|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I think the technical answer may be that "curse" is not a condition itself, but carries a related effect that could be considered a condition. If you have an ongoing condition you must, by rule, get it fixed immediately upon the completion of the scenario.
However, something like a permanent gender change may not be classified as a condition and thus would not be required to be "fixed."
We have done an excellent job (IMHO) of seating generic ticket holders at GenCon over the past few years. The key is to be flexible on what you can play. High-level tables are usually looking for players so if you have applicable characters, that is your best bet. Alternately, pregens (while not the "best" choice) can get you in on a game you otherwise would not be eligible for. There are also quite a few replayable events offered from things like We Be Goblins! to Quests, to Confirmation/Wounded Wisp. All-in-all, there is a very high probability you will get to play even if your "preferred" event fills up too fast.
PLAYER: "My character has black skin, long white hair, and pupil-less eyes"
So, as a GM, I really don't care if you SAY your character looks like a drow, or an orc, or a carrot. You are what you are, and I get to decide what it takes to identify you as what you really are. I do this not to diminish your character concept, but to lessen the disruption an unusually exotic and typically evil creature will have on a campaign where I do not have complete control over the environment to react in a way I feel would be more appropriate. In a home-game, go for it. Just know that there will be times when it will certainly bite your character in the arse. However, in PFS, I do not have the time, nor the creative freedom to deal with your character's uniqueness.
It would be easy to call an elf that looks like a drow, a drow, and as a truly evil creature (commonfolk perspective) have the townsfolk rally the pitchforks. However, we also have nagaji, goblin, half-orcs, etc. that could, depending on circumstances, garner similar response. Those are explicitly acceptable for PFS so it would be poor form to punish a player for building a perfectly legal character.
OTOH, the intent of the no reskinning rule is fairly clear. You should not be attempting to play something that is banned by describing yourself as that item/race/etc. Sure, it does not specifically reference race in the rekinning rule, but we should know better. It borders on jerkish behavior because you are intentionally creating something that skirts the rules and more importantly will create a burden on the GM to adjudicate. Your intent may not be to disrupt the game, hell it would be an awesome character concept, but that is how it will often be perceived. You should work WITH the GM and the other players, not against them, to enhance the game. IMO, intentionally trying to play something that is essentially banned is working against that.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
Grandfathering any PC that can't freely rebuild as of the date of the change (essentially 1 played session at 2nd level), is not a "grace period".
You can call it whatever you want, grandfathering, grace period, whatever, (I'm not going to argue the definition of catch phrases) the fact remains, they considered the options and extending the time to enter the PrC is not currently being reconsidered. The suggested alternate course of action might sound great to you and its other supporters, but it is clearly not enough to make Mike/John reconsider their current position, and after all the recent activity, they do not seem interested in commenting further, otherwise I expect they would have by now. This is clearly a "hot" topic after all.
Look, we can banter back and forth, but in the end, at least for the foreseeable future, the decision has been made. I encourage people to contribute other solutions/ideas that they feel would be an improvement on the current ruling, but there really is no point in continuing to yammer on about the same solution over and over.
And I just don't understand the apparent and incessant need some people [generally speaking] have to be addressed personally by Paizo staff.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
After the first couple of days of nerdrage about the general FAQ change, the vast majority of the requests for comments have been asking about one thing, extended grandfathering. As we got into above, that is one thing that they have not said a single word about. All it would take to stop all this is a single direct comment about why or why not for that specific proposal.
Except it won't stop there and we all know that. Give a reason, you get a counter reason. Give another reason get another counter reason and so on and so on, ad nauseam. The bottom line is you cannot please all the people all the time.It is clear that Mike/John have not seen an argument compelling enough to make them reconsider the current plan else they would have responded by now. They have said more than once, this is the ruling as it stands.
The current plan includes a grandfather exception allowing those who already have the PrC through early access to maintain it. What is being asked now is to create/extend a grace period such that those intending to enter the PrC early, but have not yet done so, to be able to do it despite the rules change. That is not a grandfather clause. They provided a contributing reason why a grace period was not created. Some just don't like the reasoning and continue to argue the point.
