|
Pathfinder has a steady influx of new mechanics. In the "chronicles should matter" vein, I'd appreciate it if more items/spells would be held back from general availability and kept as chronicle exclusives.
The main problem that I have about this is that it puts a hard limit of 2 on the number of a player's characters that can take advantage of a particular option. More realistically this number would be 1 because you are more than likely to waste a chronicle with a cool spell on it on a martial character.
Items and spells would be a less-bad way to introduce this kind of thing, but still the problem of wasting cool boons on characters that can't use them will have to be worked on at least before something like this were done to make it worse.
Neat stuff on chronicles should exist but it should be limited to stuff like:
|
you know. I like the idea of a discount, any discount (even 1% - yeah that's a one) on items that appear on a chronicle.
how about a 10% discount if you take it on the chronicle it appears on. In other words - "we recovered this cool thing! I'm going to take it as my share of the loot!"...
Up to a 50% discount would be reasonable. That's the amount you're selling it to the Society for, so there's no net benefit.
Arcane Gun
|
...while Cheliax the nation is undoubtedly Evil there's a lot going on in that nation that makes it a worthwhile addition to the campaign. It is no more Evil than the Sczarni, an organized crime syndicate affiliated with drug-dealing (Magnimar, City of Monuments 10), smuggling (MCoM 13), and protection rackets (MCoM 27-28). Arguing for one to go but the other to stay based on issues of morality is simply nonsensical or based solely on emotion; they are equally Evil.
I know with all of the religous fervor that seems to happen, I'd like to see more open religions. Players like to be diverse or different, usually, just to be different.
But I most commonly see requests for the Old Ones to be brought into the campaign as well as more CE, NE or demonic options. There is material out there but it just doesn't seem to be allowed.
I don't see much different between all of the Devils vs Demons or Daemons from a mechanics standand point. Demon and daemonic are just more rebelious than the Asmodeus followers.
I personally enjoy the diversity the campaign has already and feel more is usually better provided it's balanced.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many things ought to be reworked (such as factions for example), but the PFS environment is an ever-changing one so I have faith they will come to bloom in time.
If I could change one thing in PFS, it would be to make the items listed on your Chronicle Sheets matter more than now. The idea of a discount is an interesting one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would go back to the Season 0 idea that different factions offer characteristic sets of Always Available items. Taldor can get you a hat of disguise more easily than the Silver Crusade can.
That's a neat idea, Chris... one well worth expanding on.
Another idea would be to tie discounted items to certain vanity boons. So, for example, if you were to gain membership into the Lion Blades, you could buy the Hat of Disguise for a 10% discount? This might mean that there would need to be a reduction on the min. fame required to enter the Lion Blades (though I think it is only 20).
I would like to see the Silver Crusade grant Knighthoods as a vanity (field commission, yadda yadda). Kind of odd to me that my Andoran rogue can become a knight, while my Silver Crusade paladin cannot.
So, on that, perhaps the Silver Crusade could get a bonus like getting their Cold Iron weapons enchanted without the extra 2000gp cost (though it would still count in the fame requirements), since the Crusade would be backing their acquisition of Cold Iron weapons? This might require a "Squire" vanity (10 Fame, 1pp)?
Just a couple of brainstormed ideas.
|
|
I would enable the non-Gungslinger gun archetypes. If Gunslingers required a boon, sure, it'd make sense to restrict the other archetypes. But to say "guns are super duper common, but you must make an inefficient multiclass build if you want to play anything other than our cookie-cutter core class and use a firearm" is really dumb.
If I want to play a Musketeer Cavalier or a Spellslinger Wizard, I should be able to. It's an unnecessary restriction which disables creativity and build freedom while failing at its intended task - making guns seem rarer.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably do away with both the "found items" parts of chronicles and the fame cap on GP, and handle it thusly:
you can buy whatever you can afford. period. that being said, I would take a chunk out of all GP gained and make it "consumable gp" (insert better name here), meaning that you earn, say, 10% less gold, and gain that amount in gp which you can only spend on consumable items.
I would, however, put unique items on chronicles, things like intelligent items, but would probably not charge people for them, or maybe let people spend money to upgrade them (I know that quite a few players would love the chance to "fix" gamin, at the very least, and would spend money to do so).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chronicles definitely need to be more significant. The only thing on 90% of the chronicle sheets I care about is the gold and the XP. In nearly every case, the "found items" is literally pointless because almost every single character that gets to that level will have exceeded the fame limit for all of the items by a gigantic margin.
|
|
Chronicles definitely need to be more significant. The only thing on 90% of the chronicle sheets I care about is the gold and the XP. In nearly every case, the "found items" is literally pointless because almost every single character that gets to that level will have exceeded the fame limit for all of the items by a gigantic margin.
At a con this last weekend, I heard many people oohing and aahing about items on their chronicles...
