Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

PFS judges changing scenarios. A polite discussion.


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

201 to 250 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Cheliax **** Venture-Lieutenant, New York—Albany

Kyle Baird wrote:

Why would the bad guys need to hit harder or save better if there's more PCs? That doesn't make any sense. The only thing they need is more actions. This is accomplished in two ways, more bad guys or more rounds of life. Since encounters and bad guys vary so much in both quantity, quality, and terrain, always adding additional bad guys is very hard to implement. Adding hit points is much simpler and buys the bad guys more action(s).

I must say that I like the chart ideas posted up thread (if encounter has X bad guys, at 6 player tables use Y bad guys. It would probably be very complicated to pick the right numbers, but warrants looking into.

Hitting harder which leads to knocking down opponents makes sense as it will allow the bad guys to last for more rounds, hence generating more actions. Increased saves and ac will also, on average, increase the life span of the bad guys, leading to more actions.

The rule should never be to "always" do anything, rather it should provide some options the GM may implement, if the table wishes to so empower the GM.

Adding hit points has the virtue of simplicity, but considering the variation in encounter quantity, quality and terrain is sometimes insufficient to create a challenge. This is especially the case with some solo or nearly solo big boss battles - where additional numbers to stop the boss from being immediately swarmed is more to the point.

I certainly agree with you that a chart suggesting additional numbers warrants looking into, and that in many instances additional hit points could be part of the solution.

Shadow Lodge *** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Silicon Valley aka JohnF

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
wait - what are the rule on how to pick which two?

GM bribes, of course - just like everything else.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Brother Mortimer wrote:
sometimes insufficient to create a challenge

Which is a far better option than the other end of the spectrum.

I disagree with not providing a standard "always" requirement. PFS is a shared experience and I should expect the same quality of scenario no matter where I play. (yes I know this is impossible. no, i don't want to debate it)

Qadira ***

Care Baird wrote:
nosig wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Roll off, what else?

ha! easy stuff then. I'll take 10... wait, am I under pressure?

;)
It's at my table. You tell me.

ah.. nope. no pressure... no stress (please ignore the sweat on the brow - now where did I put my dice?)

Qadira ***

Kyle Baird wrote:
Brother Mortimer wrote:
sometimes insufficient to create a challenge

Which is a far better option than the other end of the spectrum.

I disagree with not providing a standard "always" requirement. PFS is a shared experience and I should expect the same quality of scenario no matter where I play. (yes I know this is impossible. no, i don't want to debate it)

I like this response.

I may not agree, but I can easily game with it.

(not that you need my seal of aproval)

Andoran **** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Swiftbrook wrote:
Looks like that would be Slot 3 #3-EX: The Cyphermage Dilemma (1-5) check
Stop reading between my lines. Nothing to see here. Moving along. ;-)

Stop it, Bob! You are looking to seriously overshadow my running of that scenario 5 times at GenCon... plus 4 times previous to that at local cons.

**

Jiggy wrote:
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'.

Cheliax ***** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Michael VonHasseln wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Swiftbrook wrote:
Looks like that would be Slot 3 #3-EX: The Cyphermage Dilemma (1-5) check
Stop reading between my lines. Nothing to see here. Moving along. ;-)

Stop it, Bob! You are looking to seriously overshadow my running of that scenario 5 times at GenCon... plus 4 times previous to that at local cons.

Aside from the two specials and the grand convocation at p-con, I am running that every slot of both cons :)

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Michael VonHasseln wrote:
Stop it, Bob! You are looking to seriously overshadow my running of that scenario 5 times at GenCon... plus 4 times previous to that at local cons.

Sounds like you need to bring your A-game. nan'er nan'er ;-)

Cheliax ***** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Michael VonHasseln wrote:
Stop it, Bob! You are looking to seriously overshadow my running of that scenario 5 times at GenCon... plus 4 times previous to that at local cons.
Sounds like you need to bring your A-game. nan'er nan'er ;-)

Do you even know what A-game is? I'll give you a hint: part of it involved ending your scenarios on time...

