|
The plan is to run Raiders of Shrieking Peak with the Resonance Test rules.
This is a level 5 campaign and you should bring characters built using the latest update 1.6. I plan to start this off by next weekend or once majority of folk are ready. As usual, please post your PFS ID and your alias below.
All right - here's Kardug the Unflinching. I'm going to keep tweaking him until we get started.
PFS ID: 199504-1502
PFS ID: 22509
Probably would be going for Valeros or maybe Kyra.
|
|
It would be best if you downloaded the "resonance test" document to access the Pre-gens and read up a little bit on how it works. The Resonance Test Link.
In summary, the changes to resonance and how it works is below:
Resonance points: 10 per character, items with the invested trait require investment of 1 resonance point.
Spell points: No spell points
Focus Points: 1+Cha mod; Used for casting powers from class and altering activation of some magic items.
Item activation: Don't usually require focus points, but is stated on the specific item what action is require to activate. (Items are all listed in the Resonance test document)
Since we'll be using pre-gens, once we have a legal table, I'll immediately kick us off!
Tusk: Seoni
ImperialSunlight: Valeros or Kyra
I'd be happy playing any pregen except the alchemist.
Sounds good.
Read the post, looks good. I’ll work up the stuff tomorrow. Which pregens are left?
Kyra for me, please.
I'll take Amiri. The bits I've played so far have been with a Barbarian so I have the most experience there.
I'll play Merisiel.
Switched from an Organized Play character to an alias - sorry for any confusion. I’ll get the statblock up in a few hours.
I'll throw my 2 cents in on the current issue with Sarenrae's Rules. As far as it would go for me, failing to strike down evil does not in itself mean that all evil must die. It just means evil needs to be stopped, which could easily mean capture instead of kill. So there is a way everyone can probably be sorta happy.
Not knowing what a player will do is fine, but I don't think it would have been beyond the pale to have Valeros raise his shield, step forward, and strike instead of just standing there doing his best impression of a punching bag.
I also think its a little different in this case since we are all playing pregens.
That being said, we all get the same playtest points whether we win or lose. I just don't like losing! ;-)
|
|
Finally managed to get to this. On the topic of botting players, going to put my thoughts out in spoilers because i'm not sure if everybody wants to hear my rants.
You're right about saying that it's not unreasonable to think he would at least make a strike attempt but I make it a point not to act on a PC behalf unless specifically requested. Perhaps it is out of petty but it stems from bad experiences with non-active PCs.
When I first started my PBP GM journey, I tended to be nice about most things, including doing the odd bot here and there. But as a result, I was spending more time botting PCs than I should and it contributed to a big burnout. Also when you don't penalize a player and act on their behalf in interest of success, some players began complacent allowed the game to drag (Taking way too long in between post) knowing they won't be penalized as a result. This resulted in a few bad games, but also made me reflect on what I wanted out of the PBP.
Naturally, I looked to the more seasoned respected flaxseed PBP GMs and ask them about their experiences and how they manage this. What resulted is the "expectations" on my GM style as stated on my profile which naturally (although I will admit did not explicitly ask in this thread) ask people to read prior to joining my games. In fact, that part about botting on my expectations are almost a replica of one of the other GMs with their permission.
Some may not agree with perhaps the route I chose, but it is one that I stand by and found that gives me the best experience as a GM and with most of my regular players as they respect the no-nonsense approach I take to no shows.
But with all that said, rest assure that I have my active players best interest in mind at all times and make sure that the inactivity of a PC does not drastically change the outlook of the game.
Sorry for my inactivity. I thought I would have the time to make sure I can post regularly with things on here, but things have changed somewhat drastically for me and it has gotten to the point where I don't think I'll be able to for a while, so for the sake of not holding up anything further, I'll be dropping out.
Regarding male harpies, that’s an interesting change from PF1 - the Bestiary entry makes no reference to male harpies at all, and from the description they are all females (or at least appear that way).
It's reasonable to consider that the males simply have no power and are kept hidden as breeding stock. This could be the rare exception or merely that v2 decided to offer a different view of the Harpy.
Are elves still immune to Ghoul Fever and the ghoul's paralysis? With Thanksgiving and work being crazy, I haven't kept up with updates the last few weeks.
Btw, thanks Merisiel for jumping to Amiri's aid there by guarding her.
Sorry to have been silent today - I was completely jammed at work. Collapsing now - I will catch up and post in the morning.
|
|
So before we move on, a small discussion, I found out I've been doing initiatives very wrong in comparison with RAW. Sneak/Hide is not vs Perception Roll (which I was doing with initiative) but instead is vs Perception DC
Here's now how I think the ruling and relative tactics should work with regards to initiative, let me know if everyone Is in agreement or have any rebukes.
