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

TimD's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter, 2015 Star Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber. FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 769 posts (772 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 40 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 769 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Thanks for sharing, James.

I think that Paizo is doing the right things for the right reasons and in the right ways - I wish I could say the same thing about Tor (or at least whomever it is there that makes their website decisions, especially in their moderation choices).


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

Halfling Seeker Sorcerer with a 1-level dip in Halfling Opportunist is the easiest route I can figure for that mix of requirements. Good luck.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

One to beam up, Scotty. :*(


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Bob Hopp wrote:
TimD wrote:

Sad (and surprised Paizo would go with Tor).

-TimD

TimD, would you care to expand on why you linked that particular blog post? I'm sure you were trying to make a point, but I don't get it.

Sure.

Paizo is a co-sponser of GenCon, and has been for at least two years (the oldest reference I've found is to 2013, but it may be longer).
Given Tor's published opinion, I found it odd that Paizo would enter into a business agreement with them. I'd rather not derail the thread more than that, but if you're interested, here is a far more extensive conversation regarding the linked article and the response from one author (who is also a minority and a gamer) to it.

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Also, add me to the support for 12+ play. My perception that 12+ was going to be supported was one of the main reasons I became involved in PFS to begin with.

I've not yet gone through Eyes, but that's mostly because my g/f is going to go through it with me and she only has time / interest for one PFS game / month.

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I'm mostly ambivalent about scenario costs as I tend to play more than GM at this point and consider whatever I spend on scenarios to be a bit of balance towards what others have spent (or contributed as VO's). That said, I do think that there's a theoretical balance about the costs of the scenarios vs. creating a barrier of entry for folks who are not currently involved in PFS getting involved via home game groups, and the costs for folks who are running PFS for public venues attempting to draw more people into PFS. I know at D*Con last year Erik M. mentioned that the cost model for PFS GMs running public games was something he wanted to look into more (with the implication that he didn't want the cost of the scenario as a barrier to folks looking to GM for PFS).

An interesting point was raised (though perhaps inadvertently) up-thread about the perception that you are paying for someone else. Has anyone explored the concept of opening up an opt-in PFS model primarily driven by player contribution? I seem to recall RPGA used to have a membership rate per year that included a polyhedron subscription. While I don't think we should require PFS players to have to pay to play (it is a primarily a marketing tool, after all), I can see opening up an option to give Paizo more revenue to support PFS by having an opt-in model for players.
I wouldn't want it to be a "pay-to-win" type of thing, nor do I think that it would be fair to others for early notice / access types of things (or fair to the Paizo employees to try to wrangle that), this would be more of a minor reward or something equal to what other folks can get relatively easily.

What would others think of actually trying to create a sort of opt-in $ option for PFS players?

-TimD

P.S. As we're discussing price points, I'm thinking something like $20-$25 / year, maybe $50/ year with a PFS opt-in only T-shirt, but I'm sure it could go all over the place and maybe even have different pricing levels. I'm not really invested in any specific amount, but think that it would help if there was an option for folks who play more than run to have a way to contribute as well to the overall Society.

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I would like to add that once you are VC or VL you are no longer allowed to be mean to people on the boards.

You win for the funniest line I've read on the Paizo forums all week.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Sad (and surprised Paizo would go with Tor).

I pretty much never buy trade paper, only mass market, and a (very) few authors in hardcover. I often don't even take free convention copies of trade paper. I think of the 1,600+ books I have logged on librarything a bit fewer than a dozen are trade paper (and those are mostly compilations of books that I use as "loaner" copies such as the Amber compilation).

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Cort Odekirk wrote:

Hey TimD.

You do know that Event creators can add delegated reporters, correct? If the concern is that the Event creator doesn't want to report all the events created, they can simply add the account email of other individuals involved, and they can do the reporting.

Indeed I do, that's how I had been reporting on an event created at the venue I had taken over as the store liaison. The issue isn't in the reporting of scenarios that are loaded on the event, it's in the inability to add the scenarios that are actually being scheduled and run as time progresses as well as the inability to edit scenarios which may have been run and reported, but aren't loaded.