Oh, wait, they were all partially charged wands except one +2 Wis headband unlocked by a Cleric playing up.I'm not sure I've ever had an item on a chronicle I couldn't buy anyway (except said wands) outside of "Dragon's Demand". Sometimes I'd like to buy something I've won from a fallen foe.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
the GM stars replay limit being lifetime.... without renewing...
?
Since when has that not been the case?
It's actually always been the case (that GM stars don't renew).
This topic was discussed at some length on the boards, and campaign management decided that, pending review after the first year, the replay limit would be announced initially as a lifetime benefit (because it's a whole lot less controversial to grant an extra benefit by making the limit renew than it would be to change the limit from renewable to lifetime).
Unfortunately the pre-release version of the "Guide to Organized Play" for season 5 went out containing an earlier version of the wording that stated the limit renewed every year. This was fixed in the official (August 14th) released version of the GtPFSOP V5.0, but apparently a lot of people have never bothered to upgrade to the real version.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
You can buy whatever you can afford. period. that being said, I would take a chunk out of all GP gained and make it "consumable gp" (insert better name here), meaning that you earn, say, 10% less gold, and gain that amount in gp which you can only spend on consumable items.
What about characters that don't need to spend a lot on consumables? You're effectively reducing their earnings by 10% or so.
I would, however, put unique items on chronicles, things like intelligent items, but would probably not charge people for them, or maybe let people spend money to upgrade them (I know that quite a few players would love the chance to "fix" gamin, at the very least, and would spend money to do so).
I'm sure the PFS development staff have ideas on how to fix gamin, too. We might see a chronicle at some time in the future that would allow this; I'd rather push for that than for a blanket loosening of the rules on named items.
|
the GM stars replay limit being lifetime.... without renewing...
?
Since when has that not been the case?It's actually always been the case (that GM stars don't renew).
This topic was discussed at some length on the boards, and campaign management decided that, pending review after the first year, the replay limit would be announced initially as a lifetime benefit (because it's a whole lot less controversial to grant an extra benefit by making the limit renew than it would be to change the limit from renewable to lifetime).
Unfortunately the pre-release version of the "Guide to Organized Play" for season 5 went out containing an earlier version of the wording that stated the limit renewed every year. This was fixed in the official (August 14th) released version of the GtPFSOP V5.0, but apparently a lot of people have never bothered to upgrade to the real version.
Der. Comprehension error on my part - I read that as what he would want the rule to be changed to, as other people were putting what rules they would want to see, and I got confused.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
(Is it my imagination, or are almost all of these changes geared towards making characters' lives easier?)
A number of the more recent convention boons are almost invisible. The "keep unlucky rolls for a bunch of times, and then you get a lucky roll" or even just "add +4 to a roll" aren't things that come across on a character level at the table. So, in essencce, it's the player getting the boon, not the character.
I'd like to see a gradual reversal of that trend. I'd like to see more things like Emerald Elixir, or race boons, or oddball equipment boons (The boons in "You Have What You Hold" does a good job there, or "Night March of Kalkamedes"). Something that you can apply to a PC and help distinguish your character from other, similar pathfinder agents.
That's not really a rule, though.
I would like some way, as a GM, to recognize a player who goes above and beyond. Maybe he holds the table together when other players have a personality conflict. Maybe he volunteers to run an adventure unexpectedly when three new players show up. Maybe he's the guy everybody asks for help, when they want to audit their PCs.
I'd like to be able to donate a point of GM prestige to a PC, maybe once every five sessions.
|
|
7 PC tables being legal.
7 person tables are technically OK
"Conversely, if seven players show up to an event,
rather than turning someone away from the campaign
altogether, consider adding a seventh person to the table.
These situations should be extremely rare and should only
be used as a last resort to sending someone home without
the chance to play."
but I gather that you would like 7 person tables to be always OK.
|
|
After a couple of unpleasant games -- not the fault of anybody at the table -- I'm now promising to give up my seat at a 7-player table. And I won't GM them. I can't make them fun enough for people.
That reminds me of what would make for a wonderful rule change: an expansion of the explicit "rights of the GM" to run tables he or she is comfortable with. Things like being explicitly allowed to hard-cap a Season 0-3 module at four players, or the ability to turn away a Summoner4 from a table full of level 1 PCs.
That way, the GM doesn't have to deal with the problem of "public games" infringing on his comfort level, or his ability to run a good session. It would be nice to be able to GM something for a public audience knowing that the GM is empowered to shield the game from session-wrecking pitfalls.
In other words, what talbanus said.
-Matt
|
|
I agree with both of you. But I have been the only one willing to DM when 9 people show up.
The 2 new people that did not get to play never came back.
I feel guilty I did not ensure they had a spot.
no reason for you to feel guilty.
7 other people should maybe feel a little guilty... one of them could have stepped up to judge a table. You would have had 2 tables of 4 players then.
Well I brought 2 print outs of the mod, and even made copies of my maps for a second table.
