deusvult's page

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a curiosity, but why do so many people swear by the Point-Buy system? I understand that it is THE system used in Pathfinder Society, but why would anyone use it outside of organized play?

I'll see your complaint about min-maxing with a complaint about 'lucky' stats.. and raise you a complaint about intrinsic power level-disparity between characters of wildly different stat values.

deusvult wrote:

Are vampire bats evil?

Mosquitos?

Leeches?

Speaking in purely game-speak, they're always neutrally aligned (as in, non-evil) and yet they drink blood every chance they get. So, demonstably, the act of drinking blood does not require an evil alignment.

You can't apply morality judgments to animals regardless of their activities, which means you can't use them as an example in this context. Dingos eat babies, and they're neutral, yet Paladins clearly can't eat babies.

While what you say is true, it's also a non-sequitur. Animals aren't expected to act morally, because they lack the intelligence to HAVE morals.

Obviously, animals do not set an appropriate bar for the ethical behavior of PCs. Let alone Lawful Good PCs. Let alone paragons of Lawful-goodness (paladins).

That being said, the question on hand is this: Is drinking blood (no matter who you are, whether Paladin, Dhampir, or anyone at all) always evil?

Obviously, it is possible to drink blood and not be evil. So, the answer to the question at hand is "No."

Whether it is appropriate or compatable with a Paladin's class restrictions are two other questions entirely. Another poster mentioned the chaotic aspect of drinking blood- this goes against many cultures' rules about not desecrating corpses. THAT is a bigger hurdle for a Paladin than the question of whether or not it is an evil act.

Are vampire bats evil?

Mosquitos?

Leeches?

Speaking in purely game-speak, they're always neutrally aligned (as in, non-evil) and yet they drink blood every chance they get. So, demonstably, the act of drinking blood does not require an evil alignment.

Less ridiculously:
Drinking blood for sustenance is a big difference from doing it as a part of an evil magical ritual. And let's note that the evilness of drinking blood in an evil ritual is due to the evilness of the ritual, not the drinking of the blood itself.

To the Original Poster:

Don't give up just yet. Especially not until you've had a chance to play with some new people/cliques/groups.. not that there's anything intrinsicly wrong with playing with the same group of people, but it sure does color PFS.

And, contrary to many vocal opinions, a PFS scenario is not reduced to being a human-judged MMO instance. For example, the belief that PFS GMs may not fudge dice is common but demonstrably incorrect. (to head off any 'Nuh UH!'s from said believers, check CRB pages 402-403, then show where PFSOP says they are removed from OP rules in any potential replies.)

My advice on reconciling the 'straitjacket' that comes with organized play is this: While you may not customize the scenario itself, you're certainly still allowed to tailor the players' experience of said scenario.

14 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought this was going to be a thread calling for an evil-compatible sister campaign to PFS.. ala Aspis Consortium Organized Play.

Put me down for that one.

Check out the Calistrian religion trait.

Oh, and +1 on low Charisma being able to have sexy appearance.. and high charisma not necessarily meaning hot looks.
And +100 on needing wisdom to make money on the horizontal bop as opposed to charisma, anyway.

I have been to the PFS boards a few times, and from what I can gather you can not alter the character at all. No changing spells, weapons, feats, skill points, etc...

I did think you had some leeway with tactics, but it seems I might have to check that again.

There are those who believe that to a tee. (I see that labelling that viewpoint after a prominent poster didn't tickle his funny bone.)

There are those that also believe that a slavish, robotic, complete adherence to the module as presented in every way as being incompatable with an enjoyable D&D/Pathfinder/D20 experience. That's another thread however, so I won't belabor the point.

If, hypothetically, a NPC cleric has the chance to reallocate his spells before the climactic showdown with the PCs.. and has the plausabile in character reason to be aware of the one dimensional trip monkey's capabilities, then in my own opinion there's no reason he can't change his spell list the morning before the fight to include Blessing of Fervor. And then the NPCs in that encounter will not be overly impacted by the awesome-O trip monster by standing up as a swift and w/o provoking AoOs.

Depending on whether you consider switching an NPC's spells prepared as being against PFS rules or not..

Blessing of Fervor is a spell that will make a one-dimensional trip-monkey's life hell. And it's appropriate to opposition for an 8th level PC, to boot.

