|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So, we've experienced some cancellations and have some availability for more volunteers, mostly RPG GMs, but also ACG and Quests. If you have not already done so, scroll up to the top of this page, read the open call information and follow the link at the bottom to the online application. I will be getting a change log report from Tonya this week that will include added volunteers. If you are on that list, I may be able to find a suitable place for you. A couple of hotel room spaces have opened up but they will go quickly (first come first serve) so get your application submitted ASAP for consideration.
In addition to scheduled events, we are asking all GMs to be prepared to run the evergreen scenarios (5-08 The Confirmation, 6-10 The Wounded Wisp, and 7-10 The Consortium Compact) should the situation arise.
Does this mean we have to be prepared to run ALL of these, or can we just pick one, and use that as our "go to" should we need it?
We consider the three evergreens to be something that all GMs should be familiar with and ready to run at any time. Of course, having the materials for those three on top of your regular schedule can be a challenge especially if you are flying to GenCon. So, I am trying to get a few materials boxes built for them that would be stored at HQ and eligible for sign out by GMs who have to run them as an alternative to their normal sessions. No guarantees, but since we are asking you to prep extra stuff, the least we can do is have the maps, pawns, and handouts for them. Of course, if any of those scenarios are actually on your schedule, do not depend on HQ to provide the materials.
GM schedules are complete and emails are going out. It'll take me a few hours to get them all done.
The first few emails I send, I forgot to add text asking for a reply. Please be sure to reply with a confirmation that you received the schedule so we can record it. Don't want anyone's schedule to disappear into a spam folder or something. I will post again when they are done so you'll know if something is wrong if you don't see it.
Thanks for your patience through this arduous process
Yes, we are at the Westin this year. It may be a tad quicker to access from the Sagamore, but not hugely so. Between the walk, the speed of the elevators, etc. I would still estimate a round trip to take between 20 and 30 minutes.
We still need some more GM volunteers, but I am hesitant to boost anyone to 9 or 10 slots. With the extended slot times and reduced sleep, I am going to avoid it if possible. There are a few tier 1 GMs who have graciously offered to run more than 8 and I truly appreciate it, but for now those additional slots are "standby." I am hoping that between additional volunteers joining the ranks and the lower tier GMs taking on more slots, we will have what we need. If that is not enough, we will revisit adding extra slots to the tier 1s.
EDIT--I know that for some, the idea of GMing 10 slots is a badge of honor. If you've been around for any length of time, you'll inevitably run into one of the "old guard" who will tell you how they "marine'd" GenCon (first one in, last one out) and ran all ten slots. I myself had a marathon a early on where I ran 2 slots at a local GameDay on Sunday, a slot zero on Monday and Tuesday before heading to Indy. the players were trying to level up for events at GenCon. Ran two slots at Scotty's Brewhouse on Wednesday, all ten slots, and followed it up with a pick up table on Sunday evening. 17 slots in 7 days was WAAAAY TOO MUCH. I do not recommend that kind of thing for anyone.
At this time, we are in need of more GMs for GenCon. If you already volunteered and would like to add more slots to your schedule, please email me directly and I can upgrade your status. If you are not a current volunteer, but would like to join the fun, please head over the Gen Con 2016 Call for Volunteers and follow the instructions. There is an online form to complete.
We do have a few more hotel spots available if you upgrade to a tier 1/2.
Any GM willing to take on more slots than what they originally volunteered for is much appreciated. Our intention was not to schedule GMs for more than 8 slots, but if you really want to run the entire show, please let me know.
Based on A LOT of feedback on slot lengths, having enough time to run properly, etc. the decision was made to extend the slot times slightly.
MID slot is 2pm-7pm
PM slot is 8pm-1am
This should allow a bit more time to experience the scenario, complete paperwork, clean up/clear the table for the next slot, and set up at a new table, as well as providing time to grab food, use the restroom, etc. Yes, it might mean a tad less sleep for some, but we hope it will improve the gaming experience overall. Depending on how the specials are written and presented, we may not need to be in the room until 1am, but we wanted to be prepared nonetheless.
If this schedule works, it could appear again at future events. If not, we can always go back the previous format. As always, your feedback after GenCon will be valuable in helping us decide what changes, if any need to be made to improve the experience for GenCon 2017.