Effectively the event creator has become less involved, but all of the chronicle sheets that are being signed and given out use their event code as that's the event code for the venue. From necessity, I've recently been using an alternate event code (whose name in the reporting actually reads "Alternate Reporting") to report those sessions, but if there is ever any comparison between the event code on the Paizo site and those on the chronicle sheet, they won't match. This may be a mountain vs. molehill perception issue - I don't know what Paizo uses the information gained from the reporting system FOR or how often (if ever) it matters that the reporting code doesn't match what is actually on the chronicle sheet. I would hate for it to be an auditing issue at a convention for a player who has done everything right on their end however, and got a character bounced because of a dichotomy between their account and the chronicle.

I'm not sure if it's feasible with the way the system is built, but even a way to "pass off" the "ownership" of an event # might help if there are any other store liaisons who are now or will be in a similar situation in the future. That way the controls that Paizo wants would be maintained (only one person), but it gives a clearer picture of which scenarios were run where and when, and allows for corrections (such as when I mistakenly keyed 03-18 rather than 03-08 under the event for 35571 for 12/11/14, which I'm still unable to correct even though I'm both the GM and the one who reported that session).

If it's not feasible or not a direction Paizo wants to or is willing to go, I understand - I just wanted to make sure that the Powers That Be who make the calls on this understood why and how it was disrupting the reporting on the end-user side of things and what some of possible "downstream" ramifications (mismatched chronicles vs. reporting or wrong sessions that can't be corrected) would be.

Cort Odekirk wrote:
Hopefully that gives you some insight on our thinking :)

It does, thanks much for taking the time to engage in discussing this issue!

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Here's the earlier discussion on this topic.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Hey, Cort.

I appreciate all of the transparency you've given us in some of these processes.
Regarding the intent, is there any chance you can elaborate on that further or direct me somewhere where it has been elaborated on?

Why I find it odd:

From what I understand, the reporting set up to both facilitate both game days and convention reporting. For convention reporting, I can see that the tool may actually work as it's for a limited # of scenarios over a limited time, for game days... not so much.

Game days often happen both regularly and irregularly at a specific and generally public venue, such as a game store, where multiple store liaisons may be responsible for scheduling &/or reporting games there over the life of the store. Store liaisons in what I'm understanding is the ideal PFS world, aren't necessarily the person GM'ing all of the scenarios, only scheduling, reporting and coordinating with the store. The reporting over multiple liaisons is where this gets to be a sticky widget.

With the reporting "fix" that was added some time back allowing non-owners to report under a specific store's ID# it allows a liaison to report & edit where needed and keeps a consistent reporting #.

With the current change, what PFS will likely see will be an increasing # of disconnects between what is reported on the Paizo site and what is on a chronicle sheet, which makes folks who try to both play and seem on the up-and-up a bit concerned. This will occur as GMs may correct or turn in reporting sheets late (in some cases very late) or if a coordinator becomes no longer involved in PFS or has limited bandwidth to give to PFS as the person reporting the game will have no option but to report it under another #, nor are they able to correct mistakes which may have occurred at the venue where they are reporting.

Is this disconnect between reporting and the actual chronicle sheets actually "working as intended"? or more "unintended consequences?".
This is not a hypothetical situation, it's happening now, but I was hoping that it would be a temporary glitch, not a "solution" to whatever issue is happening in the background we've been unaware of.

Apologies if I've animated a dead horse and beat it down once more, but I'm just not seeing where the advantage is for either Paizo reporting or the PFS folks in the trenches on this one. If it's purely a "the system can't handle it" issue, I understand - but that's not what seems to be going on.

Thanks again for taking the time to address these concerns, it's appreciated!

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
lucky7 wrote:
I ban non Core Campaign!

I ban anything on the additional resources list, but only in non-CORE...

... in CORE, I only ban the CRB (though that obvious nest of power creep, the Guide to Org Play, is also on my radar)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Keolin Portara wrote:

The show all scenarios button on the reporting page appears to be broken. When you click the show all scenarios button the drop down is empty.

I've checked this on Safari and Chrome on Mac (Yosemite) and on Windows 7 in Chrome.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Yes.

Current work-around (if you "own" the reporting #) is to edit the event and add the scenario so that you can select it to report. Of course, if you don't own the #, you can't report it under that Event#.

There has been some discussion about website fixes, but it was also mentioned that there is a concern regarding the ability to report under Event #'s you don't own.