I haven't noticed someone mention it, and it's definately not for everyone..

But a PFS Gm is allowed to fudge dice rolls at his own discretion. If you're there at the table in the heat of action and you can't think of anything better, that die roll you dropped can legally be a 'nat 20' any time you want it to be. 46 AC or not, you can hit the PC any time you feel the need.

Naturally, it's not an option that should be used often, as a player who correctly deduces that you're fudging dice to hit him will not Have Fun. However the odd hit here and there may keep the player on his toes and play his character conservatively.

Another suggestion that shouldn't offend the Jiggies of the board:
Demoralize combat action. It ignores his CMD, AC, and his saves. Sure, it's only a -2 to his rolls, but it's something.

I use willpower checks to see if sentries fall asleep at their posts. Although, so long as players arrange for shifts that I deem resonable, I don't bother. "2 hour watches? No worries. Oh, you plan on staying up all night doing the watch yourself? And you honestly believe that your saying 'I won't fall asleep' makes it so?"

Then again, I use willpower checks for any repetitive thing that players find it easy to declare but characters would find tedious to carry out. Staying up for hours while sleepy, always searching every wall/ceiling/floor for secret doors/traps.. always casting detect evil/magic..

Yeah. easy for you to say "always", not so easy to actually keep focus every second of every minute of every waking hour.

I believe this thread gives some interesting and relevant insight onto the topic at hand.

Boiling it down for those who don't want to read 3+ pages of angry posts:

In PFS does a GM have the right to overrule a player's view of what is and is not canon?

If so, SHOULD he?

To editorialize, in my view the GM is no more priveleged than the players. None of us own golarion. In fact, it is only a matter of circmstance that any GM has any referee authority at any given table. The roles between people could and would quite easily be reveresed at another table/slot. So if there's differences of opinion about what is and is not canon, the GM has a duty to consider accomodation first and exclusion ONLY after reasonably ruling out accomodating.

As mentioned a bunch of times, the in-character rules AND the organized play rules of Pathfinder Society preclude the possibility of an oathbound paladin killing the imp familiar.

So he needn't worry about falling for lack of killing said imp.

To be fair, it isn't that big of a stretch to say your character's father rules Galt. Figureheads there change almost as fast as the weather...

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes.

Half orcs count as both human and orc, and qualify for human-only and orc-only feats/traits/etc.

A witch would lose 1 standard action out of every 10 keeping it active on 1 target, all the way to keeping it active indefinately on 10 targets by spending all her standard actions all the time.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

deusvult wrote:

And that means that the player roleplaying his paladin as having intolerable issues with your imp familiar IS inarguably badwrong. Because he can instead choose to roleplay his paladin as NOT having intolerable issues with your imp familiar.

To be clear, we're not talking about a simple roleplay flavor decision. We're talking about a legal archetype that says "kill every evil outsider you can, or fall".

We're just hell bent to disagree on everything each other says, it would seem.

Code of Conduct: Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it . Banish fiends you cannot kill. Purge the evil from those possessed by fiends

Bold text=emphasis mine.

Banish what you cannot kill is 'clearly' RAI to be more accurately: Banish fiends that you can banish, but cannot kill.

For both in- and out- of game reasons, the PFS paladin MAY not kill the familiar. Important difference from CAN not. I stand by my assessment because either way destroying the imp is 'not within the paladin's power'. He can attempt to persuade the spellcaster from using the imp for the duration of the paladin's presence. He can opt to have nothing to do with the spellcaster. (Passive-aggressive 'PvP' IS still technically legal. "I can't hurt you or your imp, but neither do I have to heal either of you...")

If the paladin can't come to a happy place where he feels he's still in-character while still not trying to kill the imp, he shouldn't be playing the archetype. Perhaps, as you say, thats a 'trap' a new player might fall into. But, the perspective of the OP is 'am I being a jerk by having an Imp familiar'. No, he's not.

If the paladin couldn't handle the presence of an imp or someone who'd bind an imp to his will, he can't handle being a productive member of the in-gameworld Pathfinder Society.

And that means that the player roleplaying his paladin as having intolerable issues with your imp familiar IS inarguably badwrong. Because he can instead choose to roleplay his paladin as NOT having intolerable issues with your imp familiar.