The funniest part of this is that everyone is right. All the suggested problems posited about the "other guy's" proposal is exactly what is going to happen. Not necessarily widespread, but this campaign is world-wide. There is a huge swathe of player variations. Would an optional rule become mandatory? In some areas and with some players, yes. Would it improve play? Yes, in some areas. Would some of the more extreme and arguably "straw-man" arguments come to fruition? Yes.
The reality is, some players are jerks and the consumable rules are not not going to change that. Rules do not dictate attitude. IMO, a reimbursement program will not be any more effective at encouraging GoodRightFun than what we already have. Some will disagree and that's okay. As I said, this rule like many others will be embraced differently from region to region. The current "pay it forward" is the most altruistic form of the cooperate tenet.
Another thing to consider is the the inequality in class participation. It could be argued that the fighter who stands in the front and takes the brunt of the damage is saving the squishes from the same damage. They "owe" it to the fighter to help in the healing. He has much less available wealth to devote to all the various "required" consumables because he has expenses (armor, shield, etc) that you don't have. So while my wizard standing in the rear with the backpack full of scrolls, wands, potions, etc. there is some level of expectation that he will use those items on the fighter because that is his role in the party.
In the end, most of the "bad feelings" regarding the use of consumables can be assuaged during character introductions. If everyone knows you are not going to use your stuff to help them, then they can buy their own. IMO, the worst situation is for people to know you have something, but they only find out at their direst need that you won't use it on them. Although it is "weird" situation that two players can buy first aid gloves, trade them, use them, and not be out any of their wealth, while the same two players who don't trade are "screwed." The current rules certainly encourage this type of "loophole," but it does work.
I'm not in favor of it, but one idea that was discussed (and shot down) a few years ago was to allow open transfer of goods between players with the caveat that you could never exceed the wealth you earned. Meaning add up all your gold. That is your wealth "cap" and you could not exceed that, ever. So it would eliminate the goods hording problem of that other campaign.
IMO, the tenet of cooperate is the most important one for the society. I like the way a quid-pro-quo system makes me feel. Adding a repayment program just feels less supportive of cooperation. It is also a self-fulfilling program. If you are the type that refuses to help your fellow agent, that will be revealed during play and you will garner like treatment. The "golden rule" can be a powerful thing. Course, this is just my opinion and YMMV.
I don't think its fair to say he's not part of the deign team just because of how his position is listed on the staff roster. IMO, "creative director" is a pretty powerful position. Sure, by his own words, he is not a "rules guy" but he does play in campaigns run by and including official members of both the design and development teams. As a member of the Paizo staff, he is in position to have face-to-face conversations with them and be involved, at least tacitly, in the discussions. IMHO, it is wrong to discount the contributions of any of the staff even if they are speaking out of their "specialty." His words may not carry the weight of an official FAQ, but they usually provide insight into the RAI.
Don't forget there are other issues to consider with this specific case. At least one other player was creating conflict by [reportingly] refusing to use an available restoration. Again, I am not going to make a value statement on who was right or wrong. Not enough information for that. Not to mention there is clearly some long-standing issues between the OP and other players at this location. It is reasonable to assume that all these factors weighed in on the decisions made both at the table and those since
it isn't instantaneous
Technically speaking, there does not seem to be any time requirements listed in the Guide. Only that an extra 5pp be spent. In a world with magic as powerful as raise dead, its reasonable to think the society would provide teleportation magic as part of the extra +5pp cost. But, again, its left up to the GM to adjudicate.
I think the most important thing to consider is the balance between following the spirit of the rules and what is the "good of the player." Is it in the spirit of the Cooperate tenet to make a player sit idly at a table and watch five other people play for three hours? The extra prestige cost is a hefty price to pay for not being prepared. A breath of life scroll, first aid gloves, even a scroll of shield other could have made the difference. Seems, maybe, we should err on the side of the player. Who is served by doing otherwise? If the GM would have made a different ruling, would it have changed the OP's perspective? Would he not have rage-quit? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. While I will not chastise the GM for making a bad decision, perhaps we can take this as a learning opportunity. Sometimes, rigidly adhering to the rules and the idea of making everything a challenge can lead to some less than optimal choices. YMMV
Just because the scenario has an oracle without the spell on his list of spells known does not prohibit the character from utilizing the prestige option
I was merely responding to the OP's comment that there was a cleric immediately available that could have raised him. Since he was not a cleric, and having a fully detailed stat block did not possess a scroll of raise dead, the solution was not as "simple" that. Personally, I probably would have allowed the raise with the extra cost of being away from a qualifying city. I would also have allowed a restoration, again with the additional cost, but I won't second-guess the GM especially considering we have incomplete information. Based solely on the information provided, I cannot find where any specific rules were broken, so I would not be inclined to over-rule the table GM. However, I'll leave it up to the local Venture-Captain to investigate and determine if any action is warranted. There may be circumstances that we are not aware of that influenced the decisions made at the table.
