Improvements Are A-Comin'

Monday, November 17, 2014


Illustration by Taylor Fischer

Over the past several months, there have been some growing concerns with Pathfinder Society Organized Play. As we would like to take action to correct the concerns instead of let them grow and fester, we reached out to all 395 Venture-Officers a month ago to receive their feedback on what was wrong with the campaign, what was good about the campaign, and what we could do to improve or correct things to make Pathfinder Society even more awesome. Even though there were some difficult opinions expressed, most were true and it caused us to take a hard look at the organized play program.

After receiving feedback from the Venture-Officers, we formed a team of Paizo employees to work on solutions for the concerns that were expressed. This team included Lisa Stevens and Erik Mona, Mark Seifter and Mark Moreland, John Compton, and me. There were 327 responses from our VOs regarding thoughts and feedback on the current state of PFS. I went through each and every post and listed every one of the concerns expressed on a large white board in our conference room. The meeting took upwards of six hours, and through debate, discussion, and some give and take, we came up with some solutions to most of the concerns that were expressed.

The Venture-Officers are aware of many of the initatives we have set forth to accomplish the goals. There are still other topics we are continuing to discuss on the Venture-Officer message board to make sure they are the best we can make them for the campaign at large. I wanted to write this blog to bring the player base up-to-date on some of the initiatives we have set into motion with the awesome collaboration that took place between the VOs and the Paizo team.

Factions

First, let's talk about factions and their roles. After much discussion here at Paizo, specifically on some problems that were brought up in the long discussion with all of the Venture-Officers, we agree that factions currently don't play as important a role as we would like them to. We want factions to have meaning and substance. We think our factions help to set PFS apart from other organized play campaigns. We have strategized a four-pronged plan of attack which we think will help return factions to a more important role in the campaign.

  • The five new factions are receiving a professional makeover for their faction symbols. Grand Lodge and Silver Crusade faction symbols will remain unchanged. If you have suggestions on what they should look like, please start a different thread. The target goal for this to be implemented is by the end of 2014.
  • There will be revised and improved write-ups of each faction for both the PFS landing page at paizo.com and the Guide to Organized Play. We plan to implement these write-ups by the end of 2014.
  • We will be adding "The Story So Far" type of pages to the PFS landing page at paizo.com. John is assembling a team of writers to help him accomplish this goal for all past seasons. These will be spoiler-lite and help to sum up each season for new and old players alike. The target goal for this is end of February 2015.
  • We will be producing Faction Journal cards, similar to the PAXPort or the quests cards we provide at Gen Con. There will be one Faction Journal card for each of the seven factions.
    • The front of the card will list a series of goals (likely 10) to complete for the current season. These goals will be generic enough that they can be accomplished from playing not just the current season, but past season scenarios as well. For example, the Dark Archive Faction Journal may have one of their 10 goals be to find and recover five named manuals to bring back to the archives in Absalom. These could include the Inward-Facing Circle book from Silent Tide, the dozen black vellum scrolls in Voice in the Void, and any other documents or manuals that are found in sanctioned adventures. Each time you accomplish a goal, the GM will check off or initial a box on that particular goal.
    • The back of the card will include three award thresholds for accomplishing a set number of these goals. For example, if a PC completes three of the 10 goals, they will receive a small favor from their faction or a unique, faction-specific item. If they complete six of the ten goals, they could possibly receive a unique title that provides certain benefits or a better unique faction item. If they complete all 10 of the faction goals, their clout with their faction is sufficent to extend benefits to other PCs at tables where the character is present, while making their presence (and that of their faction) important to every character at the table. As a working example, a Silver Crusade PC who has completed all 10 of her faction's goals on her card might be able to use the her renown to call in a favor and reduce the prestige point cost of any PC's raise dead by 4 so long as she's there to flex her faction's muscles. Although this might not be the reward that appears on the Silver Crusade faction card when we finish this project, it gives a good example of the type of reward we're aiming for.
    • To reward GMs, we are considering adding an 11th optional goal that would be applied to the three different thresholds of rewards. For example, we may list 10 check boxes and for each scenario GMed in the current season, one check box could be completed. Once all ten are filled, one goal toward the a reward threshold would be met, leaving only two more to complete through playing the character.
    • The back of the card will also feature a form of the revised write-up of the faction described in bullet number two above, as well as a summation of season-long goals in descriptive text. This descriptive text will explain why the PC is trying to achieve the 10 goals for the faction and how it will aid the faction in the future—likely in the form of the faction head letters.
    • We realize that we are introducing this half way through the current season so everyone may not be able to complete the card for this season. On day one of Gen Con 2015, no more faction goals may be checked off from the Season 6 card. On the same day, a new Season 7 card will become available that may include a bonus reward depending on if the character completed five or more goals from the previous season. We hope this fresh approach will help to build the excitement in factions for future seasons as we plan to introduce updated faction goal cards every season at Gen Con.
    • These Faction Journal Cards will be provided as a free download on paizo.com, so anyone can print one off for a new or existing character at any time.
    • Every character may have one card assigned to him. If the PC changes factions any time in the future, he would lose all benefits from the card.
    • The Faction Journal card would not override the primary and secondary success conditions set forth in the scenario. Those are still in place to continue enforcing the importance of being a Pathfinder. The Faction Journal card will allow for more depth by adding greater meaning to the factions.
    • Use of the Faction Journal card is optional. A PC never has to take one, use one, or try to complete one.
    • The Faction Journal cards should be available by the end of January.

