You may not be able to craft items, but you can buy them. And you can purchase other spells to be cast upon your PC. Making it analogous to purchasing an item makes sense
Still not sure i agree with it, and if it were opened up for use it should be across the board, not just one class.
Is the iconics' sexuality entirely necessary for them to be played or run as NPCs? No, probably not.
Does having that information make for a more fully developed character for the PCs to encounter? Yes it does.
Bottom line is, the more information that one has for a character, the more fleshed out they become and the more "realistic" the encounters with them. It helps determine how interactions with the PCs will play out, what the scene will look like based off of the in game society the game finds itself in, etc.
The argument could be made that each GM should be able to determine these aspects for themselves. And they can. However, the characters in questions are Paizo's and as such having them flesh out the iconics in any way they deem appropriate is no reason for anyone to pitch a fit, b&*%# and moan, complain about how it "does not conform the statistics", exclaim PC to be running rampant, etc.
Personally, I love the fact that the iconics are inclusive to representing all aspects of Paizo's audience. And I love the fact that more and more information for the iconics is being developed (kudos on the comics on this front).
If, however, you don't like the way they have described the iconics, guess what: You can change it for your home game. Because this is a game after all and the rules can always be adjusted as those who play it see fit.
I fully expect to see in the next day or two:
Money Chris: OMFG!!!
Money Chris: How can one person get so many PMs at one time?!?!?
Money Chris: Gary, please make it stop ...
Robert A Matthews wrote:
OK, let's look at the sentences preceding the parts you emphasized (I have emphasized the parts I am speaking of above). Since in initially it states the activation method is quite different, it would follow that the specifics you decided to emphasize would apply to folks needing to utilize UMD. EDIT: this arguement is further reinforced by the inclusion of the chances for mishap, which do NOT apply to PCs who can cast the spell on a scroll.
Additionally, I would also like to point out that even though it requires Scribe Scroll and Silent Spell to create, a riffle scroll is listed in the descriptive text as a wondrous item. So while those who would be able to cast the spell would be able to use it as described for the different method of activation, those who could not would need to use it as they would a scroll.
Robert A Matthews wrote:
There is no wiggle room here. It specifically says that it is treated exactly the same as a normal scroll for activation. If it worked by simply flipping through the pages, then it wouldn't be considered a spell completion item. Anybody with thumbs can flip through a book, but only a spellcaster can use a spell completion item.
Except that it does also state that the method of activation is quite different than that of scrolls and that flipping through the pages is the method of activation. Additionally, by using UMD, anyone can use a spell completion item (a point emphasized by the existence of specific rules in the UMD description pertaining to scroll use). As the method of activation is written as such, I would say there is PLENTY of wiggle room, otherwise this discussion would not have continued for the duration it has.
One other point is this line from the item description:
Inner Sea Magic wrote:
The secretss of this magic's rediscovery and details of its use are fully detailed in the Pathfinder Tales novel Prince of Wolves.
As I remember, Varian Jeggare merely flipped the pages, he did not read the scrolls in the novels where riffle scrolls have been used.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Yeah, but backwards it's WARGPS ... when the machines rise, they'll be able to locate all of us!!
Ah ... well then ... I stand corrected.
<breaks out a can of Snark Away™ and spritzes Cormac>
Is the internet dragging you down with zingers, sarcastic responses and scathing wit? Well now there's a solution!
SNARK AWAY™!by Wha-Blam-OH!
A simple spritz through your internet connection will fill the people you meet online with a feeling of goodwill and camaraderie.
Gone will be the days of flame wars and random trolling! Gone will be the assumptions of "the worst possible meaning" to an otherwise innocuous statement!
Pick up you can of SNARK AWAY™! today from your local fine retailer.
The claims herein have not been approved by the FDA, FCC, EPA or any other acronym. Use of SNARK AWAY™! may result in high blood pressure, low blood pressure, hair loss, hair growth, excessive sweating, excessive bleeding, excessive excessiveness, hoof and mouth disease, overripe fruit, typos, loss of bodily functions, loss of mental functions, loss of being able to calculate functions, an unhealthy obsession for higher math, making random purchases and forgetting about them until you see your credit card statement, running around nude in fields of wildflowers, being chased by police through fields of wildflowers, getting looks from your new cellmates due to your lack of attire, uncontrollable itching, uncontrollable sneezing, rapid growth spurts and your urine turning an odd shade of puce
If your project is for a commercial product, you cannot use the CUP. It's pretty cut and dried.