Sneak vs Perception DC, if the creature's sneak is higher than PC, PCs should immediately fall below creature in initiative (the creature is unsensed and unseen, no reason to react), unless the PC was using the searching tactic.
Searching, If the PC was using the searching tactic, their initiative roll is also a free "seek" action (If sensed by Perception DC and search roll is higher than sneak: creature becomes Seen; If unsensed by perception DC and search roll is higher than sneak: creature becomes sensed) This would address a mechanical benefit searching has for initiative, but I'm obviously ignoring the "30 feet cone" range for seek action.
If everyone is ok with this, we'll use these relative tactics for final combat.
Sneak vs Perception DC, if the creature's sneak is higher than PC, PCs should immediately fall below creature in initiative (the creature is unsensed and unseen, no reason to react), unless the PC was using the searching tactic.
As far as I can tell from reading the playtest book, this is not correct. Your exploration tactic can change the skill that you roll for initiative from Perception to something else (like Stealth). This doesn't affect anybody else's initiative.
Searching, If the PC was using the searching tactic, their initiative roll is also a free "seek" action (If sensed by Perception DC and search roll is higher than sneak: creature becomes Seen; If unsensed by perception DC and search roll is higher than sneak: creature becomes sensed) This would address a mechanical benefit searching has for initiative, but I'm obviously ignoring the "30 feet cone" range for seek action.
I don't see this specified in the playtest rules anywhere.
To far above my pay grade, lol.
But I'll take a look at the rules if I get a chance today and see what I can guess about how it all works.
It sounds good to me. I also need to remember Merisiel's keen ear elf trait lets her use a 60' cone to hear and gets a +2 if an unseen creatute is within 30' when using a seek action.
I'm not going to able to review the rule until tonight, so whatever you go with is fine with me.
|
|
Re: Kyra,
Let me try to clarify, it's certainly not explicitly written in rules but I'm trying to interpret how it works.
Hide/sneak actions clearly state it is vs opposing characters perception DC. If a character did not sense the creature, shouldnt the creature have the opportunity to act first regardless of initiative roll? Akin to surprise round. Initiative perception does not immediately translate to passive perception/seek action as I understand.
Second point also not explicitly written but shouldn't the searching tactic mechanically give an advantage to try to sense an ambush? And this was how I think it should be built in.
|
|
On another note, here's how anther GM ruled it and I can get behind this as it simplifies it quite a bit.
Initiative Order based on exploration tactics:
Any creatures Sneaking/Hiding are undetected at the start of encounter mode.
Non-Sneaking creatures are sensed as normal at the start of an encounter.
Undetected creature become sensed if called out or attacked by an ally. Undetected creatures become sensed after taking an non-Sneaking action. Or other event that calls attention to an unseen foe.
Sensed creature without cover are seen.
1) All creatures roll their initiative:
2) On your initiative, if your Perception DC is greater than your foe’s stealth then they are sensed to you. Creatures using Searching or Watching tactics can use either their perception roll or Perception DC to determine if foe is sensed.
On your character’s first round of initiative if all foes are undetected, then you must delay until you sense a foe or alerted by an ally to an unseen foe or other event.
So uh... I’m actually wishing for a return of the surprise round from V1 as all this seems unnecessarily complicated. I will advise as such in the review afterwards of course. For now IMO, handle it however you want and we will see how it works out.
|
|
Hi all, I will be at an offsite work meeting for the next 48 hours or so. Expect no updates at this time, but I will still check into the discussion thread about your thoughts on initiative. On Sunday I plan to get us immediately into the last encounter and expect us to round up the scenario by next weekend!
|
|
Thanks again for bearing with me during the game. In conclusion of the scenario, I will be reporting this game and do request you complete the relevant playtest survey and also inform you your PFS IDs for reporting purposes.
Resonance Test Survey
Player Survey Raiders
Seoni: 199504-1502
In addition, most PBP games aren't producing hard copy reporting sheets and relying on the reporting instead, but if you do wish od be produced a sheet do let me know..
Seoni: If you want a sheet, i'll produce for both scenarios at once!
Thanks for running!
123584-1501
Great run, I had fun. Loving the barbarian!!!
Thank you for running.
99317-1502
It was a lot of fun! Thanks, too, some great players.
90900-1501
This was a fun scenario and a great group, and I felt like we really gave the playtest rules a workout! Thanks for running it!
And thanks for the offer of the PDF reporting sheet, but if nobody’s using them, then it’s just one more piece of digital clutter.
Edit: surveys completed!
766-1502
Surveys complete.