-TimD

*

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

With respect towards John & Mike, I find it sad that the choices of players who took the opportunity to play more than the PFS staff intended when staff chose to ban two very popular character races last year has caused the PFS staff to become leery of both grandfathering and (apparently) of reconsidering their prior decisions / rulings in these cases.

I hope that this trend doesn't continue, but I'm bowing out of this thread now as I still feel strongly that the ruling about aasimars & tieflings was a poor choice made for reasons other than that which was stated when it was announced. I've no desire to resume the level of bitterness towards PFS which that decision, its delivery, and the comments made by VO's at the time caused as I still regret having to tell potential players that they could no longer play the characters that interested them, which in turn meant I felt that I had to steer them away from PFS participation.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Sebastian wrote:
If the world operated as you proposed, I would sue the ever-loving hell out of those scrubbing bubbles, which have yet to manifest googly eyes and sweep through my bathtub, magically cleaning it without any effort on my part.

Much amusement from this (and I wasn't even following that thread, so I have no idea of most of the context).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I'm not actually all that familiar with Assassin's Creed, so I can't help you with finding something close to that without knowing a bit more. Assassin-style games can be a lot of fun, but they vary a lot in how they are executed. Running a solo-campaign can add a lot of options that would be difficult or more stifling in a traditional group-sized campaign.

Concur with the recommendations that a Slayer is probably your best single-classed assassin character. Assassin as written is a poor choice. The Red Mantis is flavorful, but possibly not what she would want.

A lot of the thematic choices about the nature of the adventures / missions that she would go on are going to be dependent on the world she inhabits. Do you run in a homebrew world or do you use Golarion, or some other published world?

Some fun themed games I've used / played / pondered / written that use "assassin tropes":

Last of their Order:

The PC is the last of their specific Order. Their goal is to either avenge the demise of the others, discover what led to their downfall or disappearance, recruit new order members, create a new and different order, or find sanctuary from those who destroyed the old in some combination.
PC hooks / allied NPCs could include ghostly mentors, former order members, prior contacts, extra planar allies, sentient weapons, and allied orders.
Adversaries / Antagonists could include prior clients, prior victims or their families, rival orders, those who were actually responsible, those who abandoned / quit the order before their destruction, and well, just about anyone who thinks that killing for reasons other than the ones they think are good are bad.
Adventures could be training missions, investigation / infiltration missions, seeking of lost order artifacts, exchanges of favors (ie I kill someone for you, you give me what I need to further goals) or threats, exfiltration from when things go bad, and possibly recruiting or training of new order members.
Complications / things to look out for: standard solo-play solutions (GM PC or other "trusted allies") tropes rarely work well with assassin / stealth style games - I'd probably ponder using a sentient item that scales with the character, ghostly mentors, or find a way to let the PC have multiple effective cover identities so that they have access to more resources than a lone assassin normally would.
Themes: paranoia (as you are alone), hope vs. hopelessness, loneliness vs. security, temptations to give up / give in, struggle to keep from falling to evil, honor amongst thieves & killers, wretched hives of scum & villainy, from soaring heights to deepest depths of social interactions, etc. A lot of the themes would be driven by what happened to the order and how long ago it occurred.

Inspirations: Kelly McCullough's Fallen Blade series ; Kill Bill ; Col Buchannon's Heart of the World books

Lone Killer:

Sub-categories: For King or Country (assassin works alone and was never part of an order, but may have had a mentor - they kill only to protect their liege / country), Dark Defender (assassin kills to promote or defend a cause, religion, or non-political group or territory - perhaps their family), Washed Out, but not Washed Up (assassin had a mentor, but for whatever reason never completed their training, they now use the skills that they received, but have to supplement their limited training with "on the job training" or other skill sets in order to succeed in their gols / missions), Last Resort (character is trained to kill, but prefers to use killing only as a last resort or when other options have failed - whether they are options directly explored by the assassin, or someone else or even another group can vary, but the assassin specifically trains to overcome obstacles and deliver messages, not always death), It Takes One to Stop One (assassin was trained to be an assassin, but now specializes in security or counter-assassinations, they seek to bring down or hunt rivals, and sometimes to keep a specific group or individual protected - varies from For King or Country as the "protectee" changes throughout their adventures), etc. For some stranger themes, you could also consider ways that the character might suddenly gain powers or skills that they don't understand without the years of training that might make them an effective assassin who is unknown outside of the "normal circles".
Much like the "Last of their Order" one of the keys is to stress the lone nature of their work, friendly NPCs should be either considered potential security breaches, dispensable, kept at arm's reach or someone who may need to be protected and thus serve as a distraction / threat in the future. Again, a good dover or several dozen may help flesh out both the character and their interactions in the world that don't revolve around sneaking & killing. Establishing and maintaining cover identities, finding contracts, making sure you aren't being trapped / betrayed / lured / duped are common tropes for those who operate alone. Maybe the character wants to fool others into thinking that they ARE part of an organization, or has a desire to form one. NPC / Ally interactions should be established to try to support this.
Antagonists are not only similar to the "Last of their Order", but also include possible political rivals of their patron, competitors, former mentors or students of their former mentors, and of course many of those who may hire them for their services.
Complications and themes would vary based on the sub-category and what motivates the character to do the killing or what driving them to the conflicts that escalate to the killing.

