The Flaxseed Pathfinder Lodge: Explore, Report, Cooperate!

Game Master Redelia

I have GMed PFS1 in the past, and I currently GM PFS2 games, but I no longer GM PFS1 games.

I'll give some quick feedback here since I'm not quite sure how I fit in.

Fundamentally, because no new PFS1 material is being published, I'm reluctant to invest more time in learning PF1. Especially with higher level play, there's a ton of Googling that I need to do to keep up with PCs, and unlike PF2, where there's some hope that I learn about a cool ability and get to see it again in the future (or incorporate it into one of my own characters), there's simply none of that in PF1.

If there's a real dearth of PFS1 GMs, I'm actually willing to jump (back) in and run a few lower-level scenarios. Are people still making new PFS1 characters? I could run a few 1-5s or 3-7s, but not 5-9s or 7-11s (unless it was with a stable group of PCs across multiple scenarios).

The Survey is really intended for all the PbP lodges as a whole as, in all of them, the bottleneck is always having enough GMs to run games for the number of players interested. It's to get information on how we can help people who don't GM to take up the role more.

And because I was a dummy and didn't do this the first time:

**Survey Link: https://forms.gle/X83uccMG4o2KJUVNA

I'm still running and playing PFS1e and if I need to, I'll make a new PC

Are people still making new PFS1 characters?

Yes - I am one of them. I discovered PFS really late and didn't get to enjoy roughly 90% of the content of Season 1-10 before PFS2 was introduced. What can I say: I really like the system, the storylines and the challenges. ^_^

I could run a few 1-5s or 3-7s, but not 5-9s or 7-11s (unless it was with a stable group of PCs across multiple scenarios).

I have several PCs in that range (most of them are level 3 or 4). As far as I know I only sat once at your (virtual) table. I remember you as a great GM, so that's terrific news! :-D

The Survey is really intended for all the PbP lodges as a whole as, in all of them, the bottleneck is always having enough GMs to run games for the number of players interested. It's to get information on how we can help people who don't GM to take up the role more.

And because I was a dummy and didn't do this the first time:

**Survey Link: https://forms.gle/X83uccMG4o2KJUVNA

There is far more to this than just getting people to gm. GMing for pfs is a whole different thing. PFS is a whole heck of a lot stricter than normal and even normal has this ridiculous notion of GMs being limited by the rules, a notion that absolutely disgusts me. To me, rules are a tool to be used or ignored at need, and pfs would not only require me to take the opposite stance but to take it to the extreme. I still remember my worst pfs experience of being told I couldn’t do something totally within the rules because it required the gm to adjudicate something because the module didn’t tell them how to do it. The conversations after that included how paizo wants consistency in how gms run the game, which to my mind is like asking a bunch of painters to paint exclusively in the same style as Picasso with no room to be themselves. I understand why paizo wants that, but I still see it as stifling. It’s hard enough to gm when one can be themselves, but the need to perfectly emulate an abstract style makes it way harder.

There is also the fact that’s is all free. If I’m going to gm for free, I’ll gm a game I find fun to run. I’d only consider running pfs if I was getting paid, because then I’d be getting paid for my time and thus it not interfere with my own games.

Not exactly an answer readily available on your questionnaire.

Then don't do it.
Have fun or don't come.

Then don't do it.

Have fun or don't come.

You are missing the point. They are asking why people don’t gm pfs, but they are obviously assuming it is an issue of players not getting into gming (“… people who don't GM to take up the role…”) and thus me making a point that it is also gms who avoid gming pfs, along with my particular reasons.

There is far more to this than just getting people to gm. GMing for pfs is a whole different thing. PFS is a whole heck of a lot stricter than normal and even normal has this ridiculous notion of GMs being limited by the rules, a notion that absolutely disgusts me. To me, rules are a tool to be used or ignored at need, and pfs would not only require me to take the opposite stance but to take it to the extreme. I still remember my worst pfs experience of being told I couldn’t do something totally within the rules because it required the gm to adjudicate something because the module didn’t tell them how to do it. The conversations after that included how paizo wants consistency in how gms run the game, which to my mind is like asking a bunch of painters to paint exclusively in the same style as Picasso with no room to be themselves. I understand why paizo wants that, but I still see it as stifling. It’s hard enough to gm when one can be themselves, but the need to perfectly emulate an abstract style makes it way harder.