As I said, there is nothing wrong with continuing to debate the topic and develop additional possible solutions. They may even reconsider in the future. But, at this point, the thread progressively feels more about "we disagree with your ruling, have formulated a better (in our opinion) plan, and demand that you respond." That aspect of the thread is very childish IMHO and not likely to garner a response.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew, the general consensus among the people impacted are that, as written, those PrCs are not really viable. A delay does "ruin or destroy" them, because of the difference in what you get out of it.
To be fair, the "general consensus" only really exists here in the forums where the loudest voices are in actuality a very small minority of the community. I do not wish to dismiss their comments that the PrCs are bad, they are entitled to their opinion, just to say that they are plenty viable in context of the entire game, not just the part that crunches numbers. There is more to gaming than "winning" and there are enough players who have played the PrCs in their original form, enjoyed them, and were effective characters to make the notion that they are unplayable (as many seem to suggest) to be nothing more than a personal opinion and well short of the "fact" that many indicate.
Having 5-08 The Confirmation and moreso 6-10 The Wounded Wisp prepped is always a good idea since those are both intro scenarios and available for credit replay. Anyone can sit and play them which obviously makes for excellent backup material.
Also, we had a rather large demand for the (Silverhex) Quests last year and due to logistical issues a lack of prepped GMs to run them. We are unsure when the six new quests will be available (probably not until GenCon) but they would be good choices to prep as backup. They are essentially since encounter quick-plays that link together for a larger story, so prep is minimal and last year we provided the materials (minis, maps, etc) although there is no guarantee that will happen again.
Other options would be the Beginner Box scenarios. We always have a good number of new players and people who just wander into the ballroom looking for something to play. They run rather quickly and like Quests, don't require a huge amount of prep. We provided materials for these last year as well, but again, no guarantee that will happen again.
These are just suggestions, of course. I'll leave it to Mike to make any specific recommendations for alternate material should your assigned event not run.
It is my pleasure to announce the promotion of two new VL in Central Illinois...
Eric Ives, VL of Champaign-Urbana, has been doing a great job organizing games primarily at Armored Gopher Games in Urbana, IL. He is a long time player/GM and a fixture at local conventions. His passion and dedication to catering to the needs of his players and GMs is inspiring.
David Frahm, VL of Bloomington-Normal, has also been an excellent community leader primarily at Gryfalia Games in Bloomington, IL. Until his presence we had little to no organized play in the Bloomington area. He has taken it upon himself to get players to gather in one place and not have to drive to surrounding areas to play. Additionally, he is co-organizing the PACG.
Welcome to the Central Illinois regional team!
you dare to reverse a ruling knowing it would result in many many angry posts
Technically they didn't have anything to do with it. It was a decision made by the game designers. Mike/John just decided to stick to the intent that PFS follow PFRPG as closely as possible and decided how to best incorporate it into PFS. Its important that players understand the difference.
But your sentiment is not lost :-)
Gregory Connolly wrote:
I also love how some people who play PFS, namely those who are venture officers, got warning that this was coming down. The argument that this is fair because nobody had notice coming from someone who admits to having notice is rich.
Considering that VO are largely in their position because they are trusted not take unfair advantage of said knowledge (ala inside trading) this is a non-issue. Somewhere, someone has to be able to discuss upcoming rules changes and the impact on the community. Even Mike and John play/GM this game. Should they not be given advance notice of material and/or changes because of it?
Andrew Roberts wrote:
But my question is was it really ever a "loop hole" to begin with the FAQ was specifically made for the purpose of using SLAs to qualify for things?
Maybe it depends on your interpretation of "loophole" and whether or not it carries a negative, accusatory connotation or is just a term used to describe something that many think was a mis-representation of the rules and should have never existed in the first place.
killing the threat instead of healing will consume less resources and be more effective
That's not the the only way to play the game.
They're not capable of performing a unique or important role in the party
And I strongly disagree. This seems to be a very narrow way to view the game. You seem to indicate either your character can do something that no one else can, or can do it better than everyone else, or they are not effective.
In what way does having 2 additional skills make them better EVER at skills? Skills are equal for all classes except the rogue has a whopping 2 more in exchange for being garbage in combat.