You should really review the OGL and PF Compatibility License (get to know them really well in fact ... or even speak with a lawyer to be sure you are clear on what you can and what you cannot do legally) if you plan on putting out 3PP material. There are a couple of threads that delve into this subject you may want to check out as well:
good luck with the project!
Full to quarter I get, it maintains the aspect ratio. But half page would result in distortion (unless you are running with an image running ~6.25"x7.5" ...).
But this is a derail from the OP.
Suffice to say different 3PP will run with different image requirements. ;)
Quite the contrary. I also believe one should not game the system. I do believe balance is more important than negative reinforcement. I also believe player choice is key to a game where the players truly are the game (without PFS the players would still be able to play the game ... without players, the really is no PFS).
In that vein, the current WBL system does give lower payout for playing down (which I have no problem with), but it also gives them a means to get back that wealth they were shorted by doing so. The MMJ option? Nope.
The "2XP" system is no different in that regard than playing a module or a sanctioned AP in that regard. Neither of which are bad options; I have no problems with them nor the "2XP" option in that regard. Additionally, as has been recommended by numerous folks, one could feasibly refuse the upgrade to get 1 XP, X GP (instead of 2X) and X PP (instead of 2X).
Why do I have no problems with this?
First, it keeps the WBL targets intact while dealing with the problems currently associated with playing up.
Second, it allows folks to actually catch up to other players so they don't have to continually play up if gaming is limited in their area.
Third, it maintains the control of the PC and how it's advancement is handled in the hands of the player. It is essentially, the inverse of the slow advancement track.
That said, I have not misidentified the source of my troubles. How about you?
EDIT: Ninja'd by SCPRedMage on a couple things ...
OK, Jiggy, first, sorry about the flier thing. From your post I obviously misread what your intent was there. No strawman intended, but to me that seemed like it was what you were getting to with the "getting the event information out there".
Second, for item (1) it could very well become more commonplace. PCs do die, things pop up to make people drop slots, bottom line crap happens and a person could show up to find their table makeup is completely different from what they were expecting from when they first signed up. currently it is not an issue (PC could either play up or play down), but it could become an issue for the reasons already laid out (won't play down due to the permanent WBL damage, or won't play up for no added benefit for doing so and doesn't play pregens for whatever reason).
Third, speaking from experience, with the Asheville Pathfinder Lodge (APL), we do use Warhorn, we do have folks sign up in advance, we do have fliers and bookmarks floating around with both the Warhorn, facebook and Paizo URLs on it indicating when and where we play. We list our games up to a month out.
And we still get walk ups, we still have unexpected things pop up that have players either not be able to attend or be able to attend (also GMs), etc. We still have the proverbial wrench thrown into the works and have to juggle tables. We still have tables with mixed levels and we have folks who do need to occasionally play either up or down.
The point? Mixed level tables are a fact of life and "better planning" is not really an answer. There will always be mixed tables as we are not a homogenous batch of PFS Players ... we have different PCs at different levels, different schedules which can lead to us being able to play at different times. Any solution that begins with "you should all plan to start new characters together" is doomed to fail because of the ebb and flow from week to week.
And because mixed tier tables are inevitable, any solution which takes a PC that is LEGAL for the scenario and essentially penalizes them for playing is bad policy in my book.
The APL organizes as best we can in the time we can afford ... it comes off pretty well the vast majority of the time ... but event organization is not a job for any of us, nor should it be. The goal for ANY PFS event should be to seat every player who wants to play. We achieve this goal regularly.
If the WBL rules change and we end up having to penalize those who find themselves at a mixed tier table, I don't think we will be able to accomplish that with the level of success we have so far.
Wow jiggy ... just wow.
To address your "counters" in sequence.
1) no its not the end of the world. But if you drove 1-2 hours to play and find out you can't play the PC you brought with you, it's damn inconvenient. One could say irritating ... or even infuriating if it occurs more than once, which this change could result in, depending on what route is ultimately taken. Having it happen everyone once in a blue moon wouldn't result in a lost player, but once a month might.
2) Granted with extenuating circumstances folks should be more flexible, however, if the system itself loses flexibility to accommodate these types of situations, as could happen, then we're talking about more than just being flexible on the part of the players. They would either end up having to play a pregen or drop the game for the day. Bottom line, you lose players for that day, and if it gets coupled with (1), then you increase the likelihood of losing players for good.