There is also the fact that’s is all free. If I’m going to gm for free, I’ll gm a game I find fun to run. I’d only consider running pfs if I was getting paid, because then I’d be getting paid for my time and thus it not interfere with my own games.

Not exactly an answer readily available on your questionnaire.

I think you have made your point, and it has been heard. To continue to beat that poor horse carcass is both unnecessary and unwanted. If you don't want to GM Society games, no one is going to force you. If you don't like the restrictions of PFS, don't play/GM.

You seem to be under some kind of compulsion to spew vitriol against the restrictions you don't like in Society play as if you are being forced to do something incredibly distasteful. The opposite is in fact true. If the thought of PFS rules and restrictions "disgusts" you, then I encourage you to take your toys and go home. I don't want anyone part of this program who is disgusted by what we are trying to do.

Now, I am sorry you had a bad experience and it left a bad taste in your mouth. I will say that was not the intent of the program. I will also say that your statements in this thread and others make me wonder why you feel the need to interact with this community at all.

Feel free to DM me if you would like to continue this discussion, but I would appreciate if you would stop choking up the discussion channel of those that are interested in Society play with your crap.

bigrin42 - your online PBP Venture-Captain

I think what DarkLightHitomi was trying to express was that some of the restrictions that PFS puts on GMs are what turns some people off GMing. And as the survey was to find out why people are not willing to GM it, he makes some valid points.

My biggest problem at the moment is time. And with the change from Pathfinder1 to Pathfinder2 (and upcoming SFS -> SFS2) I confess that learning the new systems to a degree I feel comfortable GMing is a commitment beyond what I can make. That doesn't stop me playing, as that is a great way to learn the systems.

Well time and rules creep. I was fine with PFS slowly getting more complex right up until the occult adventures. At that stage things got more complex than fun - for me. So I stopped GMing regular PFS and took to GMing Core, which I still love when I have the time.

Now back to my original point. I (generally) understand the reasons behind PFS specific rules. The aim is for general consistency. For me the ability to play the same character over a prolonged period of time and more or less pick the type of adventures they go on, is well worth the trade off. But I do understand that for others that is not the case.

I guess the question is - "Are there any society specific rulings that could be relaxed to enable wider GM freedom, while still providing a consistant context for players?" To be honest, campaign mode for full length scenarios seems to fit that bill. I've not investigated that in PFS2, but for basic PFS, that might provide DarkLightHitomi much of what they want.

I'm still running and playing pfs1e, but I switched to vtt, as I don't have the patience to stretch a scenario over 3 to 4 months via pbp.

If I have one recommendation for pfs 1e: create a third campaign/button for evil PCs only, I.e.:

1. Pfs1e standard (existing)
2. Pfs1e core (existing)
3. Pfs1e evil (new)

One would have to copy/paste additional resources into a different url and then just edit it to allow evil options.

Just a thought...

Oh, I understand the point he was trying to make. He has made it multiple times in the past. My point is that you don't walk into somebody's house and tell them how disgusting you think it is, and not expect to be shown the door.

The survey itself is actually not intended to find out why people don't GM, but rather to find out if people are interested in GMing, and what barriers are there. There's a big distinction there, and the philosophy of that distinction makes all the difference in the world.

I fully understand, and so does the entire OPO leadership, that the restrictions based on society play won't be well received by all GMs, and they're not intended to be for everybody.

The survey is intended to find potential GMs, and then help them overcome the barriers that they see to running games, potentially matching them up with mentorship as needed, training as needed, and tools is available. Any other interpretation of the purpose behind that survey, is not only wrong, it's egregiously so.

Plenty of people have responded to the survey with arguments of why they choose not to GM, and that is perfectly fine. It's when you take that to extremes, and then bring it from the survey into the public forum to piss all over everybody's fun that I start to take issue.