If it's a general question of may druids be technological innovators.. obviously something quasi-industrial flies against most interpretations of what a druid should be.

However, crazy inventor types come in all stripes. I could see a druid walking in the shoes of Dr. Moreau.

In light of Brock's ruling allowing group-level bans

I'm curious where/when Mike said such a thing.

Who's to say internal combustion engines even work in your game world?

Who's to say the aerodynamics of an artificial wing or propeller even allow for flight?

Most importantly, why would a druid (or anyone else) have any knowledge of technologies from the real world?

For the most part, a druid is limited to hide armor or light armors.

Not sure what book wooden armor is in, but you can check that book's entry in the Additional Resources to see its legality for PFS.

Ironwood spell is not available, not unless you're prepared to pay for it over and over every adventure. By PFS rules, the ironwood spell expires after every scenario.

Since starting to GM PFS Scenarios, I've come to the conclusion that the most positive aspect of faction-quests is to give players a tangible reason to fully explore scenarios.

I'd like to see more faction vs faction stuff going on, but keeping that from denigrating into player vs player is imo largely impossible. At least within a regular, recurring system.

I used to be a big Legend of Five Rings fan, loving the 'what happens in tourneys/games affects the game world' angle. Until I realized that the company wasnt about to have anything actually bad happen, because they didn't want to alienate fans of those factions. The moment that killed L5R for me was when a story arc put up my chosen favorite faction as a potential for 'winning' L5R. Will they rule the empire, or will everyone else gang up to stop them? Let the players decide!

Yeah, doesn't take a crystal ball to know which way that one was gonna go. Not only can nothing permanently bad happen, nothing permanently good can happen. Not unles you're truly willing to take off the kid gloves.

Knowing your faction (and potentially, more importantly your PA) is on the line and potentially going to be obliterated makes for a different Society than one where you know that whatever bad things happen, the writers won't let my faction/PA go away.

Suggestions for how to run either depend on which sort of game M&M want to run.

When I ran it I told them that the real world 4 hour time slot was the in-world deadline for when...

It did a wonderful wonderful job of keeping the the players focused on the mission goals & racing to keep on track/on time.

I honestly thought the events in Dalsine Affair were a prize awarded by faction performance reported in PFS up to that point.

It kind of takes the magic away to realize it wasn't.

So if I were the head of PFSOP, that's how I would do it. Once per year or so, issue a scenario revolving around how the winning faction makes the losing faction suffer.

Fair to me means rolling in the open where everyone can see where the dice lay when they're done rolling.

That's a valid view. I wouldn't complain if a GM at my table shared it.

OTOH I believe that there's a Goldilocks principle to aspire for.. If the scenario is proving, for this particular table...this particular time, to be too easy or too hard then something needs to be fudged or nudged to bring the experience back closer to the 'just right challenge level' that was intended by the writer.

This may be another discussion, but it's my assumption that the players are expected to be successful in PFSOP scenarios. Not just most of the time, damn near all the time. As in, players failing to complete the mission or characters suffering a TPK is an even bigger failure on the part of the GM than it was the players'.

To elaborate: In my view, and I'm sure there's those who will gnash their teeth and wail about how wrongbad it is, survival/success isn't pegged to some ratio like rate of PA accrued. No, we don't assume players will get 2.0 PA per adventure, the assumption is closer to 1.5. 100% expectation of success/no TPK is obviously too high, but IMO its intended rate is close enough to 100% to be pointless to argue about how many percentages (or fractions of percents) shy of 100% the expectation is.

When this magical belt is put on, the wearer must immediately make a DC 20 Fortitude saving throw or be transformed into a person of the opposite gender. The character's abilities, mind, and spirit remain unaffected; only the character's sex changes. If the character's saving throw is a natural 1, the item actually removes all gender from the wearer, giving him an androgynous, neutered appearance. The change is permanent unless undone with curse-removing magic. Once its magic takes effect, the belt can be removed without effort. A creature can only be affected by a particular girdle once, though other girdles of this type can cause another transformation.

I don't know if the scenario uses a different version, but assuming it's a 'normal' one, there's the rule. Yes, you can take the belt off. No, your gender won't change back. Not without curse-removing magic, anyway.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

+1000 for low charisma = low force of personality.