Inspriations: Mickey Zucker Richert's Nightfall, Steven Brust's Draegaran (Vlad) series, Robin Hobb's Royal Assassin books (& sequals), Brent Weeks' Night Angel series, Lilith Saintcrow's Dante Valentine series (& the Jill Kismet series, perhaps), the Professional (movie), Star Wars Sith (always there are two, well, at least now...)

One Blade of Many:

Character is part of a relatively large group of assassins with their own support systems, allies, enemies, etc. Character may be an active assassin, someone in charge of security or safehouses in a specific area, a trainer, or some combination therein.
Can be used in a manner similar to a more traditional "adventuring group" in that character may often be part of a team, but one who is sent off on their own to do things (which in a traditional non-solo campaign tends to bog down the game, but is actually the point of a solo-campaign). Character is likely a specialist of some sort, which will affect which missions they are assigned.
Allies would be the same as "Last of their Order", but would also include order members and would be unlikely to include those who left the order under anything but good conditions. Fun opportunities for unusual allies (ie undead order members or order members who are extra planar creatures, dopplegangers, etc) and rivals.
Antagonists would vary by mission and the nature of their order. If their order is one who seeks to disrupt the slave trade, for instance, they might assassinate those protect or promote the slave trade itself, prominent slavers, or even those who they feel are not active enough in opposing it in order to replace them with someone who is. Red Mantis Assassins go where and do what their Vernai tell them to, for the most part, but may also be involved in security or establishing safehouses or investigating potential future targets or even performing Red Cell types of operations on Mediogalti itself.

Inspirations: Red Mantis Assassins from Golarion lore, historical assassin groups, traditional D&D assassin groups, fantasy ninja clans

OK, that was a bit longer than expected... spoiler tags added to cut down on the wall-of-text. Hope it helps.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
John Compton wrote:
TimD wrote:

John, when will we finally get to see the triumphant return of Captain Tanner?

How would you feel about someone starting a "What would John Compton do?" thread?

-TimD

Captain Tanner awaits the right opportunity to reclaim his ship (or the closest thing that floats) and take the fight back to the kraken that wronged him!

I am pleasantly disconcerted by the wide range of responses folks might suggest I would take in response to various situations—or were you suggesting I be the one to respond to those situations? Both could be amusing, though I think I do the latter relatively often in the Pathfinder Society General Discussion board.

I look forward to the scenario with Tanner's Revenge (or, perhaps more amusingly, the Kraken's apology / side of things).

It was more a joke about the WWJCD thing :)
completely hypothetical example: "it's four hours into a convention slot and [redacted name of a former VC] isn't paying attention, you can't possibly finish in time and you have an excellent opportunity to deliver some brilliant role-playing, so you pause... and ask yourself... what would John Compton do?" :)

New question: alcohol-wise, what's your poison?

-TimD

*

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

The "taking things away" posts are always the worst. I don't envy John & Mike having to communicate the ramifications of the new FAQ to the PFS-base.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Reading the abilities I would think that the last line of the ability should read something like "this ability replaces the heal undead function of touch of corruption" rather than "this ability replaces touch of corruption".

May want to ask on one of the "Ask [person at Paizo]" threads, though.

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Also keep in mind that the Pathfinders still hold a sacred relic of Iomedae, the Crown of Thorns, stolen from the faith. You can have an eventual goal of persuading the Society to return the crown some day.