First, I never said the were necessarily better at skills. With generally more skills than other classes, they tend to be more versatile being proficient with a wider range of skills as opposed to say a martial who may be good at 2-3 things and such at the rest. Versatility in a game with a very wide range of skill challenges has great value. Many of PFS combat has been avoided through skills and I have seen plenty of scenarios where no combat broke out at all. That would seem to indicate skills are much more valuable then you indicate.
Just because you don't like the challenge of playing a rogue tactically to maximize their DPR through effective use of sneak attack, stealth, etc. does not make them garbage.
This is neither true nor is SnB a benchmark to shoot for.
Oh, so sword and board is "BadWrongFun" now too? I guess the only "acceptable" form of martial combat is a THW with power attack, weapon focus, and specialization. *sigh*
They're extremely far behind TWF ranger.
I completely disagree. I have seen plenty of rogues, especially ones with TWF easily out DPR a ranger.
All of your arguments regarding healers, rogues, etc. all boil down to one glaring issue...you evaluate the effectiveness of a character strictly from their optimization. Sorry, but there are plenty of players who play these types of characters quite effectively and have plenty of fun doing it, all without burdening the other players at the table. It is clear YOU don't like to play these characters, but that is a far cry from them being "garbage" or "bad"
I've never agreed with the "damage outpaces healing" argument. On a point for point basis, sure, damage will likely come in faster than healing can cure it, but we don't have to cure it all immediately. All the healing has to do is delay the time it takes a character to drop long enough for the PC's damage to take out the enemy (who rarely has effective healing options). By combining healing with an advantage in action economy, the PCs have a huge advantage over their enemies.
If an enemy requires say 2-3 successful hits to drop a PC, and the healer can extend than to 4, 5, or more hits with the use of healing, that is a win. Any reduction in the effective DPR of the baddies is a win. Sure, its not 100% effective (bad player rolls vs. good GM rolls) but nothing is. I would never poo-poo a dedicated healer in my party whether it was CORE or not.
IMHO, the argument against healing because damage outpaces it is a weak one taken from a perspective (blinders on) lacking the entire picture.
As far as rogues, I've never seen one played that was a burden on the rest of the party. They can be quite effective out of combat with plenty of skill options and trap spotter is super effective unless you are the type of mechanical player that never takes a step without performing yet another in a long and game-slowing string of perception (search) checks. They may not be on par with straight martial classes for DPR, but if played tactically, they can be just as effective as a TWF ranger, or a sword and board paladin. If you're comparing a rogue's combat effectiveness to that of a barbarian or fighter, you're unreasonable. That's like comparing a traditional bard's DPR to a sorcerer(blaster). Its obvious who will generally win, but given good gameplay by the player, there is no reason the PC cannot be just as effective.
If you judge the game simply by the math and the mechanical aspects, then I am sad because the game is a lot more than just numbers on a page and dice rolling. For many of us, the game is ultimately fun even without uber-opto-min/max characters and we do not have to curb-stomp every encounter whether combat or otherwise in hopes of "winning" a game without any winners or losers.
Never forget the "hidden" fourth tenet of PFS...
Explore! Report! Cooperate! HAVE FUN!
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
I really don't care if a player wants to withhold info like class, feats, magic items, etc., but you owe it to the other players to at least tell them what to expect from your character. Are you a martial? An offensive spell caster? A healer? A support caster? Skillful? Whatever it is the players at the table are entitled to know what you bring to the party so everyone can interact appropriately and have reasonable expectations. In fact, such information is often better than class, etc since describing yourself in mechanical game terms could lead to misunderstandings. As has been expressed above, not all bards are skill-monkey, diplomats who buff during combat. I would hate to find out in the middle of combat the party cleric has channel negative rather than positive energy.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
I can very much understand categorizing the use of evil-aligned spells as failing to act with honor in most cases.
In general that is true except that in this case the FAQ specifically calls the spell out as not evil...
PFS FAQ wrote:
For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
Its hard to make a case for it being a problem when campaign leadership has specifically said its okay
It depends on where the code comes from. If your code is something entirely made up by yourself, then you're a chaotic character. If the code you swear by comes from a nation, an order, or any kind of group that's outside of yourself, then it's lawful.