Hmmm, the rules do seem to be rather specific in this case, but I'm sure we would agree that the intent is not to ban Harrow decks from online play if they are legal for live play. OTOH, the rules are clear; no dice, cards, etc to simulate the deck, period. I'm sure the rule exists at least in part to sell more Harrow decks. Perhaps when the rule was created, Paizo just did not consider online play? A simple oversight really.
It might be a problem if we just simply ignore the rule and allow a substitution for online play. If that is the case, why not allow the same exception for live play? It certainly would not be "fair" if one player was using dice to simulate the deck online, but another player is banned from doing so without investing in the product for their live local play. Sounds just as unfair as disallowing the deck online vs live play.
I think this certainly needs a clarification from the leaders otherwise it appears that as the rules exist, you cannot play a Harrower online short of a live video feed with clear view of the deck. It would also make PbP completely impossible.
The only thing I have been able to determine for sure regarding swarms is that there is an ample amount of table variation regarding their implementation. While I can certainly understand your examination of how the contiguous aspect works, I disagree with the analysis. Many believe that those sentences are not necessarily related to the same point of thought, rather more bullet-point-like things to take into account when dealing with a swarm. I tend to believe that a single 10x10 swarm can change shape extending itself into any four squares as long as they remain continuous. It would be difficult to "move through cracks or holes large enough for its component creatures" if it absolutely had to maintain a 10x10 shape. I think it would be very odd if a swarm was denied the ability to travel down a pipe or similar passage due to an interpretation of what contiguous means.
I disagree that a swarm is simply a diminutive (or whatever) swarm. IMO, that is an incomplete description. Swarms are special and modify or outright break "normal" rules. I believe the RAI is that since the swarm is treated as a single creature and occupies a 10x10 space, it effectively IS a large creature.
I do agree that they cannot divide into four medium-sized individual swarms.
And while I agree "stacking" multiple swarms on top of each other is scary and something I don't think I would do, I think there still seems to be enough ambiguity in the text to allow such a thing.
I think too much is being placed on the terminology. It is clear the word "gameday" has different meanings to different people. I would bet there are even some differences in what one would call a "convention" as well. In the end, no matter what terms are used to describe the program and what names we use to define the different aspects of the program, what matters are the rewards.
Most who have posted have been fairly clear about what they would like to see the rewards program look like. And there has been just as much, if not more, banter among the VO corp regarding the details released in the Blog. IMO it doesn't matter what we name each part of the program, I'm still going to refer publicly to the events as I always have. If one of our local conventions is call a "gameday" for purposes of the program, we are still going to advertise it as a convention, nonetheless.
Thankfully, Tonya has heeded our feedback and is reconsidering the structure of the program. That is certainly promising and I still have every confidence that whatever she decides will result in a fair, rewarding program. It might not be exactly what *you* want, but I'm sure it will do what it intends to do...get more prizes in the hands of the community.
Personally, I don't see anything in that comment that would assuage any of the same fears you are expressing with the new PFS program. In fact, it lacks any level of explanation of how it is or will be implemented. Tonya could have just as easily said, "Paizo is committed to working with retailers around the world to be sure stores that grow and strengthen gaming communities are appropriately rewarded for doing so. Together, we’ve had a good run with year after year of record business levels."No, I am not trying to impune WotC's program. I am sure it is effective and adequately rewards their community. But, I fail to see the difference here.
At the risk of having every word picked apart and every decision scrutinized to the nth-degree, here is some insight into my understanding and intended application of this program for the Great Lakes region. My comments are not without emotion...