Pretty sure the Thorncrown went missing when Woodsedge was sacked.

On topic, a paladin of Alseta might be interesting, though there's not a whole lot of information out there about her.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Level dip in Brawler?

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I banned alter self, disguise self, and hats of disguise ... what's the point of playing the Rouge class with all of those over-powered options, after all?

:)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
TimD wrote:

This thread makes me appreciate my normal gaming groups even more.

-TimD

Perhaps ironically, given our opposing viewpoints, I have to agree. Finding out how much some groups like certain things that my groups have long since avoided or abandoned makes me very happy I have the players and fellow GMs I do.

It's ok, Orthos, I forgive you for not realizing that CyberPunk 2013 is the most perfect game system ever written. I'll even wish you happy gaming! :)

Obviously, tone is a bit difficult to express on a message board, but I find nothing wrong with people who disagree with each other in many things agreeing that sometimes "to each their own" is best.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
You're right that as a designer, I work on the core line. As to tying into things for the other lines, the reality is that those lines produce enough content that there wouldn't be space in their (relatively short) books to produce follow-ups. I think it's awesome that we're able to provide support for our new classes in later books of the core line, but that's mostly because there are relatively few of them, all things considered. Besides, isn't the Void school powerful enough with powerful spells, the ability to cherrypick a weaksauce opposition school, and a 1st level ability that's nearly auto-win at higher levels? ;)

Void was merely an example, though admittedly one near and dear to me as I do have a void wizard who I would dearly love to have more than 3 options for a 4th level school spell.

It was more an inquiry to see if it would be the same design team folks that would address things that aren't core as they are "rules development" rather than "game world development". I understand that it's quite likely that folks at Paizo wear a lot of hats (such as the Modules Overlord working on a player companion book), it's a bit arcane cryptic to those of us on the outside looking in who does what so that we can ask the right questions of the right folks.

-TimD


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

I'm perfectly fine with Orfamay playing however he wishes. As I said to Orthos before Orfamay jumped on me, it's great that he likes playing that way.

But it's also fine not to. I don't expect him to conform to the Right Way to play, I'd just like the same courtesy.

+1 to most everything TheJeff has said in this thread.

This thread makes me appreciate my normal gaming groups even more.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Hey, Mark.

From what I understand you're primarily working on dev line for the core stuff rather than the Golarion-specific books, so this one would probably not be aimed at you.
Who would we need to petition if we wanted to ask for updates to some of the "orphaned" things that were introduced in the Campaign / Companion lines of books?
Specifically I'm considering things like the void alternate school of magic, where it was mentioned once, but there have been many, many spells published since. I know that sometimes in the Companion books, they go through and mention stuff from prior books and how it might relate to something in that book, so I'm hoping there's a chance we may see either something like that or a blog post similar to the old Golarion-day posts updating some of the "orphaned" systems, but I have no idea who I could petition to do so.
Any suggestions?

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

How do you pronounce the name for the empyreal lord Ylimancha? ...
I have a whimsical thought for a PFS character "Don Qixote de Ylimancha", but wanted to make sure I wasn't too far off-base pronouncing it...

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Shooting Star wrote:

Who else has his problem and how do you choose?

... problem? I'm only at 40... well, registered... plus the 14 "perpetual pregens" I use for random 1st L games as filler tables of course... though now I guess I need a few more for Core games, just in case...

<.<
>.>
<.<

what?!
um, yeah, nothing to see here... carry on!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
137ben wrote:
Pretty early in the thread I linked to an announcement about an upcoming mythic AP.

So, please don't read too much of a sardonic tone in this, but I read your post and then went back through everything here three times to try to find where you posted the link to a Mythic AP and finally just did a search on your name. "Clicky" is not actually very informative if you're trying to draw folks attention to something.

A 3rd party Mythic AP does sound pretty interesting.

From my POV, I bought Mythic because it was the closest I could come to high-level support from Paizo. I can't say I find it particularly useful over all as the balance seems to be all over the place, but I have definitely mined it for stuff for my 18+ campaign and my 28+ campaign.

