Cottonseed PFS PbP (2E)

Game Master Redelia

Start with Wizard with 16 Strength (or Dex.)

Get Fighter Dedication at level 2.
Get the Magical Striker feat at level 4.
Cast True Strike and use the Magical Striker feat to enhance your weapon.

At least that's what I've heard. I'll be playtesting Monks with Cleric Dedication to see if I can recreate my Sacred Fist idea.

Yeah, that looks about right from what I can tell reading the rulebook over. Now to just find a few games to play.

Start with Wizard with 16 Strength (or Dex.)

Get Fighter Dedication at level 2.
Get the Magical Striker feat at level 4.
Cast True Strike and use the Magical Striker feat to enhance your weapon.

At least that's what I've heard. I'll be playtesting Monks with Cleric Dedication to see if I can recreate my Sacred Fist idea.

I'm hoping to try a concept of cleric with fighter dedication to attempt to make something akin to a warpriest.

Is anyone else finding it very difficult to run playtest games in PbP because it's much riskier to bot someone? I mean, it's hard to know when someone else would take the risk of critical failure for something, and also feels 'off' to decide what someone does during exploration mode, since that determines their initiative.

This is a job for a Wisdom Check!

Personally, when I am forced to bot someone I just do the thing that is most likely to kill that character to lessen the chance that they, or anyone else will want me to bot their characters again. It lightens my work load. I mean I'm there with a cast of thousands, special effects, and set direction, and everyone else just has their PC, and maybe the PC's buddy or pet, and half the time people don't even want to play their pets. They are pets for godsakes! You have to play with your pets! They just play the +4 bonus to initiative and never once mention how they deal with all the bunny poop in their pocket.

But that's just me.

Another (some might say 'more nuanced') option is to figure out the most reasonable option from that character's point of view, and then perhaps a less reasonable option, and then make a Wisdom check DC 10 to decide between the two. This method is also useful in situations when characters (as directed by their players) are about to do something daft, like attack their friendly NPC contact--who they know about, and were searching for when they actually find them, because they are a slavering mob of murder hobos--but I'm not bitter.

I use a similar system with Intelligence (memory) checks for people who forget important, but obvious (read: 'typed in one or more posts') plot points. This can come up a lot in a long Play-by-Post game.

All of that said it is a "sword and sorcery adventure role-playing game". There is always the chance someone can die. If you are a player you should understand this. It's like going bankrupt in Monopoly. It is an implicit risk in playing the game. Characters are there to adventure not to snuggle up with a good book at home in bed. If you're a player and don't want your character to risk death and/or sanity then don't play them. Write a book about them where you as the author control all the outcomes. Instead you should play a character that you hate. You'll probably have more fun anyway doing all the crazy, mechanically unsound things you would be too afraid to do otherwise with your 'good' character.

YCOLO*.

*Your Character Only Lives Once.

LOL. Is that why you made Igor?

"I thought that's why he made me." *sniff, sniff*

Is anyone else finding it very difficult to run playtest games in PbP because it's much riskier to bot someone? I mean, it's hard to know when someone else would take the risk of critical failure for something, and also feels 'off' to decide what someone does during exploration mode, since that determines their initiative.

First, I never play like it is a board game. Therefore I never make choices based on mechanics. NEVER

That makes it much easier to choose what to do. I just have them do what makes the most sense according to their personality. Then use whatever mechanics best represent that choice.

(this is one reason why I'm not liking pf2 so much. The mechanics are less flexible, and much harder to fit to non-standard choices.)

Second, "always fail forward" is one of the best pieces of advice I have ever heard for running an rpg. Most players fear failure way too much. I like to use botting as an opportunity to showcase how failure makes things interesting and not death.

"I thought that's why he made me." *sniff, sniff*

"Sorry lass, you just don't come close when it comes to sheer, pure odiousness."

Redelia wrote:

Is anyone else finding it very difficult to run playtest games in PbP because it's much riskier to bot someone? I mean, it's hard to know when someone else would take the risk of critical failure for something, and also feels 'off' to decide what someone does during exploration mode, since that determines their initiative.