Watch Rain Man for roleplaying tips.

I can totally see the barbarian raging..

"It's time for Judge WAAAAAAAPNER!!!!"

You may make your character whatever age.

However, you may not apply any stat block modifiers for non-standard age bracket.

the x3 is the crit multiplier.

The +4 shows that it gets one attack, at +4.

3 attacks each at +4 would have been annotated +4/+4/+4

However, depending on the feats involved, it IS possible to start getting a ridiculous # of shots per round with a bow. 3 is tamesauce, in comparison to how far it could be taken.

I'd personally never thought about maps when pondering the "run as written" directive. Interesting...

I can't help but get the feeling that had I mentioned editing maps, it would have been automatically badwrong and 'explicitly forbidden'.

In any of the cases above, it's easy to see it would not be legal.

Non sequitur, Bob.

Neither of those examples are of a GM fudging dice. They're both of a PLAYER fudging dice. And not even I was saying that's PFS-Kosher.

A more accurate gist of what I was saying is perfectly legal and Vinyc wants to see explicitly made illegal is this:

I may not increase a BBEG's bonus to hit or to save by +X or -Y.

I may, however, fudge my dice rolls for the BBEG so that I get that same +X or -Y, with the caveat of a modified 'natural' range of 1-20, obviously.

Disclaimer: 'I may' does not mean that in practice 'I should routinely', 'I must always', or 'I think it's funny to'.

wow - I still can't get over...

"It IS legal to make sure the BBEG wins initiative, and always hits for max/near max damage."

goodness - where did I miss this in the rules?

Nosig, my point was that *I* don't like that option either, and I prefer the option which has a legality that Jiggy and I disagree on.

deusvult wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

That's not a meaningful difference?

In reality? no.

You see no difference between "explicitly allowed" and "explicitly forbidden"? Then there's nothing else to say to you.

We disagree about what falls under "explicitly forbidden." What I say does not, you say does.

deusvult wrote:

And in my case, the way I see it is that if I may fudge dice, there's no meaningful difference between that and padding a solo BBEG's HP total, for example.

One is (as you cited) allowed by the Core Rules and has (to my knowledge) met no resistance from the Campaign Coordinator.

The other has no such rules support and has been repeatedly expressly forbidden by the Campaign Coordinator.

That's not a meaningful difference?

In reality? no.

In your choice of how to interpret the priority of M&M's/PFS rules, you have the following where you think the BBEG needs some 'help' being something memorable and/or more than a yawner of a challenge.

It IS legal to make sure the BBEG wins initiative, and always hits for max/near max damage.

It is NOT legal to make sure a mook or two from earlier in the mod ran to the BBEG for protection and be present for the climactic showdown.

Me, I think that the latter is a ton less offensive to the 'integrity' of the scenario/experience. And more in spirit of what M&M would want from me as a GM.

Jiggy, when we play "guess what M&M Means when they say "Don't do anything *I* wouldn't do..", we draw the line in different places. You're not any more wrongbad than I am.

deusvult wrote:

Vinyc Kettlebek wrote:

According to the campaign rules GMs have as much authority to fudge dice rolls as they do making personal adjustments to combat encounters.

I'm with you so far...

Quote:

They don’t have it.

Reference?

I can start with Mike and Mark posting numerous times in various threads to run modules as written and do not cheat.

Now every time you come across any discussion of rolling dice in any of the rulebooks it follows this general progression. Be it for Ability Checks, Skill Checks, Combat, Spell Casting, etc.

1. Roll the appropriate Die/Dice,
2. Add relevant modifiers to find total
3. Compare total to target number(if any) to determine result
4. Apply result

No where does the rules say that you can alter the results of a given die roll as either a GM or a player. A player altering the totals of his rolls is cheating, and a GM who does the same is also cheating.

Now if I missed a paragraph somewhere in the GtPFSOP saying GMs can alter their dice rolls please make a reference to it.

The difference we have is that you call fudging a die roll cheating, under any and all circumstances, and cite 'do not cheat' as justification for 'do not fudge die rolls'.

I on the other hand, consider occasional fudges good GMing. And there's plenty of posts I could also cite about making sure you're a good GM.

Let's remove 'cheating' and 'good GMing' from the question and just focus on GMs fudging die rolls in PFSOP.

I submit this thread..