I also think that I'm likely not alone in watching the support that Paizo gives Mythic and using that as part of what will help determine my purchasing habits for other hard cover product that introduces new tack-on rules in the future (ie Occult Adventures). I'm really hoping that at some point, Paizo will generate some additional support for rules systems or content that seems a bit orphaned at the moment.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Great list.
Also, a few more things that may be of interest:

Calibans (magically twisted hag children)
Changelings (female hag children)
Coven Ooze (bigger, nastier version of the hag eye ooze)
Graeae
Hag Eye Ooze (ooze created by a hag for spying)

-TimD

Edit: bonus fun, if you thought you could never find a mini for a hag eye ooze, you're in luck: Bombshell Mini's has just the fig for you!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

John, when will we finally get to see the triumphant return of Captain Tanner?

How would you feel about someone starting a "What would John Compton do?" thread?

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
VampByDay wrote:
Level 2 Inspired blade swashbuckler: (Weapon finesse-rapier, weapon focus-rapier from class) and slashing grace feat.

Slashing Grace doesn't work with a rapier. Fortunately, there's Fencing Grace and you've not yet played as a 2nd level character.

Your post made me sufficiently curious to see what I had planned for my low-STR swashbuckler... and a burdenless buckler may be the answer you are looking for as well...

I'd also recommend a Porter vanity if you have the proper book.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

If you've not yet played as a 2nd level character (or want to pick up the Extra Traits feat) the Muscle of the Society trait might help- it lets you consider your strength +2 higher for carrying capacity.

Also, a handy haversack is only 2,000gp - not sure what else you're carrying that's adding to your weight and if you could just keep it in there.

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Paizo threads are not routinely locked by request.

Despite the disagreements here, it's far more civil than some discussions that force thread-locks.

If you would prefer not to see the discussion anymore, there's always the option to hide the thread.

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Calybos1 wrote:
Because evil party = self-destructing game.

This is the sentiment I most disagree with. I've seen evil parties work. I've seen good parties self destruct. Party self-destruction is 99.5% the players and only .5% the characters that they are playing.

The belief that the only people that want to play evil characters is both wrong and somewhat insulting. Not all of us have the same preferences or game experiences, I get that. Some of us even like different types of things at different times. The fact that sometimes, that's an evil character does not make the player a bad person or a bad player - only one that prefers more options.

LazarX wrote:
The Goblins modules are special cases which don't disprove the rule.

Which rule is that?

Nils Janson wrote:

And how do you want to decide who is doing cannibalism, torture, rape or other evil stuff just because he wants to explore an exotic concept and who just wants to digust the other players.

As an organized campaign you need solid rules that apply equally to everyone, and somehow i don't see how this should work.

I don't think you are following what I was saying, I was making a point about motivations for wanting to play evil characters and how not every concept works in PFS with the current good/ neutral requirements.

I agree that rules are necessary - I've even said that I don't think that unrestricted evil characters would be good for the campaign. What I'm arguing is the idea that seems to be most prevalent which seems to boil down to "only bad players want to play evil characters" or "evil characters are always disruptive". Neither of which I find true.

----

Again, not on the band wagon that there should be a "maturity test" or that PFS should open all alignments all of the time. The OP was asking if there was a reasonable way that some evil chars could participate in an org play campaign, so I was addressing that as an interesting thought experiment. Keep your towel handy and don't panic. =0)

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
lots of good things

Well said.

I would add that another component of playing a black hat type of characters is that you can engage with a twist on common morality tropes. In fact, a good deal of the fun - at least for me - is to play a character who may be "normal" except for one or two things that make them "outside of bounds" on the good/neutral field.

Using an example of one thing that was banned in PFS, at one point I had hoped to have a tengu Pathfinder who was based a bit on the Martian mannerisms from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (ie the whole "grok" bit, where part of showing respect and admiration is the consumption of part of their body), and a devout follower of Pharasma.
The concept that cannibalism may not always be a bad thing I find interesting, but is obviously now explicitly not allowed in PFS play.

To be clear, I'm not saying that I think opening the doors wide open for unrestrained an unrestrained murder-fest of stabbity doom is a good plan, but I find it an excellent thought experiment on how it might be done and find all the shrill "it NEVER works" arguments to be the exact opposite of my gaming experiences, where I've seen far more disruption from paladins & kender than I ever have from Lawful Evil characters.

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Jessex wrote:
TimD wrote:

An excellent point was raised regarding the fact that we already have two scenarios involving evil PCs.