There are certainly ways to have a dissenting opinion without going to those extremes, I encourage everyone to use those.

How much leeway is there is Society GMing? I understand that one needs to 'stick to the script' and use RAW in order to consistency, but, usually when I run into something that needs adjudication and isn't covered in the ruleset, I usually fall back on the 'Rule of Cool' - if it's novel, heroic, and fun - let them do it - as long as it isn't game breaking.

But yes, I've been GMing early PFS scenarios with PCs made from later ruleset books and - oh my goodness ... the things that happen. Sometimes all you can do is laugh :)

How much leeway is there is Society GMing? I understand that one needs to 'stick to the script' and use RAW in order to consistency, but, usually when I run into something that needs adjudication and isn't covered in the ruleset, I usually fall back on the 'Rule of Cool' - if it's novel, heroic, and fun - let them do it - as long as it isn't game breaking.

But yes, I've been GMing early PFS scenarios with PCs made from later ruleset books and - oh my goodness ... the things that happen. Sometimes all you can do is laugh :)

There is actually quite a bit of flexibility allowed in many areas. not so much in others.

The stated goal of Society play is to "provide an even, balanced experience to all players". The guide specifically acknowledges that to be a stiflingly oppressive requirement, so GMs are given the flexibility to deal with rules adjudications, unexpected player choices, and wild swings of the dice.

GMs are not supposed to add or subtract from the number and type of monsters, or changes to stats or equipment, beyond what is stated in the scenario for scaling purposes. GMs are supposed to use the published Pathfinder ruleset and make rules calls based on their best judgement at the time. With the "run as written" restriction, it can sometimes feel like the scenario is on rails, but a creative GM can usually flex around this.

Beyond that, there is usually plenty of room for Rule of Cool, and plenty of space for the GM to use their best judgement when edge cases come up.

Does this mean that you have to be perfect? Absolutely not. Best judgement covers a multitude of sins, and so does a fun game.

For more "official" information, see the section in the Guide titled "Table Variation"

I think what DarkLightHitomi was trying to express was that some of the restrictions that PFS puts on GMs are what turns some people off GMing. And as the survey was to find out why people are not willing to GM it, he makes some valid points.

I think that was their literal text, yes. But if you look at their post history, there's a subtext of "PFS sucks" through many posts that bigrin is responding to.

DLH also has a pretty long history of posting about their homebrew system in non-PFS recruiting forums, again, with the subtext of "Pathfinder is broken and I fixed it."

I'm not saying they're right or they're wrong, but this isn't a "good faith" debate that they're trying to start here.

I'm not saying they're right or they're wrong, but this isn't a "good faith" debate that they're trying to start here.

I wasn’t trying to start a debate at all. There was no expectation of getting a response.

And no I don’t think pf is broken, it just doesn’t go for what I want from a system, there is a big difference.

And I can absolutely support other people playing in their own way too you know. It doesn’t have to be support only one way. There aren’t teams. It is not wrong to support multiple different ways of playing the game.

I’m not the biggest fan of paizo’s rules, but I love their stories and art. And that’s enough for me to support them. I don’t have to like everything they do to wish them well and want to see what they put out.

The biggest problem is that I’m autistic, so when people do the perfectly normal thing of reading a lot between the lines, it is highly misleading and inaccurate with me or others like me. Bigrin thinking I was being hateful when I was being dispassionate for example. If a comment seems dispassionate to me, then how am I supposed to know others are going to find it emotionally charged until I get a response?

Just a note: The phrase "absolutely disgusts me" is not one most people consider dispassionate.

Saying something is "ridiculous" is also not generally a dispassionate thing.

I have played many PFS games, I'm only starting GMing PFS (in fact, doing my first mission as a GM right now).

If time and work allows, I'd be happy to GM more PFS games here, and to learn how GMing PFS, which is not totally the same as GMing a Paizo AP or adventure.

I'm a big fan a PF1, and PF2 doesn't suit me, I don't got the hang of it and IMO the game mechanics are too complex-Then I'll be the first to admit I didn't fully read the rulebook.