3) Level range at a table happens. We've all seen it.
4) If the PC is legal for the scenario, they should be able to play the PC. The MMJ proposal would make playing a PC out of tier a penalized action, so your options are play your PC and be penalized or play a pregen, which many view as a penalty in and of itself. Players should not be penalized for playing.
5) We agree, sometimes an extra GM will not solve the issue.
6) Most folks don't have the $$ to print up new fliers every week with all the relevant info. Yes, you can use warhorn, but what about folks who do not have internet access? What about folks who just realized they have the day free and stop in to grab a game? What about the folks who are from out of town and the folks organizing the event don't have online sign up for slots? What about people who were in the store for something else and decide to "give PFS a go"? What if a local TV station reports on the event and you have lots more folks show up than anticipated?
There are PLENTY of scenarios that can and do pop up for any event which can play havoc with the event. They are completely valid concerns and dismissing them out of hand as you did is a pretty myopic view of the entire situation.
OK, so at this point we're moving away from a discussion of WBL to event management? Let's get this back on track...
Back to the topic at hand, if the goal is to keep folks from gaining excessive wealth, then running with a double XP/PP solution is probably your best bet, just based on numbers.
If the goal is to keep people within the confines of the defined tiers, then the MMJ solution would do the trick (there would be no motivation to play outside the tier).
As to the coercion aspect, as I stated before neither of these addresses it. Instead of being coerced to play up, folks will most likely be coerced to play down in the MMJ solution. In the doubling solution, the coercion issue would remain as it is.
There is no in game mechanic change that will stop coercion to play either up or down. The only means to stop it is to give GMs clearly defined guidelines and authority on how to deal with it when they see it. It is truly an issue in it's own right, separate from any WBL mechanic that is put in place.
At the Asheville Pathfinder Lodge, we do have event sign up via Warhorn, we do post the scenarios/modules that will be run in advance, we run 6-10 tables on any given APL Saturday ... and we have folks who walk up for the games. Unless you are playing private games, you are going to have that wildcard thrown into the mix quite often.
As it stands right now, we do have folks who will hop out of a mid/high tier table to help make up a low level table, even if they end up having to play down for the new table. With the current system, they can make up for any loss of wealth by playing up at a later date. I can see some of these folks not being quite as willing to fill that gap, at least not as regularly, with the proposed system.
Personally, I am not a fan of the pregens. Yeah they are the iconics, but they are not a product of the player's creation, there is no investment to who the PC is, why they are there, why they do what they do, etc. And if a player is repeatedly faced with the possibility of playing a pregen, playing up with no benefit (or playing down with no chance of closing the resulting WBL gap) or not playing, I can see folks becoming disillusioned with PFS Organized Play.
The one question I would raise is why should the system that is put in place penalize anyone? Ideally, you want to push towards greater game balance and the currently proposed solution does not do that (and obviously neither does the current set up as evidenced by the wealth disparity issue at higher levels); it simply makes the inverse of the current problem the new problem.
With the double XP/PP/FP suggestion you at least have more balance (it is not fully balanced, but it is closer than the other two options. In truth, a player who plays down will still not "catch up" to WBL except in the sense they will reduce their level of consumables use (their GP level will still be on track with others of their level).
"With great risk comes great reward" holds true in the APs and modules ... if folks decided to play a PC that was lower level than recommended for the adventure, the payout for defeating the more difficult critters is not reduced. Why would this be the case for PFS. Additionally, since the level advancement in PFS is linear instead of exponential (well, not truly exponential, but you get the idea), having a double of XP fits the model of the core game as well (you will level up faster in a home game if you take on more difficult critters. Doubling the FP/PP fits with the greater risk ... if you fail in one aspect, you have doubled your loss. If you succeed, you gain additional points, but they would not put you in excess of anyone else at your XP level.
As to the second primary concern, the proposed solution also does nothing as far as the player coercion issue goes either, it simply makes that coercion occur in the other way. Instead of folks being pressured to play up, they will be pressured to play down and "take one for the team". In truth, there is not in game mechanic that will cause this issue to go away. It is up to the GMs to enforce the "do not be a jerk" rule, which certainly includes coercion to play up or down. They can do so by giving players warnings that they are violating the "DnBaJ" rule, they can override the decision to play up (informing the players of such due to the coercion) or they could expel players from the table if they cross the line (a last resort to be sure). The GMs are the ones who need to be enforcing the stance against coercion with full support from Mike, Mark and John. Outlining what steps a GM can take when they witness coercion would be the best way to handle this aspect rather than create new problems for PC wealth. But, this, like all else, is just my 2CP.