*****

Todd Morgan wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Michael VonHasseln wrote:
Stop it, Bob! You are looking to seriously overshadow my running of that scenario 5 times at GenCon... plus 4 times previous to that at local cons.
Sounds like you need to bring your A-game. nan'er nan'er ;-)
Do you even know what A-game is? I'll give you a hint: part of it involved ending your scenarios on time...

whistles

Qadira ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(do I hear the sound of spaghetti western music being piped in..."do-ew-ew, wa-wa-wa")

I think I will quitely slip back out the door now...

Cheliax ***

Bob Jonquet wrote:
That creates multiple rules for the same part of the game. We don't want that.

Which Mark asked for. Pay attention at the back ;-)

Shadow Lodge **

Todd Morgan wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Michael VonHasseln wrote:
Stop it, Bob! You are looking to seriously overshadow my running of that scenario 5 times at GenCon... plus 4 times previous to that at local cons.
Sounds like you need to bring your A-game. nan'er nan'er ;-)
Do you even know what A-game is? I'll give you a hint: part of it involved ending your scenarios on time...

A-Game? Isn't that from the movie with the black van?

Cheliax **** Venture-Lieutenant, New York—Albany

Kyle Baird wrote:
Brother Mortimer wrote:
sometimes insufficient to create a challenge

Which is a far better option than the other end of the spectrum.

I disagree with not providing a standard "always" requirement. PFS is a shared experience and I should expect the same quality of scenario no matter where I play. (yes I know this is impossible. no, i don't want to debate it)

Anyone interested in getting back to the issues raised by the OP? Or the post by Mark, inviting suggestions and specific critiques?

Kyle, do you see something specific in the suggestions made that leads you to fear "the other end of the spectrum?" If so, is there a way to fix it? Mark has suggested looking at specific scenarios for examples.

In time I think there could be an "always" formula for increasing monsters or stats. It doesn't seem doable in the short run, as there is too much scenario variation. I can see the attraction to "always."

All the proposals I have seen involve choice. I believe it should be a consensus decision to allow the GM to upgrade the scenario. Does your desire for standardization lead you to oppose this? Are you telling me that if my table wishes to play using the relatively small changes proposed above, and accept the consequences, that this is a problem for you? or for PFSOP?

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There are specific encounters where increasing the NPC quantity to 2 (from 1) will make for a huge swing in encounter difficulty (Heresy of Man Pt 1 wine cellar?, Rebel's Ransom main NPC?, really want me to go on?).

There are specific encounters where increasing the number of mooks will provide spacing challenges (i.e. the mooks already mostly fill the room or have difficulty fighting in the space given).

This is even true for one or two bad guy situations where they use the terrain to their advantage.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kyle Baird wrote:

There are specific encounters where increasing the NPC quantity to 2 (from 1) will make for a huge swing in encounter difficulty (Heresy of Man Pt 1 wine cellar?, Rebel's Ransom main NPC?, really want me to go on?).

There are specific encounters where increasing the number of mooks will provide spacing challenges (i.e. the mooks already mostly fill the room or have difficulty fighting in the space given).

This is even true for one or two bad guy situations where they use the terrain to their advantage.

This is why I advocate the adjustments being made to the stats.

It seems you and I agree on boosting HP.

Boosting AC might mean getting missed once more and therefore lasting another round (there's your extra actions you wanted). Same with saves.

Boosting attack/damage/DCs means that the actions they already have gain additional value (which is what the extra actions you're after are really about).

And with stat-centric adjustment guidelines, you don't screw with maps/spacing issues.

***

nosig wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

It looks like a lot of people are forgetting/ignoring Mark's "just a couple of lines" request.

I'll toss my idea into the ring:

"If the players request an increased challenge, the GM may increase enemies' armor class, saves, attack bonuses and damage bonuses by +1 each. Additionally, she may grant enemies an extra 2 hit points per hit die."