So I'll put on my hypothetical-hopeful hat for a moment (it has a simply marvelous plume!) and inquire how horribly disruptive those scenarios were to other parts of PFS as I know how they went in my area...

How many people have had complaints or have had to ban players when running We Be Goblins or We Be Goblins Too?
Those of you who are completely anti-evil, do you refuse to run these scenarios? ... are your hypothetical predictions of doom & gloom based off of what occurred when these horrible scenarios that involved evil PCs were run at your venues?

From my point of view, the We Be Goblins mods have been some of the most fun and engaging things I've played and run in PFS and leads me to think - we have "hard mode" options in select scenarios, what if there was a "TeamEvil™ mode" (or role-play hard mode) where PCs could opt to play with evil characters (and, much like "hard mode" is entirely opt-in by other PCs?) in some scenarios or even modules?

-TimD

We be goblins isn't played by anyone as "evil mode" as far as I can tell. It is played, as it is clearly intended, in "nuts mode." And if you want to have a bunch of "evil" scenarios that devolve into a mess of silly backstabbings and other intra party shenanigans then fine but I doubt it will last very long as a campaign.

Every character in We Be Goblins is evil. I'm not sure what "evil mode" is if not an adventure written and run for a party that has nothing but evil characters, whose primary goal is murder & destruction, preferably by fire.

Since apparently you HAVE played / run We Be Goblins, please let us know what you changed before running it (based on your earlier comments about how evil never works and you don't allow it) or why it went so horribly wrong and why you fear a loss of players over it.

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

An excellent point was raised regarding the fact that we already have two scenarios involving evil PCs.
So I'll put on my hypothetical-hopeful hat for a moment (it has a simply marvelous plume!) and inquire how horribly disruptive those scenarios were to other parts of PFS as I know how they went in my area...

How many people have had complaints or have had to ban players when running We Be Goblins or We Be Goblins Too?
Those of you who are completely anti-evil, do you refuse to run these scenarios? ... are your hypothetical predictions of doom & gloom based off of what occurred when these horrible scenarios that involved evil PCs were run at your venues?

From my point of view, the We Be Goblins mods have been some of the most fun and engaging things I've played and run in PFS and leads me to think - we have "hard mode" options in select scenarios, what if there was a "TeamEvil™ mode" (or role-play hard mode) where PCs could opt to play with evil characters (and, much like "hard mode" is entirely opt-in by other PCs?) in some scenarios or even modules?

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
BlackOuroboros wrote:
However, given the fact that a majority of the responses (including from a developer) here is, essentially, "these people can barely function with a tight reign, if you let them play evil they will break everything", I'm honestly not sure why I would want to try to join the greater community if it's this dysfunctional.

Meh. In my experience, actual PFS is very different than how it seems to read if you are only basing it on what occurs on the boards.

Not saying that this thread makes PFS look good, but it's one of the weird examples of things that will get folks really riled up as everyone's experiences seem to be vastly different (and often mutually exclusive in outlook).

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

In PFS? ... dunno ; PFS rules and rulings might make evil chars ... odd.

Outside of PFS, sure sign me up!
Some stories are not best told from the point of view of the "good guys" or even the "Han Solos" of the world. I've often found some of the most engaging characters to be those who would be best described as Lawful Evil (ex. Auda Ibn Jad from the Rose of the Prophet trilogy or Gerald Terrant [the "Hunter"] from C.S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy). Characters who have iron will and purpose, and could care less about the morality or weaknesses of others. Those with what others might call a twisted sense of honor, but one which they will not deviate from for mere convenience or social acceptability.

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:
The downsides to this suggestion would be tremendous. You know that, and are being deliberately provocative. There are no upsides to it, at all.

Hey, now, please dial that back. :-/

Just because you can't find any upsides and many of us find more down sides than up, doesn't mean they don't exist.

It's one thing to disagree, another to say someone is being deliberately provocative because they want more variety in their PFS experience.

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
RocMeAsmodeus wrote:
snickersimba wrote:

I get up to get a soda and theres all the negativity! This is not the thread for doubts! This is the thread for brainstorming. There is ALWAYS a way to make something work.

The way to make this one "work" is to play the organized campaign for the world's oldest roleplaying game. That one allows players to be lawful evil. If you don't like that game, not being evil is the price you pay for getting to play PFS.