OK, so look at this another way, where X is the lower tier GP level):
So what are the drawbacks?
A player could end up playing fewer scenarios to get to high level? They can also accomplish that via modules. This is not really an issue ... it is really a player decision as to how fast they want to level up, similar to an inverse of playing the slow progression. the plus side is they keep more scenarios available for other charcters they may want to run.
It breaks the WBL curve? Not really. It actually maintains it when playing up. It also keeps the ability for those who do play down to allow a table to run to be able to regain some of what was lost if they choose. This option would no longer be available with the proposed solution and would most likely result in fewer folks being willing to play down due to the loss of revenue and the resulting loss of potential power.
It seems greedy? Well, it depends on how you look at it. Yes, they are getting a higher payout at one time, but they reduce the amount of scenarios they can play with the PC, so it is really just a trade out more than anything.
It really boils down to the player deciding on the course their PC will take in advancement. And with the emphasis on Player action having consequence for this upcoming season, it seems this would also fit into that mindset.
And that same player could just run a scenario or two, apply the GM chronicle sheets to that character and have the same effect with full PP, GP, etc and no loss of consumables ... I don't see this as a serious concern since there is another legal way for the same effect to be achieved.
OK folks, this means we will be needing to run multiple sessions of Way of the Kirin (closing scenario for LL ... tier 3-7, level your LL PCs to that range folks) as well as Rivalry's End (closing scenario for SL ... also tier 3-7).
We should send these factions off with honor and make sure folks with PCs in these factions have plenty of opportunity to get the special boon for playing the closing scenarios.
Just wanting some clarification. If a PC dies during a scenario and is raised at the end of the scenario, the condition of "dead" is removed and is indicated on the chronicle sheet the player receives.
That said, when it comes to reporting the event, is the character still marked as "dead" through the reporting system on paizo.com or is that only for characters who died and were not raised (i.e. - that are permanently dead)?
no, no, no ... the tubes are the road, the thread is the car, the concept and/or thought behind the creation of the thread is the guy behind the wheel and semantics is the dude in the passenger seat who is constantly distracting the driver by hurling Cheetos, ice cubes, shoes, etc. at him until the car wrecks (or the thread derails ... or both if you are browsing while driving ... SHAME ON YOU! EYES ON THE ROAD, MISTER!).
So you did (I missed the link in the first go through, sorry) ... thank you too Oceanshieldwolf. :)
Writing, publishing and drinking ... you need a fifth. ;)
Publishing and writing are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they can clash from time to time. It's during those times you really need to know which is your main focus.
"Dude, you got a dollar?" would be panhandling.
"Dude, would you be willing to kick in some cash on this project I plan on supporting / am planning on putting out and get some stuff in return?" is really more sales related.
For the record, I have no issues with KS, as I have backed several projects and have been pretty happy with the majority of what I have backed.
Quite the opposite. He can drink most under the table. He just gets more loose tongued when he does. And gets really strange ideas that may or not not (usually not) be good ideas.
Why, it was his leading a "religious service" at the start of the campaign that led to the Great Goblin Hunt with crates of chickens in tow, each with their own little name tag, since, you know, goblins hate writing ... it made perfect sense at the time ... though all the PCs were "filled with the spirit" or just filled with spirits (tomayto/tomahto when it comes to a Cayden Cailean service).
Using the skeletons as puppets turned out to be a bad idea when they animated though ...
Well, my halfling cleric of Cayden Cailean can get offensive ... usually after a long night of "worshipping" at the tavern. He has been known to spout off things such as
EXPLOSIVE RUNES AGAIN! I can't believe you feel for that...
"Oh, le' me tell ya, she has legs wha' go up t' here!" <raised his hand above his head>
"All right, you lot! I'm sicka this 'town' and alla th' crap what we've had t' deal with! I want answers and I want them now! You! You look like you have answers! Speak afore I kneecap ya right good!"
"I know Shalelu's yer sis, but d'ya think she and I could ever ..."