First, I never play like it is a board game. Therefore I never make choices based on mechanics. NEVER

That might be a tad absolute. Though I assume you mean rules mechanics and not like the actual in-game physics of a given situation--though often times they are one in the same. RPGs do actually try to model real world (or at least their real world's) physics so people don't have to ask what the difficulty is of jumping a 10-foot fissure in a stone floor every time they come upon one (as there is a rule mechanic for that), which if they are wearing a full suit of armor means they are probably going to be looking for a way around. That's just sound tactics... most of the time.

I just don't like botting people's characters, period. It's their character. They came to the game to play. So play already. It is not my job as the GM to force the characters into the mine cart of the scenario's plot and push them about the dungeon. I expect players to contribute to the story with action and role-play regardless of game or edition--though I will admit character creation seems to be bit of postage stamp factory with 2.0.

Lauranna Cindel wrote:

"I thought that's why he made me." *sniff, sniff*

"Sorry lass, you just don't come close when it comes to sheer, pure odiousness."

"You don't know about Natula Thako or Thaiadora Rossenvelt then do you?"

Though I assume you mean rules mechanics and not like the actual in-game physics of a given situation--though often times they are one in the same. RPGs do actually try to model real world (or at least their real world's) physics ...

Not exactly true. Some attempt this, particularly 3.x, but many do not. Many model things based on metagame aspects, such as player interaction and involvement (i.e. bonuses for cool descriptions or mechanics that encourage awesome over-the-top action that is highly idiotic even according to the narrative world's "physics") or abstract things out so the mechanics see only pass/fail/crit, leaving it to the gm/players to decide why that result was achieved.

To go a bit more in depth on that,
You have the narrative game world and the real world with the players. The mechanics sit in between. There needs to be a translation and a determination of outcome. The mechanics do one or the other, but doing both is essentially bypassing the gm.

Type A, the mechanics say how well you did and the gm says whether doing that well was good enough.

Type B, the mechanics say whether you did good enough and the gm says what that means about how well you did.

Mechanics often tend towards type b when non-narrative traits are desired for the game, such as mechanical or otherwise non-naturalistic balance, niche protection, spotlight protection, etc.

...so people don't have to ask what the difficulty is of jumping a 10-foot fissure in a stone floor every time they come upon one (as there is a rule mechanic for that),...

Only type A mechanics do this. Type B does not, but instead tells you if you succeeded and leaves it to the gm to describe the distance you jumped, allowing you to know your chances without knowing anything about the situation because the situation is either not represented at all, or represented in very vague undegined terms (i.e. the gap is a Difficult jump which can be anywhere from 10'-30' depending on the gm's whims).

...which if they are wearing a full suit of armor means they are probably going to be looking for a way around. That's just sound tactics... most of the time.

Oh please, I have personally jumped around in full plate. Such armor honestly does not hinder you that much, at worst 5-10%.

That said, most folks would have trouble jumping a 10' gap totally naked.

If anyone would be willing to take over a game of Rose Street (over half done) that needs a new GM, please send me a private message.

Such armor honestly does not hinder you that much, at worst 5-10%

I doubt 5-10%

That said, most folks would have trouble jumping a 10' gap totally naked.

Sure, what with all the wobbly bits.

I have a character that would like to hurl an alchemist fire flask using telekinetic projectile.

First of all, it seems like this is doable and legal, but is it?

Second of all what would the attack roll be? What proficiency would I use and which stat would I use for the to hit roll?

"The type of object thrown doesn’t change the damage type or any other properties of the attack, even if you throw a weapon or magic item in this way."

I like the flavour, but it sort of suggests not

My thought (and how I ruled as the GM of that game, pending some guidance from the rules) is that telekinetic projectile might be used to increase the range of the alchemist fire, but since you are flinging a light vial of liquid designed to break easily, it would only do the regular alchemist fire damage, rather than the bludgeoning damage telekinetic projectile would normally do if used to fling a rock or other heavy object.

I'd roll with that - that it is just used as an aid to throwing. Normal Ach fire damage only. With that said, it's certainly in 'expect table variation' territory.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Such armor honestly does not hinder you that much, at worst 5-10%

I doubt 5-10%

Not really sure what direction you are going with this link, but A, I was comparing full plate to unarmored, and B, the people in that video are clearly not the most athletic and yet handle the course just fine in full plate.