I am treating the rules as laid out as a guideline on how to qualify a location for support, but not a restrictive, black-and-white rule-set with no room for the application of common sense. Sort of like table-variation. We are not dealing with the tax code or a life-threatening condition here. This is a game. Let's try to remember that. If you don't get an 8-1/2x11 piece of paper with a minor, circumstantial in-game benefit this quarter, its not a catastrophic life-changing event. It doesn't mean I/we appreciate your efforts any less. We have thousands of gamedays to try and recognize. It will take some time to get around to most/all of them. And remember, if you don't get a GameDay reward this quarter, nothing changed for you compared to last quarter. Nothing is being taken away.
If the rules are too rigidly applied, the same events can/will receive the reward every quarter and that is not the intent. Some level of flexibility is being built into the system to allow the RVC to make the best decision for their region. We are a world-wide organization. One rule or set thereof is not gonna meet the needs of everyone, everywhere.
I currently have 14 VC and a couple of areas looking for one. It will be impossible for each to receive a support package every quarter. This means it could be 4-6 months before a VC sees a GameDay in their area get the rewards. Some type of rotation is "fair" even if one particular GameDay for one particular VC is consistently the biggest, brightest in the region. Most locations with lots of players, especially in a more urban location have more opportunities for convention support than a small community. One of the complaints those small communities have had is they have fewer chances to "win" rewards than larger communities. This program will allow us an opportunity to funnel some rewards their way independent of the convention system. Being the biggest is not the end-all be-all of PFS.
Let me be clear about one point. I am not going to publicized a list in the forums or anywhere else with a bullet list of why each location received support for that quarter. I will, however, work with the VCs to determine appropriate locations and provide a detailed account to Tonya for review. If she has any issues with the distribution, she can address it directly.
If I have learned anything in my years in the forum, its that telling people the "why" while being nice in theory ALWAYS spurns hateful dissection of the methodology and often results in attacks on the person's ability to function in their role. I watched it happen to Josh, Hyrum, Mike, and now Tonya. It happens to the VOs all the time. As much as we'd like to say the forums are a pleasant place of community discourse, too often it is a place of cries and gnashing of teeth.
Does this program carry the risk of some favoritism? Sure, but in a community this large and diverse I don't know that we can avoid it entirely without having an overly oppressive and inflexible rules-set that cannot possibly be applied fairly across the entire community.
There are a lot of upset feelings about this new program. I'm getting a ton of emails, texts, and messages that range from "hey this is great" to "OMG the sky is falling." All I ask is that the regions trust in their RVC to make fair decisions before we string 'em up as elitist fascists (an accusation actually stated to me). Remember, this program will increase the amount of rewards we issue each year and that should be a good thing. Where we once had no chance of rewards, there is now the possibility.
I apologize if my comments are harsh or hurt anyone's feelings. That is not my intent. I am just a little worn-out and a bit frustrated with having to field all the "hate mail" regarding this change to prize support over the past few days. I know its new and new things can be scary. Please relax and see how it works. There is no reason to get upset over the prospect of BadWrongFun in the light of what could (and probably will) be GoodRightFun.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
Ezdorell Ex-Elven wrote:
I just play at a gaming store weekly, and the region's Venture Captain said that, as a GM, I have to have all of them, but this was after I'd been to a GM101 (in the region where I used to live) and read the GM201 guide, so I wasn't sure if "you must have ALL pregens available at all times when acting as GM" was the official interpretation of the suggestion to have pregens available or not.
There is nothing in the rules that says you must have all the pregens available whether you are a GM, organizer, or even a VO. However, if makes things a lot more difficult to accommodate new players if you have none of them. It is strongly recommended that at least some of them are available at your event. That being said, local/regional differences/expectations can impact that a great deal. Some area leaders might "require" all events offer all the pregens.
My main issue with any requirement is the cost of meeting the expectation. While I am perfectly comfortable providing most/all the pregens to attendees at an event I am organizing, I stop short of requiring that of all organizers in my region and I certainly do not expect the table GMs to have/provide pregens to the players at their table. IMO, that is the responsibility of the organizer. If you want to be in charge, you need to be in charge. Now, if they feel it is better to just provide the CORE pregens, I will support them. If they want all of them to be available, I support that too. I trust my community leaders to know what is in the best interests of their local area as they know it better than I do. If a VO or an organizer passes the responsibility of providing pregens to their table GMs or even the players themselves, I will address that with them directly.