Perspective and opinion. I happen to disagree.
Firstly, this issue is only a problem within PFS. The designers have stated numerous times that RAI is an evil spell is evil. Period. It does not matter how its used. The same rules apply to Infernal Healing as to Animate Dead. However, for the purposes of PFS and to accommodate cooperative play and more player options, we have the funky rule that evil spells, while evil, do not cause an alignment shift. This creates a rather strange gray area, where paladins can receive without it being a code violation. The fact that "using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act" is called out in the FAQ makes it clear.
However, as a paladin player, I do not allow my pally to receive Infernal Healing because it does make you temporarily evil and not something I would chose. In my pally's mind, it is a violation and therefore it is whether or not the game mechanics or the GM says so. I have voluntarily atoned for being the recipient of the spell.
IMO, a true paladin strives to adhere to the strictest reading of their code. They do not look for, nor accept apparent loopholes that would allow them to skirt the line between good and evil. They willfully try to push as far to the good as possibly. Call it zealotry, or unreasonable rigidness, whatever, but remember that paladins believe they were called to service by a higher power. Something soo powerful and pure that they spend their entire lives trying to shed the impurities of humanity (or whatever) and strive for what is likely an unattainable level of purity of soul.
So, while for game mechanic purposes Infernal Healing does not cause a paladin to fall, they should never accept it as okay. Hopefully, you are not playing with people who attempt to use it on you despite your feelings because that would lean towards "don't be a jerk."
In a home-game, I would never allow a paladin to use or be the recipient of Infernal Wounds without some kind of ramification up to and including a "fall."
However, like many gray areas, most of this is just my opinion and you should expect table variation.
Another Winter War is in the books and much fun was had by all. While our attendance was down a tad from last year (our peak), it was still the biggest draw at the show making up nearly 50% of the convention's events. I only issued four new player numbers, but since I had sooo many VO in attendance, they may have issued some themselves.
I have a number of Thank You's to offer, the first of which goes to the GMs who gave of their time to make sure everyone else had fun. I am always in awe of the passion and animation that our GMs display. Ruckus laughter was quite prevalent.
The Legacy of the Stonelords special was loads of fun and Andrew Hoskins did a great job cos-playing Kreighton Shaine and overseeing the event. Thanks Andrew!
Special thanks to Jay Sigler who voluntarily jumped in and ran Pathfinder Adventure Card Game for new players who wanted to try it out.
Lucas Servideo, VL-Massachusettes supplied us with custom, special edition character journals. Next to the goblin plushies, they were the most appreciated prize support item. Thanks Lucas!
And speaking of goblin plushy, I have to thank Paizo for their generous prize support. Quite a few players were hopping excited about their free gift.
We had the honor of announcing two new 5-star GMs.
A huge thank you to Mike Brock for taking time out of his busy schedule to visit our little, Midwest convention. It was great to see the player's reactions as they had time to rub elbows with the "big boss" of PFS. He gave graciously of his time, being available to players at HQ, and running two tables of retired scenarios. It was very cool to see him in GM action. Both tables nervously fought their way through perilous encounters that nearly ended in TPKs, but in the end, the players prevailed. The updated chronicle sheets were awesome. I certainly hope the effort continues to get all of the season zero scenarios, including the retired one, updated to Pathfinder rules and released. Players always seem to enjoy the classics.
Our fund-raiser for the American Cancer Society was a huge success, generating nearly twice as much in donations than we anticipated. The generosity of our community never ceases to amaze. I am very thankful and appreciative to any and all who help with this cause.
Finally, we had the honor of presenting two new PFS Campaign Service Award awards to Garrett Gottschalk (VL in Chicago) and Seth Gipson (co-VC in Carbondale IL). I have had the good fortune of working with both. They are both awesome community leaders and plain excellent people. Congratulations!
Thanks again to everyone who made Winter War a success and see ya next year. Now, I've gotten get some sleep...
Congratulations guys! Glad I could be there to share in your glorious moment.