"The type of object thrown doesn’t change the damage type or any other properties of the attack, even if you throw a weapon or magic item in this way."

I like the flavour, but it sort of suggests not

Zlchemist's fire doesn't actually hurt from getting hit, rather, the dmg comes from the burst of flame after being hit breaks the vial.

Sounds to me like the rules for telekinetic projectile are for the actually getting hit by something but not what happens as a result of getting hit.

Therefore, the vial should do dmg according to to telekinetic projectile (which as a light and small item should be minimal to negligible until very high levels of power) then afterwards deal with the consequences of the vial breaking which would be the burst of flame dealing dmg.

DLH could you kindly post a video showing you doing a similar course in your day to day clothes, then a similar course in full plate? That would be awesome, and really go a long way to putting this debate to bed for once and for all.

Telekinetic projectile is a nice spell, but it is also a bit stupid - being hit with a telekinetic cannonball is the same as being hit with a telekinetic feather. Having the spell do 1d6+Fire damage is a change to the damage type or property of the attack - which the spell descriptor says you can't do.

DLH could you kindly post a video showing you doing a similar course in your day to day clothes, then a similar course in full plate? That would be awesome, and really go a long way to putting this debate to bed for once and for all.

Wish I could, but I work 10-16 hours a day, seven days a week right now.

My experience comes from years ago during a meetup with guys from the SCA and Amtgard. Which means that the armor was not even fitted to me, but it was close enough. I fought, ran, and went crashing around the woods. As an athletic person, a found it easy but hot. The only issue was the sensory damping (I was half-blind and half-deaf. My sight was hindered by the helmet but also the bright sunlight [since I effectively have the light blindness trait] and the helmet padding kept twisting and covering my left eye. The sounds sounded funny as well as slightly dampened).

Telekinetic projectile is a nice spell, but it is also a bit stupid - being hit with a telekinetic cannonball is the same as being hit with a telekinetic feather.

A, this is something that should be fixed, but if it doesn't, then all it means is that the object in question is nothing but a focus and doesn't actually make contact with the enemy, in which case, a vial wouldn't actually break.

Having the spell do 1d6+Fire damage is a change to the damage type or property of the attack - which the spell descriptor says you can't do.

The problem with this idea is that you are ignoring everything but mechanics, and thus shaping your interpretation solely by the mechanics.

See, the striking of an object, and the puff of flame from the object's contents being exposed to air, are two separate events. Only the mechanics fail to differentiate. Most of the time, that is fine, but in some cases, including rules-interaction situations, there comes a need to account for that difference. That is part of the gm's job.

It is absolutely essential to account for these things that lie beyond the rules, because it is those things that make this more than just a boardgame like chess. And yes, that will totally screw with balance, but guess what, mechanical balance is impossible without enforcing arbitrary and otherwise unrequired restrictions.

Wish I could, but I work 10-16 hours a day, seven days a week right now.

What a shame :( I was hoping we could put this to bed right now.

***

The spell is the spell. The spell does what the spell does, and nothing more. Right now I can do 1d6 with a telekinetic feather or grain of rice. There is a lot of suspension of disbelief with that spell, and as a 0 level cantrip it is already very good.

I can no more have a telekinetic alchemist fire than I can strap one to the end of my weapon and have it break on the enemy when I hit them.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Wish I could, but I work 10-16 hours a day, seven days a week right now.

What a shame :( I was hoping we could put this to bed right now.

If I ever have the time and equipment I'd be happy to, but till then I'll have to rely on past experience.

Of course, if there is a rich guy out there that'd like to jump start a youtube channel just for that kind of stuff, I'd do it. :)

***

The spell is the spell. The spell does what the spell does, and nothing more. Right now I can do 1d6 with a telekinetic feather or grain of rice.

That's my point. You are not looking at what the spell actually does. You are only looking at mechanics and nothing more, and that is problem.

You have to ask the detailed questions like, why does a grain of rice, a fist-sized rock, and a feather all do the same damage? And not accept mechanics as your answer. For example, I gave a plausible explantion above, where the object is not what strikes the enemy, but rather is just a focus for the spell.