Ezdorell Ex-Elven wrote:
printing them all is not cost effective for me.
I might recommend one of two solutions that seems to work well.
(1) If the store is okay with storing pregens in a box, like a standard comic storage/display box, print out as many as you can handle/afford, but stick to just a few versions, say the CORE pregens. Print a good stack of each, say a few dozen or more. Whatever you can handle. Then, the next week/month, do it again with the next group, maybe the "Ultimate" pregens or the ACG. Over time, you'll build a nice stock of pregens and when one runs low, it'll be cheap and easy to replace them.
(2) print 1-2 of each pregen and have them laminated. Again, this can be done relatively cheap by Staples, or some other print facility. If you cannot afford all of them at once, do them in groups. I recommend starting with the CORE pregens. Whenever someone wants to use one, they can write on it with wet/dry erase marker and return it at the end of the session. If they like the pregen and want a more permanent copy, they can download them from the Paizo website for free. Again, if one comes up missing or is damaged, it will be cheap and easy to replace it.
John Compton wrote:
Also, if one of your PCs accepted such a boon, I'm interested in hearing why. Has the character always skirted the border between neutrality and evil, and this was a way to express it? Does your character worship an evil deity? Was the boon just mechanically too good to pass up? Was it an accident—whether you didn't intend to earn the reward or miscalculated the ramifications? Something else?
I can only respond with a character anecote. MY barbarian was expose to Darkest Vengeance at a very low level and as a result developed an extreme fear of the dark. So much so, I often huddled with the caster like a small child whenever we were dependent on their magical light source. This went on for nearly all of his career.
When the Lissala series came out, there was an event where he was in complete darkness that was broken suddenly by a fire spell created by a Lissalan cultist. He took this as a sign that Lissala was showing him a way out of his fears. Thereafter he partook of all the "taints" from all the Lissala scenarios. In his mind, the general opinion of Lissala being an evil maniacal deity is misunderstood and he focuses on her role as a knowledge and rune goddess. Now being 12th level, I dunno if its worth it, but I have considered using a rebuild-boon from GenCon to change him to an inquisitor of Lissala to reflect his religious epiphany.
Not sure if this helps answer your question, but it was my role-play justification for taking the evil boons.
One person's BadWrongFun is another person's GoodRightFun. This applies to nearly any question not specifically covered by rules that starts with, "Is it wrong to..." Table/Regional variation will determine how accepted said practice is. There is no hard n' fast rule. Persoanlly, I think character design should start with a concept and a theme. The game mechanics should be selected after to create said character with deference to form over function. Thus, I would not do what you are describing. However, that doesn't make it wrong. In most cases, no one is going to know you did it anyway. It could just as easily be another character you created. 1st level is 1st level. You could be doing what is described above—testing a few different builds to see what you like best. Intention is a lot in cases like this. If you advertise that you are intentionally building an opto/uber build at 1st level, like a min/max barbarian, just to get to 2nd level and then change it to your "real" character, some will object and disrespect you. We all know opinions are like...well, you know the saying. Best thing to do is check with your local gaming community and see what things they are comfortable with accepting. It certainly helps the feeling of community if you play in a style that is accepted and encouraged by those you will be playing with.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
Typically for GameDays we organize, we have [nearly]all the pregens printed and laminated. It can be problematic for a few in the Occult series because they take three pages, so we tend to ignore those. The player uses a wet erase pen on the laminate and then returns the copy when the session is over. Sure this is a bit expensive initially, but pays for itself in the long run assuming you organize regular games.
for conventions, we bring a printer for HQ, use the laminated ones like a "menu" and print the selected pregen on demand. That way we don't need to guess which one/s the player wants and don't run out of something. Certainly saves on ink/toner.
Since this is specifically the thread for the scenario, I'm not gonna bother with spoilers.
There are seven secret doors in total as I understand it. The first two are at eaither end of the short corridor between B5 and the hallway outside of B7. Another pair of secret doors flank the short corridor linking B5 to B8. There is a secret door concealing each of the narrow tunnels in B9. And finally, there is a secret door under the raised stage in B9.