How about that? Simple, clean, low-word count, and is similar to what a lot of GMs say they typically do. Not much room to be botched because we've got numbers in there (so no "bad judgment calls" getting people killed), and it all starts with "if the players request".

Eh?

Jiggy, if I may change your words just slightly

"If the majority of players request an increased challenge, the GM may increase any or all of the following on by +1:
-armor class,
-saves,
-attack bonuses
-damage bonuses
-DCs
Additionally, she may grant enemies up to 2 extra hit points per hit die.
These changes may be made as needed during the running of the adventure, in mid encounter."

how's that?

I would go as far as to make the bonus +2 at level APL 8 and +3 at APL 16+. This is a nice, quick way to adjust- interesting ideas Jiggy and NoSig.

Grand Lodge **

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
There are specific encounters where increasing the number of mooks will provide spacing challenges (i.e. the mooks already mostly fill the room or have difficulty fighting in the space given).

"For parties of 6-7 PCs, the GM may multiply the number of each type of enemy in an encounter by 1.5, rounding down. For encounters where the map layout would make adding additional enemies impractical, use the number of enemies stated in the scenario."

Not every GM is confident enough to adjust a statblock in several places on the fly, but even a novice GM can add another identical enemy so that a fight becomes 6 PCs vs. 3 enemies (roughly equivalent to the 4 PCs vc. 2 enemies that the encounter was designed as).

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

Boosting AC might mean getting missed once more and therefore lasting another round (there's your extra actions you wanted). Same with saves.

Boosting attack/damage/DCs means that the actions they already have gain additional value (which is what the extra actions you're after are really about).

And with stat-centric adjustment guidelines, you don't screw with maps/spacing issues.

I'm still of the opinion that the NPCs/Monsters don't need to hit harder to be a challenge. They need the chance to have more actions. Having them hit harder potentially creates dangerously unbalanced situations.

Regarding AC/Saves, yes this accomplishes something similar to hit points (every +1 AC is about the same as adding a 5% miss chance). Two problems I see with this approach:

  • What Paz said about GM's adjusting stats on the fly. The more stats we require to be changed, the more complicated it becomes, the more variance that tables will see.
  • The wide variety of stats for bad guys. There are some NPCs and Monsters built with high AC's. There are some encounters out there where it's already hard to hit the opponent (mostly at tier 1-2). Now we're increasing that even further. Yes, the players would have 33% more attempts to hit it. I just don't see it as safe of an option as adding hit points. More hit points means more rounds alive which means more actions.


dotted

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kyle Baird wrote:
I just don't see it as safe of an option as adding hit points.

You heard it here first: Kyle Baird wants player-safe options!

Anyway, good points raised. A simple "GMs may increase enemies' HP by up to +X per hit die" would be very clean and simple.

Cheliax ****

Kyle Baird wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Boosting AC might mean getting missed once more and therefore lasting another round (there's your extra actions you wanted). Same with saves.

Boosting attack/damage/DCs means that the actions they already have gain additional value (which is what the extra actions you're after are really about).

And with stat-centric adjustment guidelines, you don't screw with maps/spacing issues.

I'm still of the opinion that the NPCs/Monsters don't need to hit harder to be a challenge. They need the chance to have more actions. Having them hit harder potentially creates dangerously unbalanced situations.

Regarding AC/Saves, yes this accomplishes something similar to hit points (every +1 AC is about the same as adding a 5% miss chance). Two problems I see with this approach:

  • What Paz said about GM's adjusting stats on the fly. The more stats we require to be changed, the more complicated it becomes, the more variance that tables will see.
  • The wide variety of stats for bad guys. There are some NPCs and Monsters built with high AC's. There are some encounters out there where it's already hard to hit the opponent (mostly at tier 1-2). Now we're increasing that even further. Yes, the players would have 33% more attempts to hit it. I just don't see it as safe of an option as adding hit points. More hit points means more rounds alive which means more actions.