There is a lot of suspension of disbelief with that spell,

No, there isn't. Suspension of disbelief is what happens when it all flows in a way that feels natural. Anything that breaks consistency, feels unnatural or gimmicky, or requires you to intentionally overlook it, is immersion breaking. Naturally, different have tolerances for different types of immersion-breaking material.

and as a 0 level cantrip it is already very good.

Based on what metric of measurement? Something tied to narrative milieu "physics," or bland, abstract, and very unnatural gamist ideas of "mechanical balance?"

That is a serious question. What is yoir metric of measurement, and why that metric and not some other metric?

After that, how is that metric supposed to guide you to get your desired outcome? For that matter, what is your desired outcome? A narrative experience where players have a great deal of agency? A squad based tactics game? A fun game with narrative inserts that are only mildly affected by player choice? Can you really claim that those are deep enough potential answers?

I can no more have a telekinetic alchemist fire than I can strap one to the end of my weapon and have it break on the enemy when I hit them.

The only thing stopping you from either is your own preconceptions and an insistence on "mechanics first and only, dressed up in fancy narrative -like terminology."

I'm not trying to sound mad or crazy, but seriously, I can't stress enough how limiting that method of thinking is. I've had so much better, it is like having slept on a proper bed with down comforter and pillows, only to run into people being amazed at a simple straw mat and raving about much better it is than anything else in the world.

In a home game, I'd be inclined to work with the player to find some way to make this idea work. This is society play, though, which stresses RAW to prevent too much table variation, and there just isn't rules support for it.

Which is why I also gave an example above that satisfies the RAW but also satisies narrative. The example being that spell just uses the object as a focus and therefore the object doesn't actually impact the target, thus the fire vial doesn't break.

Even ignoring my example though, it is still stuff to be aware of so that RAW can be written in a way as to be consistent with narrative rather than being simply designed as a game mevhanic and wrapped up in fluff only after the mechanic is complete.

Also, table variation is a result of player agency. Reducing table variation requires limiting player agency, but without player agency, what point is there in playing? For that reason, and the lack of any reason to avoid table variation (seriously, the only reason I can think of anyone would want no table variation woukd be marketers trying to pretend that experience at the table is somehow related to brand and therefore want brand consistency. This is idiotic though, experience at the table is about 60% gm and 30% other players.), I simply and absolutely find restricting table variation to be a very bad design goal.

The item takes 1d6 damage, as does the target. Clearly the item is striking the target.

I don't think 'agency' is what you are saying it is, because to me it seems like you are advocating just making it all up on the fly, in which case we're moving more into a freeform storytelling experience - either we have mechanics or we don't.

Table variation in organized play means you end up at tables where part of your kit is nullified (or on the further extreme that you character doesn't work at all) which isn't fun, especially when you go to a convention/store and get in a slot for it.

Home games and organized play are two very different beasts thus are handled differently. You have to stick closer to RAW to ensure they get similar experiences at each table.

Wow, stirred up quite the discussion. By the way, the spell actually does 1d10 damage, not 1d6.

My character brought a bunch of rocks and alchemist fires to hurl this way. Could he have just picked on a poor pebble laying about? If you were a GM when would you require the player to supply his own projectiles? My gnome feels it beneath his dignity to carry around a bag of rocks. Well, he would if he had any dignity.

Bags of potatoes seem to be a recurring theme with local players, apples in second place.

Pet rock familiar?

If you were a GM when would you require the player to supply his own projectiles? My gnome feels it beneath his dignity to carry around a bag of rocks. Well, he would if he had any dignity.

I generally assume that unless you're indoors in an empty room, there's usually something nearby you can use. If you're outside, or in ruins, or something like that, I'm not going to worry about whether you brought a rock with you.

I had a PC pick up a goblin corpse for Telekinetic Projectile the other day. I didn't change the damage or anything, but it was a fun idea.

It's probably not legal by RAW (there's a weight limit, isn't there?) but there was other stuff she could have used instead and the goblin's body served no other purpose, so the net effect was the same as using anything else.

My bard grabbed a barber’s scissors and straight razor to get piercing and sLashing damage, which worked nicely.

My bard grabbed a barber’s scissors and straight razor to get piercing and sLashing damage, which worked nicely.

Again, I would love that in a home game, but in society play we follow the spell as written, and as Shifty pointed out the spell specifies that the damage type doesn't change.

