Don’t waste a feat on eschew materials. If your GM is a stickler just buy what you need in town. If you want to blast, get spell focus evocation, spell penetration etc.
Energized wild shape is working at cross purposes if you want to be a caster Druid. Best to pick one area and concentrate on it, else you are kinda meh at everything.
There’s another side to the coin. By and large, Pfs scenarios are not balanced around hyper optimized characters. It’s not a lot of fun to have everyone else’s characters marginalized by your monstrosity trivializing encounters.
If you aren’t having fun because of arbitrary dm fiat, that’s just bad gming. Home games can have the cr adjusted to keep an appropriate challenge rather than have heavily optimized PCs roflstomp everything.
Curious what you guys did for the last encounter. As written the last boss is quite different than the listing in theBestiary. Same CR but different feats and abilities. In reading through some PbP of this module it looked like at least one group ran his with the monster from the bestiary instead of the one in the book.
What about just releasing two Bestiary books at launch? One that has all of the old classics you need to get the game running and another that gets more baddies into the game for more depth. Budget conscious folks can pick up the first and have everything you need but people who want more at launch can buck p and buy two books.
Let’s work under the assumption that the pathfinder rpg line is the most popular product paizo makes. Let’s also assume that pfs is the most popular organized play system that paizo supports.
Now which two are most alike? The popular rpg line and the organized play system of that game, or the popular rpg organized play and the organized play of an lcg which relatively few people play and of those, far fewer play organized play.
If you think the latter, we don’t really have much to discuss as we are coming at this from very different viewpoints.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
I would argue it is far more common for people wanting to browse a group of all Pathfinder RPG forums grouped together than a grouping of disparate Organized Play forums. I would guess by a factor of 50:1 or more.
It’s been brought up that the pullback on certain Pathfinder release schedules was due to the people involved being overworked, not necessarily due to Starfinder’s emergence. So it was scaled down to give the creators more room to breath and focus on the projects they are working on.
Interesting. I didn’t know that and it shoots my theory down. I can still say anecdotally at least that there are far fewer players playing PFS than right before 5e launched.
The purpose of producing a new game is to grow your business. If you put out a new product by pulling back on your main product line you are working at cross purposes.
As pointed out above, the pullback on releases for Pathfinder is most likely due to a decrease in demand and independent of Starrfinder. I’d also add that Starfinder is potentially a result of a slip in demand of the Pathfinder product line.
I stepped away from RPGs right when 5e was getting going and I think there is about half the numbers playing pfs now as when I left. 5e has definitely taken a toll.
Everyone has given good advice. IMO, although I don’t agree with everything they do, The Glass Cannon really is the gold standard. They are telling a great story while actually playing the game. Too many podcasts are audio dramas masquerading as actual play. I would encourage you to play by the rules snd your die rolls.
I’ll just throw this out there. If you are doing it just for your group and your own enjoyment, go for it. If you are doing it in the hopes of garnering downloads and acquiring a fan base I would encourage some self examination of yourself and the group. You really need players and a GM who are dedicated and talented. Not every player has to be Daniel Day Lewis but you need people who can role play and tell a good story. You also must have a group who is willing to commit to the project. Nothing is worse than missing PCs or worse yet missing deadlines. Again I point to the GCP. They have run that thing like pros and look how well they’ve done with it.
Good luck with it. I hope you guys do a great cast.
I assume you’re talking about home games not PFS.
This thread is depressing. If it is truly this difficult for ChaosTicket to engage and listen to people trying to help him, if it is impossible to walk away from a game that he obviously does not enjoy, think how difficult life must be. I would guess that the struggles with PFS are of little consequence and there are other issues going on here. I hope he seeks out help and gets it. I hope that this does not come across as a personal attack. It is not meant to be. I’m done with this thread.
I listen to a lot of them but there are few that are done well. Some things that I think are important:
-sound quality. If you can’t do quality sound I won’t listen
I think it’s really hard to do a quality podcast. You need a GREAT GM, good role players who are funny without being too silly and you need a committed group who can hold to a set schedule. That is really important. For example the glass cannon has never missed a date in 2.5 years.
Anyway those are my thought. Good luck with it. I always need more to listen to.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I was not unable to manage the conditional modifiers. I was refereeing the game in a manner consistent with my experience as a player. You may call that bad GMing fine. The purpose of this post was to learn and become s better GM. If you’ve read any of my posts past the first you’d see that I’ve acknowledged that there is a different way of doing something and I’m willing to change hopefully making a better experience for all involved.