Furthermore, this thread.

Let's not forget page 403 of the CRB. I quote:
"Rolling Dice:
Some GMs prefer to roll all their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to mask all rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PCs so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neither way is the "correct" way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you."

And, since that text is NOT omitted from the PFSOP rules, you have it quite literally in black and white that a GM may fudge dice. You're definately not supposed to over-use the tool, but it's a legitimate tool. Even in PFS.

And in my case, the way I see it is that if I may fudge dice, there's no meaningful difference between that and padding a solo BBEG's HP total, for example. Or even deducting from it, if the case warrants. Just because you deviate from script or fudge a die roll, doesn't mean it's to make it harder on PCs.. sometimes they just deserve a break.

"Oooh, wow.. comes down to this.. the BBEG is gonna finish mopping the floor with you guys unless this spell works..

*clatter*

*ignore*

Huzzah! The BBEG falls under your spell..."

According to the campaign rules GMs have as much authority to fudge dice rolls as they do making personal adjustments to combat encounters.

I'm with you so far...

They don’t have it.

Reference?

Mark, I don't think you'll be able to get such verbage unless you're also prepared to state that in PFS play that GMs may or may not fudge dice rolls, for example.

Once you start going into detail, you need to keep going into ever more detail. It's like the coastline paradox- the more finely you define things, the more you the need to define more acutely.

I'm switching from Asmodean-style 'devil's advocate' to 'manager's lackey' here.. but I hope that the new assumption you have for writing PFS scenarios is going to fix alot of issues. Yes, season 0-3 won't directly benefit, but once you have a working, better system for season 4 it's easier to just chalk up any issues in 0-3 as relics of an inferior system and more easily accepted- since we know the new ones 'won't have those issues'.

Ok folks, I'm interested in hearing some proposals for what the guidelines should be, specifically, for what a GM should be permitted to change. This means one or two sentences explaining how to adjust an encounter up or down that would apply to all scenarios.

Because I vocally stick to my side of 'the line' doesn't mean I think the as-is PFS rule needs to be replaced. I've said it before, I think it is worth repeating again. The current rule is the least bad approach. It may be bad, but everything else that comes to my mind is even worse.

One example of tweaking that I think is perfectly fine under certain circumstances, making clear that I don't mean all the time

Hypothetical scenario X features yet another solo BBEG. Lo and behold, like so many other times, he's geting destroyed without putting up any challenge. In fact, looks like he'll be dead before he even gets to his first attack. I fudge his HP total so that he lives to his initiative turn to make one glorious attack before death. I rewrote the script, is another way to say it.

Maybe I shouldn't have. Maybe my threshhold for changing things was too sensitive. Maybe in that one glorious attack he shouldn't have had, he kills someone. OTOH, maybe the players get a thrill out of seeing what creation the writer was able to come up with. Maybe they enjoy seeing a solo BBEG that 'for once' was more than a punching bag.

How can you make comprehensive rules for when that's appropriate and when it isn't? Even if you could, it'd be paragraphs in length. Not to mention the forum discussions that any one such rule might be obsessed over.

And that's one example of how a GM might deviate, there's literally infinite others.

Honestly, 'Don't do anything *I* wouldn't do..' has its issues as a rule, namely the disagreements over what is and what isn't kosher, but the alternative is a massive increase in the overhead of the PFS ruleset.

And really, so long as we're all adults about differences in opinion about what is or is not allowed in the form of tweaking/deviating/fudging/improving.. and importantly that the GMs are keeping the players' interest in mind, what's the harm if everyone is having fun? Obviously, incompetant GMing will drive away players, whether they run strictly, robotically by the script or not.

Mark, I'm not sure whether I detect a whiff of passive-agressiveness or not from your post. I'll assume it's not, and I wish to stress that I don't intend to give off that aroma, myself.

I think your recent announcement that 4th season scenarios will start assuming 6 players in the writing will be a huge improvement and cut down rather often on what I was perceiving as 'slightly burned fries'.

Nosig your analogy is an example of a script change that was obviously botched, which everyone agrees is Not Good.

I would be interested to hear what you think that burgerflipper should do when the fries are only slightly burned, and the manager says serve them anyway.

I'd be even more interested to see discussion on another thought from earlier in the thread. Something completely different than the restaraunt analogy.