Tusk the Half-Orc wrote:

My bard grabbed a barber’s scissors and straight razor to get piercing and sLashing damage, which worked nicely.

Again, I would love that in a home game, but in society play we follow the spell as written, and as Shifty pointed out the spell specifies that the damage type doesn't change.

That's not what my copy of the Playtest Rulebook says.

You hurl a loose, unattended object in range at the target. The spell gains the trait of a damage type appropriate to the object (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing). Make a ranged attack against the target. If you hit, you deal 1d10 damage of the given type; you deal double damage on a critical hit. No special traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or damage.

D'oh! You're absolutely right, sorry. I had missed that (excellent) change from PF1/Starfinder.

There is nothing in the Playtest Points paper that says anything, but can we only get Playtest points once for each scenario? Of course you can get it once for Dming and once for playing, but I mean like can I play The Frozen Oath three times and receive Playtest Points all three?

Yes. It is mentioned somewhere that all Playtest scenarios are replayable for playtest credit. Might have been the blog, escapes me now... but it's written somewhere.

I didn't realize we could still get points for playing after the official playtest ended. How long do we have the opportunity to benefit from that?

Currently until July.

Playtest points may be earned until July (exact date tbd). We will need to turn them off a few weeks prior to Gen Con, so that you can purchase benefits for your new characters prior to the convention. More information as to the final dates to acquire Playtest Points will be available closer to the close.

Thanks for the info, TOZ! I had missed that somehow. Excited to still be able to reap some benefits aside from the pure fun of it.

I don't think 'agency' is what you are saying it is, because to me it seems like you are advocating just making it all up on the fly, in which case we're moving more into a freeform storytelling experience - either we have mechanics or we don't.

I really hate to dredge this up, but since this is an Organized Play discussion board that is going to become a lot more active in 5 months...

I agree with Shifty.

Reducing table variation requires limiting player agency, but without player agency, what point is there in playing? For that reason, and the lack of any reason to avoid table variation (seriously, the only reason I can think of anyone would want no table variation woukd be marketers trying to pretend that experience at the table is somehow related to brand and therefore want brand consistency. This is idiotic though, experience at the table is about 60% gm and 30% other players.), I simply and absolutely find restricting table variation to be a very bad design goal.

And I very much disagree with this.

I want to reduce table variation when I GM and I want reduced table variation at the tables that I play at because I want to expect what my character's capabilities are and to not be blind-sided by a GM's personal opinion about how the 'real world works' whether I play at my FLGS, on PbP, or at GenCon.

And while this is just my personal taste and not a morale judgement, I can see that I want to avoid GM DLH's tables.

Shifty wrote:

I don't think 'agency' is what you are saying it is, because to me it seems like you are advocating just making it all up on the fly, in which case we're moving more into a freeform storytelling experience - either we have mechanics or we don't.

I really hate to dredge this up, but since this is an Organized Play discussion board that is going to become a lot more active in 5 months...

People hope.

I will be offering PFS2 as soon as I'm back from GenCon, at least. Hopefully, people come to play!

Me too.

If I have the new classes under control I am going to step into PbP GMing for PFS2 in August after Gen Con.

Been trying to get another game up for PBP but have been a little bit busier with relocating to TX. Hopefully I get settled down soon.

On a side note! I will be going to gencon and be running PF2 in the first slots of Thursday, Friday, Saturday!

I will be there as well running PF2 all day Thursday, one slot on Friday, and all day Saturday. I'm even going to do the Sunday morning slot.

Really looking forward to August 1st. Only 110 more days to go!

I'll be running demos in the exhibit hall all weekend. Can't wait to get the rules and dive in!

I'd be interested in playing Doomsday. I only got through the first 2 chapters.

I'd be up for Rose Street, Doomsday, or both via PbP

I'd jump on board for that, DoubleGold! I'd be particularly interested to play through the Society scenarios, but would also be good with playing through Doomsday Dawn, though I've played through the first adventure twice already.

I would also love to play through Doomsday Dawn if there’s a spot open! Although I’ve never actually done PFS so if you want someone with a little bit more experience that way I totally understand!

I'd be willing to play Doomsday Dawn. I GM'd it for my local group but never got a chance to play any of it.

I would be in for Doomsday as well!