Interesting, I may just try out 5E entirely for this reason.

Snickers, while I'm a huge proponent of allowing LE characters in home games, I just don't see it happening in PFS. The home game problems involving the other players would just become manifestly more intolerable. Ex: if I sign up for a game day with my LE heretic inquisitor of Red Mantis to play and a walk-in Paladin shows up, which of us gets to play? Me, who wants to exemplify "explore, report, cooperate" or the poor paladin who's paladin code prohibits him from working with me?

It's the whole "thou shalt not grok" mandate of PFS on an even larger scale and one of the disadvantages of org play. Well, that and all the inefficient CN murder-hobo's killing all of your potential future minions, of course. :)

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
rexx2264 wrote:
I am the only one reporting under by event number and the show all scenarios tab still does not work.

From what Cort said above, their current work around for this is to use the Edit function to add the scenario & then select it so that you can report it. They are aware that "show all" isn't working.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Gilarius wrote:
When I read the topic, I thought it was going to be about how to deal sneak attack damage to flasks...not when using flasks as your weapon.

... and I was thinking that it would be some sort of separatist cleric or warpriest of Cayden Cailean who used a hip flask rather than a tankard.

-TimD

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Sera Dragonbane wrote:
Jessex wrote:
I'll repeat, I've been A GM since the late 70's and over that time I've tried allowing evil PC's many times due to the insistence of players who claimed they could RP them without causing problems. They were without exception wrong.

An appeal to authority if I haven't ever seen one.

+1 to this. [Redacted additional response as one appeal to authority to combat another is still just a moronic wank-fest. I'll just say that my gaming experiences lead me to disagree with Jessex. Vehemently.]

That said, and while I'm a huge proponent of gaming as part of Team Evil™, LE characters likely wouldn't work well in current PFS because PFS is gaming in Wal-Mart mode when it comes to alignments and morality.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Cort Odekirk wrote:

TimD - Ironically, that's how the system is supposed to work. Only owners (or folks they delegate) are supposed to add new scenarios that way. The "show all" created a bypass to that security and let effectively anyone add anything, which is concerning for obvious reasons.

We're having an internal debate now on the future of that functionality. While we recognize it provides a shortcut, that shortcut by it's nature can be used for malicious actions (not saying anyone has, but the option is there).

For now, the owner of the event (or individuals they have assigned as able to edit that event) will have to do the editing for scenarios not included when the event was created via the process I listed above. We'll let folks know when we come to a decision on the future of "view all".

I sort of figured that it was working as intended in that regard, I was just illustrating that (at least for some of us), the work-around isn't something we can use.

While I can see the worry for abuse, the functionality of not having to generate multiple PFS #'s for different venues is a huge bonus.
As an example, the store I'm the liaison for has had at least 5 PFS #"s affiliated with it that I'm aware of, and some of those owners are either no longer involved in PFS or live out of state. I'm not sure what, if any, impact having multiple ID#'s for the same venue would have for internal database / reporting purposes for you folks at Paizo, but it's one reason I've been reluctant to just add several #'s for an ongoing venue.

I'm not trying to be critical of your processes, just trying to provide perspective from at least one user's point-of-view.

Thanks for the update!

-TimD

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Calybos1 wrote:
Speaking only for myself, this "Core" option has motivated me to finally step up from just playing in PFS to possibly GMing.

Noted :)

I'll mention you as a possible GM in our PFS core scheduling conversation for local games.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Cort Odekirk wrote:

Verified that it's not showing the full list. We're looking at a fix, but for the short term if you need to report a scenario being run at an event that was not on your initial selection when you created the event, you can just edit the event to add the additional scenario, then it will show up to be reported normally.

Same effect, different path.

Unfortunately, I don't think that option exists if the event code is "owned" by one person and the reporting is done by another as the only options are "Sessions & Report" with no "Edit" option.

-TimD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

For some reason the "show all scenarios" option now seems to be disabled for me and is no longer giving me a drop-down list.

I'm trying to edit a game reported under 62037 as I apparently reported it under -18 rather than -08.

-TimD

*

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

It means I have to register PFS char #'s 36-40. So much for THAT New Years resolution.

-TimD, Unapologetic Alt-a-holic™

1 to 50 of 769 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.