I don't know what creature I saw it on, but there was one that could roll initiative twice. He would then take his full turn on the first initiative count and then take only a single standard or move action during the second initiative count.

Perhaps applying a template like that to single boss monsters would be enough?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mergy wrote:

I don't know what creature I saw it on, but there was one that could roll initiative twice. He would then take his full turn on the first initiative count and then take only a single standard or move action during the second initiative count.

Perhaps applying a template like that to single boss monsters would be enough?

Wow. That'd be interesting.

Cheliax ****

It would certainly make a spellcaster far more dangerous, but it would also be pretty deadly with a hulking brute with vital strike.


Kyle Baird wrote:


Regarding AC/Saves, yes this accomplishes something similar to hit points (every +1 AC is about the same as adding a 5% miss chance). Two problems I see with this approach:

  • What Paz said about GM's adjusting stats on the fly. The more stats we require to be changed, the more complicated it becomes, the more variance that tables will see.
  • The wide variety of stats for bad guys. There are some NPCs and Monsters built with high AC's. There are some encounters out there where it's already hard to hit the opponent (mostly at tier 1-2). Now we're increasing that even further. Yes, the players would have 33% more attempts to hit it. I just don't see it as safe of an option as adding hit points. More hit points means more rounds alive which means more actions.

More hit points just discourages damage dealing as a way of handling an encounter. You can have all the hit points in the world and if you fail a save vs Hold Person, you are dead just as fast. Going this route would only encourage more SoD/SoS casters and less melee/damage dealers.

And what I proposed has zero adjusting stats on the fly. I proposed having the template-adjusted stats already in the main statblock, in parentheses and/or itallics. For example:

"Saves Fort +5 Ref +2 Will +2 (Fort +7 Ref +4 Will +4)"
"Hit Points 50 (60)"

etc etc

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Oooh, I like that idea even better!

Grand Lodge **

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
TwoWolves wrote:

I proposed having the template-adjusted stats already in the main statblock, in parentheses and/or itallics. For example:

"Saves Fort +5 Ref +2 Will +2 (Fort +7 Ref +4 Will +4)"
"Hit Points 50 (60)"

The solution Mark is looking for is 'a single rule a few sentences long that could appear in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play to cover as many possible situations in which a GM might wish to alter the statistics of an encounter.' Alterations to statblocks won't address that.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

The easiest, and probably cleanest way, would be to add the advanced simple template. For all season zero-three, which are based on 4 players, apply the template once for a 5th player, and once again for a 7th. There is no need to apply it to for the 6th since that almost always grants the playing up option. Although, if you are already playing at the higher sub-tier, it could be applied in that case. So, a group of 7 could see the creatures advanced up to three times. That's a +6 to virtually every die roll, and 6 more HP/HD. If that is not a challenge, nothing is. I don't see any clean, easy way to adjust the number of appearing unless it is tailored for each scenario. Economy of actions can still be an issue, but the increase in HP and stronger offense/defense should give the enemy more staying power.


Adding the Advanced Simple template to boss encounters is half of my suggestion. Adding extra non-boss combatants on a +1/PC over 4 is the other part. The two lines would be "add +1 cannon-fodder npc/PC over 4" and "use the Advanced Simple template for "boss" encounters". That's it. Then in the scenario itself a simple statblock alteration as I proposed would work, but really, the template is just "+2 to most d20 rolls (and +2hp/HD)" and is really no problem to enforce on the fly at all. It is barely different than the "+2/-2" circumstance modifier for ideal conditions/piss-poor conditions that is already in the RAW. If the DM is aware of and using that rule, he can do the former as well.

Edit: Ninja'd by Bob!