I just want to use this post to thank Paizo, the GMs and all the players I met here (PFS or otherwise) for many sweet and fun memories.

i would get into gm'ing...but my time is limited right now..and don't want to make a commitment and have to back out...plus..i like playing more..i've always been a meh dm at best...and last time i gm'ed a game was 2ed dnd....like....before the black 2ed books...

I'm still running and playing pfs1e, but I switched to vtt, as I don't have the patience to stretch a scenario over 3 to 4 months via pbp.

If I have one recommendation for pfs 1e: create a third campaign/button for evil PCs only...

Just a thought...

I would love to be able to play an Antipaladin of Hei Feng.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I'm still running and playing pfs1e, but I switched to vtt, as I don't have the patience to stretch a scenario over 3 to 4 months via pbp.

If I have one recommendation for pfs 1e: create a third campaign/button for evil PCs only...

Just a thought...

I would love to be able to play an Antipaladin of Hei Feng.

Red Mantis Assassin would be my evil of choice!

So I have been reviewing my various Faction Objective Card PDFs, and I found something I don't recall seeing before:

Participate in the one of the Leaders in Liberty contests on paizo.com by submitting an entry or voting for an existing

entry. When you do so, check this box on the Faction Journal Cards of all of your Liberty’s Edge characters.

So, I'm pretty sure I voted at the time, so I'd be eligible for this IF it was not an obstacle that none of my Liberty's Edge characters were ever pursuing the Season 9 card itself (I've got one who finished Season 6 then leapt to 10, one who's still on Season 6, and one who started at Season 10); given the promotional/obvious-metagame nature of this Objective, I'd not be surprised if a "special dispensation" were permitted in this case to truly include ALL Liberty's Edge characters...verdict?

Also, comparatively trivial note: I just noticed the Season 10 PDF has 2 Grand Lodge sheets, apparently identical save for a lack of quotation marks (that did belong there) in the second; any idea what the deal was there? Was Master Farabellus just hamming it up for the finale???

You are not allowed to start a card after the end of that season. At this point, that means only season 10 cards can be started.

That part I know, I was simply wondering if that might've been an exception since it was already so abnormal (and having only seen it now, I was hoping I could claim it retroactively - it's not even clear if claiming it would've needed to be in the normal bounds of a particular adventure, since it was completely external to gameplay).

And now for something completely different: Crunchy frog, YUM!

Also, there are 16 cups to an (American) gallon...but how many cups to a "mug"?
Reminds me I've never fielded a Halfling character....

The monk must abstain from all sexual and intimate physical activity. A monk with this vow takes it to an extreme, refusing to even share a room with another person, or sleeping on the opposite side of a camp from other people in a group. A celibate monk is not allowed to touch others or have others touch him (including touch spells from allies). Striking enemies in battle or being struck by enemies is not prohibited, but the monk shuns all peaceful or pleasurable contact. A monk with this vow increases his ki pool by 1 ki point for every 5 monk levels (minimum +1).

Hmmm, so where does that leave Kuthite Monks/Nuns...? :3

...A monk with this vow increases his ki pool by 1 ki point for monk level he posesses.

Holy s@!@! It's been a while since I last looked at my own copy of Ultimate Magic, but I thought it was only 1 per 2 levels; there are some transcription errors here (blame Archives of Nethys), so is this a typo, or was there errata at some point to make it even better, or what???

Monastic Vow of Celibacy wrote:

The monk must abstain from all sexual and intimate physical activity. A monk with this vow takes it to an extreme, refusing to even share a room with another person, or sleeping on the opposite side of a camp from other people in a group. A celibate monk is not allowed to touch others or have others touch him (including touch spells from allies). Striking enemies in battle or being struck by enemies is not prohibited, but the monk shuns all peaceful or pleasurable contact. A monk with this vow increases his ki pool by 1 ki point for every 5 monk levels (minimum +1).

Hmmm, so where does that leave Kuthite Monks/Nuns...? :3

Monastic Vow of Poverty wrote:

...A monk with this vow increases his ki pool by 1 ki point for monk level he posesses.