What I won’t do is continuously engage an argumentative player in the middle of the last combat of a scenario with 30 minutes left on the time.
Christine Bussman wrote:
Guys, can we please try to make this a discussion of ideas, rather than of the OP's character?
A discussion of ideas presumes a back and forth exchange and an ability to consider another viewpoint. ChaosTicket does not engage in this manner. Given this some continue to post advice in vain hopes to breakthrough the brick wall. Others see that as a useless endeauver and speculate on why it is so.
I think both your points make sense. As to the first that is what I did but it took a few times saying “let’s move on” leading me to have to be firmer than I would hope to have to be at a table I’m trying to enjoy.
Your second point I agree with as well, although I think I will try to convey the info needed in s little more thematic way.
OMG yes. This is the best idea in this thread, ChaosTicket Society. Somehow, and this is just a hunch here, I don’t think there’d be a long line to join.
I am amazed again by the patience that a lot of folks show here while talking to a brick wall. Technarken accurately described these as a manifesto. They are not made seeking advice, they are made to rail against the injustice of pfs.
ChaosTicket is not just unwilling to process the advice others are giving, he is unable to. This is clear in this thread and many others. While manifestos can make interesting reading, not much good will come from debating the author.
Diego Rossi wrote:
It was like a player surmised below. “Make a fort save” “you failed and are poisoned” after it was determined that he he had a bonus to poison and that it was still a failure he wanted to have the conversation, mid combat about how I should have told him in advance that it was poison. Being that it had no bearing on what had transpired and that other players at the table agreed with me (one player agreed with the other player) I said I am not willing to debate it any further as we were in the final combat and approaching time limit. I offered to talk after the game.
If it makes a difference this was a PFS scenario with a player I have never GMd for. The correct result was achieved. The biggest issue for me was the player interrupting combat to argue GM style when no mistakes were made, argue to the point that I needed to shut down the conversation and move on and told the player we could talk about it after the session if he wanted.
My point in posting here was to see if there was a general consensus that I was unaware of after well over 100 tables of PFS play. How I handled it was how I have seen it run as a player. Again my thoughts are that as long as the correct result is achieved it might not be all that important how you get there.
I feel that as outside obligations due to starting the business, studio rental, other podcasts and finding new cast members have taken up a lot of the guys time, the quality of the podcast has gone down. I’d much rather have the guys put out one incredible podcast than 3 pretty good ones. There’s lots of places I can find that are pretty good. Until recently I could count on the GCP being great.
I don’t see why these threads Dont get locked quicker. OP does not like PFS and thinks it should change to suit him. That’s not going to happen. OP can’t find a home game to play in most likely due to personality traits clearly evident in this thread and many others. OP is frustrated and comes to the boards to complain while pointedly ignoring well intentioned advice. Ad nauseum.....
The thread title should be changed from Why cant I make progress in Pathfinder Society to Why cant Pathfinder Society change to suit me better. The answer is obvious. It can’t. OP needs to focus on making changes to himself not to PFS. Modify your expectations, make some internal changes and have fun or move along. Posting the same thread every month isn’t helping things.
Less skill check mini games. I’ve never had a player say, to paraphrase “Boy, I really enjoyed the sixth location to make a diplomacy check to gatherinfo”. The general consensus of players I’ve talked to is that they’re are too many skill checks in the scenarios now.
Less chase scenes. Most of the time I’ve been at a table with a chase scene there is a collective groan when a chase became evident. Less as in zero.
I know asked and answered but I believe a tweaking of replay rules is in order.
Overall I’d like to see the CR difficulty increase in scenarios. Possibly enable a hard mode challenge where players could get a small reward if all creatures got the advanced template or something similar.
Personally, I’ve always enjoyed haunts. They can provide a lot of dramatic flavor to a scenario.
Matthew Downie wrote:
I think the problem here is less about your policy on when you tell someone they might have been poisoned (a minor stylistic issue) and more about a personality clash with a player who interrupts what ought to be a dramatic battle with a linnorm to tell you you're doing it wrong.
This is probably the most insightful post in the thread. I think the player was not happy with me not allowing him to retcon his turn during another players turn. He then ate a big crit and was feeling charged emotionally.
Having read through all of these comments I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t really care if it is GM or player driven to arrive at the correct outcome. Either way may work better under certain circumstances but ultimately as long as it is correct players and GMs should be able to live with it.