Didn't think you could stack the templates like that.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

The only problem with the mook idea is when there aren't any spec'd out in the scenario. We know that Paizo is not going to rewrite the scenarios with that info included, so what do you use? Seems we either add a mook NPC stat block in the Guide with level appropriate advancement, or reference the Game Master Guide's mook tables, or leave it up to the GM's discretion. Any of those seem beyond what Mark wants to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Come on, really? We already have multiple instances of stat blocks consisting of "see pXX". Are you really claiming that the people we count on to be DMs in PFS can't tell the difference between cannon-fodder encounter and a BBG? Dire rat or 5th level rogue wererat, which one gets the template?

Once again, a "mook" is some foe already appearing in the scenario as written not "flip through the bestiary and pick something out".

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

I don't think I was clear. You suggestion was for a bump to the bbeg AND an increase in mooks. Many scenario do not have any mooks to reference. In that case, you would only be upgrading the bbeg, but simply adding a single occurrence of the advanced template may not be enough to have an impact on the encounter. I was just saying that to introduce some mooks so that the bbeg would have time to overcome the imbalance in economy of actions would be a bit more complicated that a two line entry into the Guide.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

As long as we defined it (something like "an enemy of which at least two identical copies already exist in the encounter"), I think we'd be fine.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bob Jonquet wrote:
I was just saying that to introduce some mooks so that the bbeg would have time to overcome the imbalance in economy of actions would be a bit more complicated that a two line entry into the Guide.

Unless I've been misunderstand, I don't think anyone was suggesting adding mooks to a "solo" fight. Only adding more where some already exist.


I actually suggested that for the "big fight"/final encounter that the powers that be be sure to include at least a single stooge so that you would know when to add +1/+2 and when not.

BUT

That was before they announced a change to the design philosophy of scenarios to assume 6 person tables from season 4 onward. Then it would more correctly be "-1 mook per PC less than 6, max of -2". But even then, I doubt that will fly, as most writers still would use less numbers of stronger foes, rather than larger numbers of weaker ones.

IMHO, there are not enough "mob" type encounters in PFS, where there are equal or greater numbers of weaker, mook-like foes than there are PCs. My pet peave point: morloks. Here is a monster with the ability to stack two medium monsters into a 5' square, and they then count as flanking an adjacent foe. This monster just screams "tons of me, please". The one time I encountered any, there were 3 or 4, and they were spread out in a large cavern. My Cleave-taking fighter just wept at the lost opportunity.

Cheliax **** Venture-Lieutenant, New York—Albany

Kyle Baird wrote:

There are specific encounters where increasing the NPC quantity to 2 (from 1) will make for a huge swing in encounter difficulty (Heresy of Man Pt 1 wine cellar?, Rebel's Ransom main NPC?, really want me to go on?).

There are specific encounters where increasing the number of mooks will provide spacing challenges (i.e. the mooks already mostly fill the room or have difficulty fighting in the space given).

This is even true for one or two bad guy situations where they use the terrain to their advantage.

Yes please do. Or rather explain more to those of us lacking the fullness of your experience in Pathfinder. I am familiar with neither scenario.

Are these single enemy encounters mooks or closer to boss level encounters? I don't think anyone advocates increasing the number of main NPC enemies.

I don't understand the spacing problem. If two more mooks literally do not fit than I suppose the GM can't use them. Is this a common occurrence? What percent of modules do you see this happening in? Do we need an explicit rule saying "you can't use additional mooks if they don't fit," or can we figure that GMs will figure it out?

Cheliax **** Venture-Lieutenant, New York—Albany

Jiggy wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I was just saying that to introduce some mooks so that the bbeg would have time to overcome the imbalance in economy of actions would be a bit more complicated that a two line entry into the Guide.
Unless I've been misunderstand, I don't think anyone was suggesting adding mooks to a "solo" fight. Only adding more where some already exist.

I suggest allowing the GM the option of adding mooks to a solo boss fight. Possibly at the maximum number equal to the number of players minus two.