Holy s@~!! It's been a while since I last looked at my own copy of Ultimate Magic, but I thought it was only 1 per 2 levels; there are some transcription errors here (blame Archives of Nethys), so is this a typo, or was there errata at some point to make it even better, or what???

Wayback Machine shows that, at least back in 2018, Archive s of Nethys shows the Vow of Poverty giving 1 ki per 2 levels. It's 1 ki per 2 level in 2021, 2022 as well.

The next snapshot, which is in April 1, 2024, shows the text being A monk with this vow increases his ki pool by 1 ki point for monk level he posesses.

Snapshot for legacy.aonprd.com for the Ultimate Magic Monk's Vow page shows the new text all the way back in 2018 already.

There's nothing in FAQ, Additional Resource, or Campaign Clarification that I can find. Something must have changed between now and then.

...Snapshot for legacy.aonprd.com for the Ultimate Magic Monk's Vow page shows the new text all the way back in 2018 already.

There's nothing in FAQ, Additional Resource, or Campaign Clarification that I can find. Something must have changed between now and then.

Huh....

I just downloaded a fresh copy of Ultimate Magic from my downloads and it says that it is 1 point per level

Society allows one to, for example, upgrade a weapon with the Flaming property for the price of its +1 upgrade, then later upgrade that same weapon to Flaming Burst for only the difference in price between the +1 enchantment and the +2 version, correct (e.g. if the weapon was a +1 Flaming Longsword hence an effective enhancement bonus of +2, upgrading to a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword would then only cost 10,000 gold)?

Oh, and here's an interesting case!:

Add one spell known from the wizard’s illusion school spell list. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level the bard can cast. The spell is treated as being one level higher, unless it is also on the bard spell list.

Does this mean, by RAW, that Wayang Bards can learn certain spells that appear lower on the Wizard list than the Bard list (e.g. phantasmal reminder) as lower-level than Bards otherwise could learn them??

Not that I, for one, would likely want to do this, but if someone was really power-hungry for a particular Bard/Wizard Illusion, could it potentially take such spells at both spell-levels in order to have 2 spell levels' worth of slots to cast it from??

@Hiding.

Yeap, the cost for a +3 equivalent weapon is 18,000, and your +2 equivalent is 8,000 so for $10k you can upgrade a +1 flaming longsword to a +1 flaming burst long sword. Whether you think that is a worthwhile upgrade.. up to you.

@Xasay You can always cast a spell from a higher level slot if you want to. You don't need to know the spell at a higher level.

@Xasay You can always cast a spell from a higher level slot if you want to. You don't need to know the spell at a higher level.

Just in general, spontaneous mages can spend higher-level slots on lower-level spells??

That is interesting to know...but it happens to only be an answer to the lesser of two inquiries.

re: Wayang spell's with FCB.
My reading of the online rules agrees with yours. There maybe a PFS clarification about this of course. But things like this is why I normally only play Core these days.

GM Aerondor wrote:

@Xasay You can always cast a spell from a higher level slot if you want to. You don't need to know the spell at a higher level.

Just in general, spontaneous mages can spend higher-level slots on lower-level spells??

That is interesting to know...but it happens to only be an answer to the lesser of two inquiries.

My understanding since dnd 3.0 has been that higher level slots can be used for lower level spells, whether for spontaneous or prepared casting.

PFS or errata might have altered that, but not to my knowledge.

There is even an explicit mention somewhere in dnd about epic characters that wizard progression still grants higher level slots and that while no spells higher than 9th can be cast, those slots are still usable for lower spells or for metamagic adjusted spells. I remember it specifically mentioning lower level spells. But that was dnd days.

Wizards, sorcerers, and bards cast arcane spells. Compared to divine spells, arcane spells are more likely to produce dramatic results.

Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.

On AoN

There are equivalent rules for Divine casters as well.

I’ve spotted a potential error in what was reported for one of my characters in one of the games I played at Gameday XIII. Who would be the best person for me to speak to about getting it corrected?

I’ve spotted a potential error in what was reported for one of my characters in one of the games I played at Gameday XIII. Who would be the best person for me to speak to about getting it corrected?

You can send the details to me in a Private Message.