Yes, he's my character in Jade Regent ... spent a morning in Riddleport wandering around looking for his other boot before he realized he doesn't wear boots ... he also had great fun insulting an NPC by the name of Asvig ...
Well, sometimes you just don't have a pen handy ...
which would still require the creation of code (if it does not already exist) to:
Additionally, having worked with clients who utilize affiliates, when it comes to sales, one cannot assume that everyone you deal with is going to abide by the rules. When I see statements like this:
registered third-party publishers won't abuse it, that I know for sure.
, it does give me pause. Someone, somewhere will abuse it, whether intentional or not.
With the scope you have outlined, one clear abuse would be to spam a thread with images. Sure I am limited to one image, but is it one image per thread or per post? If it is per post, then there would be nothing to stop one from posting countless images in a thread. If it is per thread, would it apply to ANY thread? Only on the threads created by the poster? Only the first post int he thread created by the poster? The more restrictive you make it, the more complex the logic will need to be to implement it.
A second would be to include linked images within a thread for another 3PPs product, potentially leading to confusion re: the actual product. Granted, one can currently do so with regular posts, but the level of potential confusion is mitigated by the fact it is all text based.
James Jacobs wrote:
I'm not sure what sorts of circumstances would result in us making that decision—having a complete staff turnover with new folks working on Golarion from top to bottom could be one scenario where you'd see Paizo reveal the info, I guess...
I know you are a fan of horror, James, but man, that's just TOO scary a thought ...
<goes to corner and rocks back and forth muttering 'it was not real, it was not real'>
Step 1: Find a really big section of bamboo
OK, so it worked against the Gorn ...
for this one, the suggestion to figure out who was the actual target was pretty solid. It would free up the others to prep a trap and/or do the research on the creature's possible weaknesses or vulnerabilities.
You really need to know what exactly you are dealing with if it can wipe out a city of 40k ...
the best way to stop people from pirating stuff is to offer a better product/service than the pirates. if you price your stuff reasonably and make the process easy, most people won't pirate. the harder you make it on the paying customer, the more likely they will take their money else where.
<soapbox>Umm ... just a few inaccuracies with these sentences. First, those "offering" pirated material are "offering" the same material that you are buying here. Second, as to the price, with torrents, you are paying nothing, so there is no competition possible on the price front either. Third, MOST PEOPLE DON'T PIRATE ANYWAYS! Why? Because doing so is (1) illegal and (2) a really freaking a$$%@!* move, especially if you actually like the product you are downloading or uploading.
As to the server issues, good luck Gary and crew. As much as I would love to download book 1 of the new AP, I have no issues kicking back and waiting for the server to come back up. Better to have it done and done properly than rushed and go through it again in a short time.
For the original points raised:
1) house rules can run the full range of "WTF was the GM thinking?" to "Well that makes complete sense ... wonder why this was not part of the actual core?". If the balance of the house rules fall into the WTF realm, then yeah, there could be an issue.
2) um no ... unless it is for actual glee at killing off PCs. I've only ever seen this as a theatrical tool, nothing more.
3) favoritism sucks in every area, gaming included.
4) single shot adventures, not a problem. multiple year campaigns, problem.
5) I have no problem with "Core Only". In fact I tend to run with only core books allowed, everything else needs approval. Why? Because I do not want to have to purchase EVERY 3PP publication out there (my wallet would hate me if I even tried to do it); because there are certain classes/feats/items/etc. which are broken and I prefer to be able to kill the concept before a player invests time in building something they would not be able to use in game; because some things just do not mesh with the campaign one is running ... such as a gunslinger in a world without gunpowder ...
shhhh ... ;)
Actually, I really have no idea. I have given one suggestion to Tim, but I'm not saying what it was. And I'm sure he won't be making any decision on what the theme will be until we get closer to PaizoCon (since the announcement will need to go out prior to or in association with WF#9).
As to the concept of Distant Worlds, I would love to see Paizo put out some outer worlds stuff (and mechanics for inter-planetary travel ... yes, I was a Spelljammer fan). That could lead to countless possibilities ... for home games and future issues.
Celestial Healer wrote:
Sometimes I feel like I am the only one out there who likes chewy bacon. Thank you for standing up for me, AZ!
I prefer a little chewiness in my back as well. Crispy edges but not to the point it shatters when I bite into the hickory smoked goodness.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
but I kinda liked Howard the Duck...