If you KNOW a player is improperly acting on foreknowledge of a scenario, obviously you may kick him off your table.

What if you only SUSPECT a player is acting on foreknowledge? Is it acceptable to change things solely for that reason, or is your only option to kick him off your table for mere suspicion of impropriety?

And for those of you arguing that PFS should be like fast food, ie of dependably mediocre quality, is that truly all you want for the society? I find it unlikely, and I suggest that there is perhaps a middle position in between the chaos of unlawful, rule breaking GMs and the rigidity of zero flexibility.

Indeed. The rule about not altering anything is in actuality 'Don't do anything *I* wouldn't do.'

The arguments that come up in threads such as this one boil down to differing opinions about just what would Mark and/or Mike not do. The obvious stuff is easy.. and rare. Stuff so obviously an issue/potentially an issue won't make it into publication. Stuff that wasn't spotted ahead of time is quickly fixed, as Kyle pointed out.

Going back to the fry example.. when the fry machine is making fries that are only slightly burned.. enough (in your perception) to be noticable but not so much as being 'out of guidelines' and the manager doesn't want to pay to fix it.. those gray areas make for the disagreements.

deusvult wrote:

it not only improves the consumer's experience, it's what you're expected to do.

...Except it's not, as has been stated repeatedly by the McDonalds managers (Mike and Mark).

I see my point was perhaps understandably missed. I meant 'what you're expected to do' as being presenting the best experience for the players you can. NOT to mean that your first and/or only tool in doing so is to deviate from written script.

I understand the rule. Like that McDonald's employee, I have a couple choices. If the manager insists I serve customers burned/stale/etc food, I can:

1. Do so, and advise my friends not to eat here.
2. Disobey occasionally when he's not watching. Worst he can do is fire me, and it's just a burger-flipping job, after all.
3. Quit.

Additionally, in my case there's option 4: Strive to use those OTHER tools mentioned more often and 'picking out the bad fries' less often. Maybe I can do the maintenence myself on the fry machine so that it makes less burned fries.

But even with that approach, it's just simpler and more expedient to just pick out the bad fries now and again. Not to mention, oh lordy the names you get called and gnashing of teeth you cause by trying to fix things the manager (or his lackeys) don't think are broken.

Edit in light of Mark's response:
Even after you tell the manager about the fry machine, until the maintenence guy comes out to fix it, it's still making burned fries in the meantime.

And no, I don't mean to call specific people lackeys. Your analagous counterparts in the McDonald's example are the manager's lackeys, is all ;)

Change any of that, and you haven't provided what you said you'd provide. That's adding monsters, changing spell lists, buffing defenses, etc.

OTOH, I'd consider adding a mook or two to a lone BBEG who, given my experience with the players, their characters, and their demonstrated capabilities over the course of the scenario, will be blown away in 1 round of anticlimactic combat.. the same thing as picking out a burned french fry or withholding the loogie from their Big Mac.

it not only improves the consumer's experience, it's what you're expected to do.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating that as a first option, nor am I arguing with being 'creative' without changing anything being a better way to go about it most of the time. I just won't shut up on the topic because I find it so ridiculous.

I feel like that McDonald's worker who's being told to 'leave the burned fries in there.. you're wasting company money by picking them out'. Not only that, you're denying the customers the full McDonald's experience by denying them the burned crisps. You're being serious!?!

Indeed. In fact, Alex's restaurant analogy is a good one: tampering with the scenarios in organized play is like a chef getting a job at McDonalds and then thinking that all those people who got something different than they ordered are going to be happy about it. If you want to cook up something creative, do it in your own kitchen and without telling people it's a Big Mac.

I'm willing and more than happy to rebut within the restaurant analogy.

Yes, the cook at McDonalds may not substitute his own recipes, but neither is he required to fail to pick out the burned fries from the bin, put fresh(er) burgers under the heater waiting for purchase, etc. There are bad aspects of the fast food experience that are completely avoidable (he needn't give the 'traditional' loogie in the burger, for example) while still holding completely to the corporate ideal of profitability (this analogy's version of 'staying RAW')

You're assuming that someone who orders a Big Mac not only MUST get the loogie, burned fries, etc, that he knows it's coming and shouldn't expect not to get it.