I'll open the threads over the weekend and start

Now the Rose Street Run Revenge is up I'll run Doomsday Dawn some other day, one game at a time, besides, I'm running three other games.

Two of my games are ending and are projected to end within 7 days. So who wants to play Doomsday Dawn? This will start on March 11, yes I know, same day as Outpost II, but I was surprised that there was no Playtest for it.

Which parts? I wouldn't mind a second playthrough.

I have not played Doomsday Dawn and would be interested.

Two of my games are ending and are projected to end within 7 days. So who wants to play Doomsday Dawn? This will start on March 11, yes I know, same day as Outpost II, but I was surprised that there was no Playtest for it.

It likely wasn't included in the Outpost because the Playtest has long since been over and Paizo is likely not looking at much feedback anymore.

Not dming it as part of the Outpost, but I'm dming all parts.
Don't forget people, playtest is over, but you can still earn those points. If you play and DM everything once, you'll earn what 45 credits? 4 games + Doomsday Dawn. 5 for Dming and 4 for playing. so
(5+4)X5=45. Unless Doomsday Dawn is worth more. Though you play more than once, you can earn more than 45 credits.

Thread is up Doomsday Dawn

Recruiting up to five brave knaves for Raiders of Shrieking Peak! This is a level 5 playtest scenario in the wilds, with plenty of combat, exploration, and investigation. I currently have one player, a sorcerer. A sign-up sheet is here, and the discussion thread is here.

Oh yeah, it'd be good if someone in the group could speak Jotun. I learned my lesson the last scenario I ran and forgot to mention it.

Thought Jotun was needed in The Frozen Oath?

It was, but it's also quite useful (if less necessary) in this scenario. Clearly, the playtest developers had a bias for Jotun. Imagine picking such a language over a cool one like Ghibrani! The nerve.

Anyway, we have three players at the moment. I'll be ready when there's enough for a legal table, but if more join up that'd be fine.

I've played it as Seoni but not with 1.6 rules and ran it at Gen Con seven times. I wouldn't mind playing it again if I can use a different class.

Signing up for your game Crunch. I played 3 sessions at gencon but haven't played since then and wanted to pick it up again.

-Tjrren

Recruiting up to five brave knaves for Raiders of Shrieking Peak! This is a level 5 playtest scenario in the wilds, with plenty of combat, exploration, and investigation. I currently have one player, a sorcerer. A sign-up sheet is here, and the discussion thread is here.

I just realized how old this post was. I signed up for the wrong thing. If you are recruiting for the Frozen Oath game I'd like to sign up as well but if not delete me.

I'm not planning on doing Frozen Oath, I recently finished up a run of it. But if you'd still like to join this game, feel free! I can't quite tell your preference there. We're only just starting, mechanics-wise, and it looks you have a ready character.

Oh I saw Frozen Oath at the bottom of the tab and thought I'd gone to the wrong spot. I do want to join but I was concerned about just shoving myself into a campaign where an invite wasn't in existence.

Thank you for checking back.

Room for one more in addition to Tjrren? This character is level 1 but I can have her at 5 in a jiffy.

Room for one more in addition to Tjrren? This character is level 1 but I can have her at 5 in a jiffy.

A "jiffy" is apparently 5 hours.

Cards Against Gnomanity 2019 Player Signups are open!!

This event is focused on the Pathfinder Adventure Card Society, but we do have a few tables of the Free RPG Day "We Be Heroes?" Pathfinder Playtest adventure as well!

INSTRUCTIONS

SIGNUP SHEET

Note that we have a separate sheet to sign up for tables of the Pathfinder Playtest RPG version of "We Be Heroes?"

If tables of the ACG older seasons don't fill, we'll likely convert these to new Core/Curse adventures instead.

Looking forward to playing with all of you!!

Looking for up to four more to play Arclord's Envy! It's level 5, a lot of fun, and I was convinced to run it a fourth time. No regrets!

Sign-ups are here. Will make up a discussion thread shortly.

Hello again everyone! I just wanted to remind you that Signups for Cards Against Gnomanity are going on, and we still have a bunch of seats available. We are now no longer restricting the number of tables you can sign up for. You can sign up for as many tables as you want, with the sole restriction that we would prefer you NOT sign up for multiple tables of the SAME adventure. At the end of this week, we'll be examining the current signups to consider merging some tables if they do not fill up.