One of the things that players have been clamoring for a number of years is more opportunities to use their skills, especially to avoid combat. All too often the combat encounters are a must-do situation because you're dealing with real monsters, or just unrelenting bad guys. Players have said they would at least like the chance to talk their way out. So, a concerted effort has been made over the past year plus to provide more opportunities to skill check you way out of grinding combat. Maybe the pendulum has swung to far, maybe not. If you want to experience all the combats, I would encourage you to tell your GM not to let you skill-check your way past an encounter. There is nothing that says you have to socialize with the "bad guys". If you're not interested in talking, then just get on to the combat. Everyone enjoys the game a different way. The authors/developers are not going to be able to please all the players all the time. Take what they give us and make it work for you and your style.
I think there is always a danger when you let a spell do something it is not designed or intended to do. So would/have I allowed prestidigitation light a fire? Probably not, especially after spark being published. And I may/not let a ray of fire or a fire bolt light a mundane piece of wood on fire, but let's face it, a torch is a specific item designed to catch fire. The description is a bit lacking as it does not describe it being wrapped in a flammable cloth or soaked in oil, but it is clearly highly flammable. I think it is a bit too rules-lawyery to say a fire spell (or other fire effect) that is hot enough to do physical damage, but not enough to start a torch is a bit ridiculous.
Of course, all too often in PFS, players use a harmless GM adjudication be the foundation for exploitation on a much grander scale so I can understand why GMs in PFS tend to be cautious when it comes to allowing something for which the rules are a bit unclear.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber
I love this set. It certainly brings back memories of past games played/GMd. It will continue to grow my collection of pawns. However, Paizo will you PLEASE create some gargantuan and colossal pawns with bases? Rocs, T-Rex, Purple Worms, Dragons, are all iconic monsters used in both the RPG and PFS. Traveling GMs who use pawns to lighten the load are desperate for some big-monster love.
No, the official answer is that if you arrive at the event with a ticket for a sub-tier that you no longer can or want to play, then you will not "fit" the intended, general process and will need more individual attention. We may need to shift you to the generic ticket area where we have the resources to manage your particular needs. We will do everything in our power to seat every player with a real ticket, just as we do in every slot of the convention, special event or otherwise.
The point of this change to shift away from having GMs run sub-tier they are not prepared for and therefore providing a poor performance for the players. The intention is that everyone will buy a ticket for the sub-tier they want to play and we will have a GM waiting to run it for you. It is a win-win-win for the players, GMs, and marshals.
I think the HQ/marshal team has an excellent track record for doing everything in our power to seat every player possible and we do not expect this year to be any different. We continue to take feedback on the process and tweak adjustments to improve the process.
One huge piece of good news is, for the first time, we will be listing the interactive special by sub-tier in the event catalog. This means players will be able to buy a ticket for the specific level of their character (1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 10-11). That coupled with some minor changes to the marshaling process, learned over the past few years, the seating process should be the smoothest ever.
It also means that since we will know precisely how many players are registered in each sub-tier, GMs will know what specific sub-tier to prepare. One of the struggles in past years has been we did not know the distribution of characters by level before the event. Typically we would see a small demand for Sub-tier 10-11. However, last year we experienced a spike in demand and were not prepared for it. Many GMs had to judge sub-tiers they had not prepared which led to some less than ideal conditions and poor experiences. By eliminating this uncertainty, the GMs will be better prepared to run their tables and can provide a better experience for the players.
I cannot properly express my excitement towards this development!
I agree with Tim that stars are not the only way to determine a GMs "quality." I know GMs who have zero PFS stars who are much better GMs than most, but just choose not to judge OP. However, when planning on something so comprehensive as GenCon, unless we have first-hand experience with a specific GM, the stars are one of the few ways for us to gauge where a GM "best" fits the schedule, especially for special events like pregen exclusives, interactive specials, seeker-level play, etc. The online application form has provided us with a little more information than previous years which will help in the assigning of events.
I generally rule that taking 20 on perception takes at least 1 minute per five foot square, more if there are things occupying the square that would complicate perception. Tend not to see it happen much unless nobody at table has minute per level buffs to worry about.
Generally speaking a single perception check gets you everything within line of sight. Of course penalties for distance, light levels, etc can affect the results. Restricting the players to making repetitive checks per 5ft or 10ft squares is not supported by the Core Rules.