I'm saying that the cook can actually take pride in his work and present a product better than the cook at the McDonalds up the street. Either way, you're still eating a Big Mac at either restaurant.

Until you know what you want to do differently than the pregen, it's hard to give advice.

So basing your character off of Lirianne isn't a bad idea... You'll get some experience with the class and see what you like and don't like.

As a GM with lots of PFS under my belt, I feel all f the GMs' pains with scenarios that prove to be cakewalks when there are 5-7 players at the table. This is the first change to help GMs also have an enjoyable experience at the table. We are listening, I promise, and Mark and I will continue to strive to make PFS an even better experience than it currently is. I want to thank everyone in advance or your patience. It does take time as it is a slow process, but if you stick it out with us, I think the large majority of you I'll be happy where we are headed and were we end up. As always, our feedback, thoughts, suggestions, and ideas are always welcome as it makes improving the campaign that much easier.

It's not the GMs who suffer when it's a cakewalk, it's the players who are bored with anticlimactic fights.

At least, in my experience.

Anyway, I'll echo my appreciation for you guys not only recognizing that there's a problem, but attempting to fix it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Definately seems a wiser idea to treat 4 player tables as the special case needing attention for challenge difficulty and assume 6 player tables in programming the scenario.

Well first of all, the materials you need can all be purchased via .pdf here on Paizo's site. I don't know what billing is like outside the US, but the digital copies are signifigantly cheaper than hard copies.

Furthermore, in PFS you must run sanctioned scenarios & adventures. Those are also available in .pdf format and there are 200-ish available.

There is a calendar here on the site to advertise & publish your events as well. You may have to rely on other means to advertise to your local players as well, unless they're already paizo devotees of the site here. But additionally, you'll need to have your event registered in order to report it for player & gm credits.

I'd click the Pathfinder Society button on the left of the screen and explore around.. read what you see, by all means download the free Organized Play Rules .pdf.

Welcome to PFS!

You guys just had the job of showing up with min/maxed 11th level...

I hope I didn't come across as ungrateful for your and the GM's efforts.. that is not at all the case nor what I meant to convey. I didn't mean to make the impression that it was a waste of time to attend. Very sorry if it came across that way.

Anyway, I don't mean to perpetuate the RPT as an example.. I just thought that a mea cupla might have been in order, and definately a statement of appreciation of the effort that was put into it.

Trying to change the topic:
As for 'Good GMing, not re-writing'.. the problem I have with the rule as is (as well as the reminder that we stick to PFS rules) is this: It boils down necessarily to 'don't do anything I wouldn't do.' And obviously, that's completely subjective.

Because:
1. The scenarios don't have the word space to cover every possible contingency. Even if they DID, the small staff of writer(s), proofreaders, editors, (and possibly playtesters?) are not collectively as smart as the PFS playerbase. Someone, somewhere will always think of something that wasn't written to address.
2. Since #1 is true, the GM's are trusted/empowered to handle those 'off-script' inevitables.
3. No two people will always agree on what counts as 'off-script'.

One time I saw a GM tell a player who wouldn't quit arguing about a rule that until he closed his book, the NPCs will focus all attacks on him. Is that 'good gming', in getting the game back on track, or is it 'going off script' by altering the tactics? I say good-gming. But I can see how someone would call it rewriting however, either tactics or the game rules themselves.

"Sarcasm on" At that point the GM might as well just fill in the chronicle sheet with full PP/GP rewards without the players even being present, and just run the slot as story time."Sarcasm off"

You said it you had an ok time because the module wasn’t as challenging as it could have been. The good part was playing a game with people you enjoy being around. Why should the cheaters get more rewards?

I'm not sure we're on the same page.

Without amping up the difficulty, the players at my table may as well have gotten a free chronicle all filled up and spent 10 hours doing something else instead.

Example aside, there's people who will never agree that there's ever any reason to modify or tweak a scenario. I respect that. I was just saying that I disagree with that view, is all.

I think a point that's far more interesting to discuss is players abusing foreknowledge, and whether changing what's written is appropriate in those cases as an alternative to kicking him off the table.

Acrobatics skill.

Also, each character only gets one AoO per round, unless they have combat reflexes feat.

And Paladins aren't likely to have high Dex so not too many AoOs even WITH the feat.