standard 1E campaigns, but might require a bit more formatting finesse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To answer this one, in case the OP or others stumble upon it and Paizo staff doesn't have a chance to answer it amongst all the others: yes, new maps and maps are: burnt-out crypt under the city of Magnimar, a ruined temple in the demon-infested Worldwound, a remote wizard's tower beside a mountain pool, and an arcanist astronomer's subterranean workshop.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The King In Yellow wrote:
what evil acts are you doing the rest of the time, to stay neutral?

I keep letting the 8 Int / 8 Wis paladin of Erastil talk about family values which makes the other folks question how much LG they want around...

***

Kurald Galain wrote:
Tallow wrote:
They aren't really updated though. The only season 0 scenario that is updated for Pathfinder is 0-05: Mists of Mwangi.

Really? I thought all season 0 scenarios were allowed with Pathfinder?

Season 0 was written for 3.5, not Pathfinder.

Barring the scenarios which have been retired, they are all legal for Pathfinder 1.0.
Mists of Mwangi is special in that it was updated to reflect the Pathfinder set, rather than 3.5 rule set.

***

Any wish list I would have would depend on how much effort Paizo would be willing to expend in revising their online system.

Kevin brought up a lot of good points about the issues in reporting.

My ideal would be to have an option once a game is reported is to have a form for each chronicle sheet that I can go in as a player and select / deselect things on the chronicle sheet and put in my own notes for posterity / future tracking with no onus on the GM / reporter to do anything with it, but that would allow me an option to digitally track (or recreate if necessary) what happened on those adventures. Add in something similar if the GM wants to log notes (and have the GM log in using their PFS # as a player so that it isn't driven by the reporter who may not be the GM), but again with no required onus on the GM to do so.

Paizo could also add a review system or some other commonly requested metric (complexity / time to completion / etc.) that might also encourage more feedback from players / GMs than scenarios normally get.

That said, I wholly admit it's probably a bit of a pipe dream because I'm sure the coding resources necessary would be far from negligible for the web team, who already seems perpetually strained.

***

The grey morality of the Pathfinder Society is one of the things that drew me into PFS. I think moving further towards "we always have to be the good guys" will lose a lot of the interesting potential to explore uncommon alliances (as long as there's no paladin in the group, of course) and the repercussions of those alliances.

That said, I'd rather wait and see how much alignments will affect things in 2.0 before starting up another argument about how role-players can't be trusted to role-play responsibly in public. The last one was exhausting enough and we don't have Mike Brock around anymore to be a counter-point to "no campaigns with evil characters ever work out".

(Unless he's still watching from inside his Decemvirate Helm... )

1 to 50 of 1,514 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>