Cards Against Gnomanity II runs from June 21st through July 21st. If you're interested in trying out Pathfinder Adventure Card Society through play-by-post, OR if you want to play in the We Be Heroes module for the Pathfinder RPG Playtest, come sign up now!

Cards Against Gnomanity II Signups

Looking for up to four more to play Arclord's Envy! It's level 5, a lot of fun, and I was convinced to run it a fourth time. No regrets!

Sign-ups are here. Will make up a discussion thread shortly.

I'm interested and signed up, but I'm pretty rusty on 2e playtest rules so I'll be reading up on them before and during the game.

Looking for up to four more to play Arclord's Envy! It's level 5, a lot of fun, and I was convinced to run it a fourth time. No regrets!

Sign-ups are here. Will make up a discussion thread shortly.

We could still use one more for this game

Anybody doing the PFS2 We Be Heroes via PbP?

I would love to get in on a game. Will probably be my only chance to.

Anybody doing the PFS2 We Be Heroes via PbP?

I would love to get in on a game. Will probably be my only chance to.

Second.

Check Here (Link) for the Cards against Gnomanity link. There are indeed two tables running the We Be Heroes via PbP.

^I was just coming here to post that as well! My table currently has a spot open.

Darnit. I didn't understand that "Cards Against Gnomanity" was an online Convention. I've seen it posted a few times but ignored it due to the name =\

I'm not the organizer and thus can't say for sure but if you're interested in playing, put your info on the Waitlist even if the current spots are full. If there's enough on the Waitlist they might be able to wrangle another table :)

I thought it was ACG only...Is that not the case?

The ACG crew decided to also offer a couple of RPG tables of the We Be Heroes? FreeRPG Day 2019 module.

(What a mouthful!)

But aside from those couple of tables, the rest of the offerings are purely ACG games, yes.

Now I see it.

I stuck myself down on the waitlist. I assume these are limited to four characters per table?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. There are only 4 Pregens, at any rate.

*edit* Not meaning to sound flippant or anything! I'm just basing my answers off of past information. Typically I've seen the We Be Goblins series ran for just 4 players since there are 4 pregens, is all :)

That was my guess as well. Although I think I heard about some pregen scenarios having rules about seating more than four characters at the table.

Edit: Actually yes! The sanctioning document for WBH has this!

For tables with more than four players, you can have multiple copies of the same pregenerated character.

I stuck myself down for your table, but if you want to stick to four, feel free to leave me on the wait list instead.

Ah! Managed to miss that twice somehow; guess I need better glasses :)

Good to know! And nah, I'm happy to take up to 6 at my table.

I did the same and removed Aerondor and myself from the wait list.

Sweet!
Added myself as well.

Announcing Play-by-Post Gameday VIII!

Greetings, Awesome GMs!

As of today, GM signups are officially open for PBP Gameday VIII! In order for your game to count, it must start on or after August 26th and end on or before November 3rd.

GM Signup Here

You may sign up to GM up to 3 games. If you need scenario support, you must register your game by July 1st, 2019.

Looking for more details? Check out the official announcement thread!

Hey everyone!

We've got a game of The Arclord's Envy started but we had one person drop leaving us with only two players, one running a 'GM'PC. We need one more to make a legal table, so if you're wanting to get one last playtest run in, then now is your chance!

We have a recruitment page HERE and could really use one more person but could take up to 4! Please help keep this table legal, or we'll just be running through for no credit.

Will it be here if I plan to be a player in a PbP of the Adventure Path?
Thanks.

Will it be here if I plan to be a player in a PbP of the Adventure Path?

Thanks.

Hello Dragonvan,

You could also keep an eye on this thread or even post a request, especially if you are not looking for PFS credit.

Then, I should come back by August to look at the post.

Hello, Online Peoples!

A bit late but general player signups for PbP Gameday VIII are officially open! You may sign up for up to 3 RPG games and/or 2 ACG games - and this includes Specials - at the link >>HERE<<. These limits are to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to find seating for games. Unlimited player signups will open later, on July 22nd.

Have fun and I hope that everyone gets the spots they've been hoping for! :D