I told the new people I would make sure they get to play. Then I went to the bathroom and 4 of the other nine shamed them into leaving. I should have protected the new people. Had I known at the time those wolves had done that to the new people I would have kicked them from my table too.
I see where my mistake was and thats what I regret.
It is sad even when I ask for faction missions I never get them.If ever you find yourself at my table, you have but to ask.
Running any low-level daytime games in the near future TOZ? Because I remain disappointed that my not having played any PFS until this season means that I'm missing out a big chunk of what the old scenarios were about. I have very little in-game knowledge of who the venture captains really are because I've never seen the mission assignment things in-character. (Although I do know that the Cheliax faction's reputation is seriously harmed by the creepy person in charge there.)
|
After a couple of unpleasant games -- not the fault of anybody at the table -- I'm now promising to give up my seat at a 7-player table. And I won't GM them. I can't make them fun enough for people.That reminds me of what would make for a wonderful rule change: an expansion of the explicit "rights of the GM" to run tables he or she is comfortable with. Things like being explicitly allowed to hard-cap a Season 0-3 module at four players, or the ability to turn away a Summoner4 from a table full of level 1 PCs.
That way, the GM doesn't have to deal with the problem of "public games" infringing on his comfort level, or his ability to run a good session. It would be nice to be able to GM something for a public audience knowing that the GM is empowered to shield the game from session-wrecking pitfalls.
In other words, what talbanus said.
-Matt
I see this as a VERY slippery slope. Would I be able to turn away druids for example? I see them as session wrecking. See the problem? This is an end-around to the conclusions of the "Not at MY table!" thread.
|
|
I see this as a VERY slippery slope. Would I be able to turn away druids for example? I see them as session wrecking. See the problem?
I understand your point. The problem here is that the campaign does not want to trust its GMs out of a fear of a few GMs misusing that trust. We don't have this privilege out of a proven fear that some will wreck it for all.
"Not at my table" has plenty of merit when used responsibly, but campaign history prevents it from being integrated into the rules.
-Matt
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see this as a VERY slippery slope. Would I be able to turn away druids for example? I see them as session wrecking. See the problem?I understand your point. The problem here is that the campaign does not want to trust its GMs out of a fear of a few GMs misusing that trust. We don't have this privilege out of a proven fear that some will wreck it for all.
-Matt
Yeah, I very much enjoy the de-powered status GMs of PFS. From both sides of the screen. I've enough GM abuse in all games systems, not just Pathfinder, to be skeptical of any deviation in this. This is why I even roll my dice in front of players.
"out of a fear of a few GMs "
Or more than a few.....
|
I agree with both of you. But I have been the only one willing to DM when 9 people show up.
The 2 new people that did not get to play never came back.
I feel guilty I did not ensure they had a spot.
no reason for you to feel guilty.
7 other people should maybe feel a little guilty... one of them could have stepped up to judge a table. You would have had 2 tables of 4 players then.
Well I brought 2 print outs of the mod, and even made copies of my maps for a second table.
I told the new people I would make sure they get to play. Then I went to the bathroom and 4 of the other nine shamed them into leaving. I should have protected the new people. Had I known at the time those wolves had done that to the new people I would have kicked them from my table too.
I see where my mistake was and thats what I regret.
So how did you end up finding out what they did, Finlander? I'm interested in hearing about the rest of this experience.
|
|
Running any low-level daytime games in the near future TOZ? Because I remain disappointed that my not having played any PFS until this season means that I'm missing out a big chunk of what the old scenarios were about. I have very little in-game knowledge of who the venture captains really are because I've never seen the mission assignment things in-character. (Although I do know that the Cheliax faction's reputation is seriously harmed by the creepy person in charge there.)
Not this month, but maybe when the semester ends in May.
|
|
Ok the meetup had 12 people coming. I saw one of my friends I never seen play only DM was coming. He plays every game, and I wanted to make sure he got to play this one too since he DMs so much. So I volunteered to dm and prepped for 2 tables. The second DM dropped out last minute.
I almost always come an hour early to help new people. SO when these new people came I made an effor to make them comfortable. Then the table filled up. I told everyone I had extra materials for a second table. I tried to pressure the vet I knew that could DM to look fill the need. There was obvious resistence. I said I would like the new people to get a chance to play first and then went to the bathroom.
I came back and there were 7 people left to play. The two new people left. I was note sure why, but I started the game. Afterwards my friend told me the people that come every week told the people it was not fair that the new people come one time and force the people that come almsot every week not to play.
What upset me the most was that I was making an effort to organize tables before I went to the bathroom and once I was out of ear-shot they said that garbage. Knowing that I would not agree to that logic.
|
|
After a couple of unpleasant games -- not the fault of anybody at the table -- I'm now promising to give up my seat at a 7-player table. And I won't GM them. I can't make them fun enough for people.
I do the exact same thing Chris. As an organizer I also don't allow 7 player tables unless the GM and all the players agree as well, and I push other solutions before that question even gets asked.