I disagree with the OP. The character has a bonus versus poison. It is not something that has to be activated. If you choose to hold back information that results in a player not being able to utilize an inherent ability, then YOU as a GM need to come up with a solution so that situations such as this do not happen. The only way I can see it is that you have a cheat sheet of the player's situational modifiers that you must reference any time they may come into play.
I did not negate his bonus. After I declared he was poisoned he stated that he had a bonus versus poison but he did not make the dc with the bonus applied.
I’m not saying a save vs poison is a grey area. I’m saying it’s not covered in the rules as to what’s better. “You just got bit by a monster, make a fort save” “is it poison? I have a bonus for that” or “you got bit by a monster, make a fort save versus poison”
Again, I am not talking about denying a player a bonus under any circumstances. If a player fails a save and I tell him he is poisoned and he alerts me to a bonus vs that affect, the bonus is applied.
I’m not insisting that things are done my way or that my way is a convention. I’m saying that that is the way I have done things. The only thing I insisted on was that I was unwilling to have a debate about this topic mid combat and that the player and I discuss the topic after the game if he desired. I will debate rules mid game as typically someone is demonstrably right or wrong and I always want the rules to be followed. I don’t want to subject the table, particularly in the middle of an encounter, to a debate about GM style. I’m willing to change how I do things if it results in a better experience for everyone. For me, changing up something I do as to how the game is run will not occur mid game as I need to think about it absorb the opinions I’ve heard.
Conversely it was the player stating that I was breaking convention by not telling him at the outset that it was a save v poison. As I viewed this as a grey area not really covered by the rules per se, I elected to move on. So yes I guess I was insisting that it be done my way for that encounter, the last of the scenario.
No one is responsible for it. It's up to the table to decide how they want to handle it.
I think that’s the most reasonable advice. When this happened at the table I was not consciously trying to hide this from the player due to a failed knowledge check. It was on the drive home that I was thinking it through that I realized that the players did not have this information.
I think that most of the players I play with are quite experienced and I am used to them making the logical leap on their own as to what may be trying to affect them . In this case I think it is reasonable that if you get bit by something and asked for a fort save you might be getting poisoned.
To be clear I’m not talking about denying a player a bonus. Had this players bonus allowed him to save I would not deny this.
While I have definitely had GMs ask me to save versus poison or better yet describe an effect that sounds like you’re being poisoned I dont believe I’ve experienced the same for spell effects. I don’t ever recall a GM ask me for a save versus a mind affecting effect. Typically it’s a spellcraft check to identify the spell which gives the players the info they need or, if they fail the spellcraft check the unknown spell goes off and with a failed dc sometimes a “oh wait, I have a bonus vs fear”.
Their is some good advice in the thread. I like the idea of describing the effects to help the player along as I personally think it removes some mystery to say “make a save vs charm” I want to try things like “as the fangs pierce your arm, your arm tingles as your body tries to fight something off” or “terror starts to creep into the edges of your mind, make a save”
If you don't know he has a bonus vs. poison, and he doesn't know if the PC is saving against poison, how is the player supposed to get the saving throw number right? Just announce that it's a Fort save vs. poison, because if he failed or succeeded he'd know that it has a poison bite under the rules of the game.
In my view, if a player who has a plus vs poison is bit by something, it’s not unreasonable to expect him to announce “16 or 20 if it’s vs poison”. Obviously if a player is new to the game my expectations will differ. This way if he passes you don’t have to give him any information other than “you’re ok”
As a GM I have always had the player clarify their saves. For example the player says“is it versus fear?” or “I rolled an 18 or 20 if it’s a sonic affect”. I’ve always felt the players can make reasonable inferences from the encounter or the creature they’re fighting and give me the pertinent information on any bonuses their character may have versus my attack or spell
I was running an encounter today where a character was bit by a Linnorm and was asked to make a fort save. He gave me the result and I informed him that he was poisoned. His character has a plus versus poison and he felt I should have told him it was a save versus poison rather than just a fort save. His plus would not have mattered in this case. He was saying the GM should always tell you what you are saving against so that he, the player can make those adjustments himself. I disagreed and told him that I would not debate this in the middle of the game but that we could talk about it afterward.
In this case, the players did not know that the Linnorm had a poison attack. Telling him to save versus poison would have given the players k owledge that they dId not possess in game. I would like to hear others opinions as I always want to improve as a GM. .