This could add all of a third sentence to the rules change proposed to Mark. But don't you think a change of this magnitude is worthy of more than two sentences?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Brother Mortimer wrote:

I suggest allowing the GM the option of adding mooks to a solo boss fight. Possibly at the maximum number equal to the number of players minus two.

This could add all of a third sentence to the rules change proposed to Mark. But don't you think a change of this magnitude is worthy of more than two sentences?

It would take much more than that, IMO. What are the mook's stat block? Are they human warriors? Bestiary creatures? GM choice?

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Lieutenant, Australia—Melbourne aka KestlerGunner

Somewhere in Golarion, there's an enormous academy of nameless, faceless warrior NPCs of all races and backgrounds marching in mundane chainmail while wielding mundane martial weaponry, ready to bring the fight back to Pathfinder Society play.

Just say the word and they'll deploy, giving all easily downed bosses and substandard encounters the gristle they need to encourage tactics and let every hero shine.

I salute thee, nameless Warrior mooks!

Silver Crusade **

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Brother Mortimer wrote:

I suggest allowing the GM the option of adding mooks to a solo boss fight. Possibly at the maximum number equal to the number of players minus two.

This could add all of a third sentence to the rules change proposed to Mark. But don't you think a change of this magnitude is worthy of more than two sentences?

It would take much more than that, IMO. What are the mook's stat block? Are they human warriors? Bestiary creatures? GM choice?

Bob, normally in a scenario there are some low level enemies that serve as filler. For example,

Spoiler:
In the frostfur captives, the normal goblins found in the towers would count as mooks.

It has been my experience as a GM that there are often a few enemies like this scattered about in a scenario. If not, then yes, we have a problem.


Bob Jonquet wrote:
Brother Mortimer wrote:

I suggest allowing the GM the option of adding mooks to a solo boss fight. Possibly at the maximum number equal to the number of players minus two.

This could add all of a third sentence to the rules change proposed to Mark. But don't you think a change of this magnitude is worthy of more than two sentences?

It would take much more than that, IMO. What are the mook's stat block? Are they human warriors? Bestiary creatures? GM choice?

The mook's stat block is identical to another mook's statblock already appearing in the scenario in question.

I'm beginning to think you are being intentionally obtuse in this question.

Shadow Lodge ***

There are some old campaign staff posts that said the maps are a guideline. They don't need to be followed exactly. While there's some issues in listening to outdated staff posts this still seems likely true.

Andoran ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will pretty much never be on board for this because I've never seen it done well.

Every time I've had a judge make "changes" to the scenario to make things more fun it has ended poorly for myself or someone else at the table.

It's better if judges run things as best they can as written. If the experience ends up being less than ideal, the players they should take it up with the campaign writers and admins. Judges "fixing" modules on the fly makes for a vigilante mess that, more often than not, ends no better than if the judge had left things alone.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Feral wrote:
Every time I've had a judge make "changes" to the scenario to make things more fun it has ended poorly for myself or someone else at the table.

Every time?

Andoran ***

Every time I'm aware of.

I suppose people would get away with it more often if I didn't judge as much.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Feral wrote:

Every time I'm aware of.

I suppose people would get away with it more often if I didn't judge as much.

Did this end poorly for you?

Andoran ***

Not for me.

It might have ended poorly for our halfling cleric. You'd have to ask him.

Andoran **** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since we can't change the scenario as written, we just need the advice of some of the veteran GMs on how to optimize the encounters with the tools that are given. Though I've never sat at one of the tables of the esteemed "killer GMs of PFS", I am sure that I could definitely benefit from their advice. I was under the impression this is what the GM's Advice Forum was for. Maybe that is the tool we should be using first.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Feral wrote:

Not for me.

It might have ended poorly for our halfling cleric. You'd have to ask him.

Why assume the changes I made (if any) were negative and resulted in the gnome cleric's death?

I guess my point is that I don't like hyperbole. Or Thug Rogues. ;-)

201 to 250 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / PFS judges changing scenarios. A polite discussion. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.