I'm especially proud of Seth, co-VC of southern Illinois and my former VL. He has been outstanding promoting our community and routinely travels to other areas to support their conventions and events. I'm honored to be his friend.
I read through it and found little more than rehashing of past arguments. There is nothing definitive from a developer, designer, nor campaign leadership. As such, the table variation debate shall continue and will likely be even louder in CORE than before since many of the tools/tricks to get around the action requirements to use a Scroll of BoL are not available.
The Fox wrote:
it is the tone
Perhaps that is the crux of the issue. If anyone is reading tone into posts, they are making a mistake. Of course, I cannot speak for anyone else, but my approach to this is clinical. I have a lot of passion for PFS, but not for any specific rule (in fact there are number of them I wholly disagree with). I am interested to see how CORE is going to work out and since the decision to roll it out has already been made, I have hopes it will work and will endevour to make it so. However, I am not married to the concept and if it doesn't work, I will not force it on players I organize for, nor will I support its continuation.
The Fox wrote:
Possibly better would be "Your fears are justified and valid. There is every possibility that what you fear will come to pass. But none of us want that. We will do whatever we can to prevent that from happening. If your fears do, in fact, become the reality, then we will reverse course on this plan. We all care about the PFS community as much as you obviously do. We are here to support it, and to support you and your needs."
While not using those specific words that is exactly what we are trying to say.
After reading 1000+ posts over multiple threads and forums, the only conclusion I can come up with is that there is nothing we can say to appease the people with concerns, especially the ones who are die-hard against CORE. It seems the only solution is to let them vent and hope their fears will be assuaged when (hopefully) the program works. That doesn't mean I/we don't care about their concerns, it just means if there is nothing we can do or say to make a difference, then the best approach might be to remain quiet on the subject.
The Fox wrote:
Instead of trying to prove that those who are fearful are wrong, I recommend trying to ease their fears.
The problem is, that is exactly what most of the VO's have tried to do. Give encouragement and solutions on how it could work. People post an example of their concern, and someone posts a suggestion how to overcome it. Most of us have said at least once, that we don't deny the concerns, we just think that the level of passion being attached to some of the concerns, may in fact, be unfounded, or at least over-reactive.
For those with fears how this is going to impact them, what are we supposed to do? It seems that the response to either wait and see how it works out in your area and/or to work with our local organizers for the best solution is not being received as an acceptable response. So I ask, What should we be saying? If offering possible/constructive solutions is not the answer, then what is?
There are a bazillion anecdotal scenarios that we can describe where CORE will work, won't work, kinda work, whatever. The hope is that local groups will not view this as a black and white, play or leave, situation. since the first OP starter there have been issues to overcome from party mix choices, to level coordination, etc. I think if everyone involved acts like an adult, communicates their wants/needs with the local group, solutions and compromises can be reached. IMO, this is really no different a challenge than most of the ones we encounter when organizing events. Sure it adds another challenge, but it also affords another opportunity. Please keep an open mind and work with your local organizers.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
I get that this is a volunteer job, and that the VOs have know about this longer than we have. But ignoring our concerns in this matter is only making it look worse for the campaign from my point of view.
And I would agree with you IF this was a case of a snap response. It is not. I spend hours watching/reviewing the forums after the announcement, and responding to various posters. I was getting a constant and unrelenting barrage of negative responses to my suggestions. No one's concerns were being ignored. Solutions and encouragement were being offered, but there is only so many times I'm beat my head against the "brick wall" before I stop. Where's the appreciation for the other side of the conversation? The side that didn't take a "sky is falling" approach to this topic. I guess they are permitted free reign to ignore or bash any idea that isn't their own.
Always nice to see a venture officer belittle those who don't agree with them. And you wonder why there are those that feel this is going to hurt the player base and the game.
Really? So after multiple pages throughout numerous threads both in these forums and other places like Facebook, Yahoo, etc. where I have, up to this point done nothing but try to "sell" the possible benefits of CORE, offer suggestions as to how some people can use it to their advantage, and ask them to give it chance before destroying it out-of-hand only to be met with constant derision and negativity, I'm the one that gets called out for supposed bad behavior?
and people wonder why most Venture-Officers tend to avoid the forums *sigh*