Scenario Length

Over time, scenarios have become longer, both in terms of word count dedicated to the adventure (rather than to faction missions, for example) and in terms of run-time. To an extent, it's also tied to the increased number of lengthy role-playing scenes and tougher combats intended to match the six-player assumption (i.e. more PCs means more enemies means more time spent in combat). In most circumstances, the longer scenarios are, the harder they are to schedule and run.

We are taking the following steps to address this issue and bring the expected run time (time from mission briefing to the resolution of the final encounter, not including set-up and paperwork) to four hours:

  • Cut one encounter from Tier 5-9 and Tier 7-11 scenarios. These higher-level scenarios run over most often, and it's mostly a matter of high-level combat taking longer.
  • Revise encounter expectations for Tier 3-7 to minimize long, drawn-out encounters resulting from especially high challenge ratings. If necessary, we will cut an encounter from Tier 3-7 scenarios, but preferably these can still work under approximately the same model.
  • There are no changes expected on this front for Tier 1-5 scenarios, which generally fit the four-hour model without much trouble.
  • You should start seeing these changes implemented in scenarios in December 2014 or January 2015.

Scenario Difficulty

We have heard your feedback that scenarios have become harder to just pick up and run. In part this is due to a large number of scenario-specific subsystems that require the GM—and sometimes the players—to learn a new set of rules during the scenario. In part, it's also a result of the reliance on the Pathfinder Reference Document when providing only short stat blocks for encounters. There's also the matter of the increasingly involved stories that scenarios are telling.

We are taking the following steps to mitigate these issues:

  • Provide an appendix that includes the full Bestiary and NPC Codex pages referenced in the adventure as well as an un-tagged copy of any custom maps that appear in the scenario.
  • Cap the number of required GM resources at four books per scenario (including the Core Rulebook). This should be relatively easy if the Bestiary pages are already included in the back of the adventure, as in most cases approximately half of the books referenced are Bestiaries.
  • Include full stat blocks for creatures modified by the advanced, giant, or young simple templates. The exception to this would be modifications that appear in the "Scaling Encounter XYZ" sidebars. For example, if the adventure says that there should be an advanced otyugh, the full stats for an advanced otyugh will be there and ready to go. If the scaling notes say that a four-person group should instead face a young otyugh, those stats would not appear. This should at least cover the essential modifications and reduce the amount of on-the-fly adjustment that a GM needs to do.
  • Limit the number of rules subsystems in scenarios. Subsystems aren't going away entirely, but we need to avoid relying on subsystems and simply save them for the times that they'll have the greatest impact. Should an especially large subsystem such as mass combat appear in a scenario again for whatever reason, it would be advertised on the product page. Simple point-tracking mechanics that only the GM sees (for example, keeping track of how many clues the PCs uncover) are likely to show up a little less often but are still a useful tool.
  • You should start seeing these changes implemented in scenarios in December 2014 or January 2015.

Season Plotline

Over the past four seasons, the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign has based its season-long plotline on the most recent Adventure Path products. In some ways this has worked well due to the new campaign setting content available to players, GMs, and authors, but nearly as often, this decision has caused problems—either by binding the story of the campaign to that of a different product (and the continuity difficulties that can arise), driving the Society to do things that don't necessarily fit its mandate, or subjecting the community to a long storyline when many participants begin losing interest after the first several months. As the list of scenarios grows longer, the list of metaplots grows as well, providing a barrier to newer players getting involved.

To combat these trends, we are taking the following steps:

  • Stop tying the campaign's story to those of the Adventure Paths. Player responses suggest that the Destiny of the Sands model of using a current Adventure Path as inspiration for a three-part series is about right, and even then it's not mandatory that every Adventure Path receives this treatment.
  • Provide Pathfinder Society its own storyline using its own existing plot threads and creating new ones.
  • Expand the number of stand-alone scenarios that explore a wide variety of locations rather than get tied down in one location with an ongoing story that is tough to follow if one misses a few pieces.
  • Provide a "The Story Thus Far" handout that provides a low-spoiler summary of each season's storyline so that a player can quickly catch up on the critical plot concepts when sitting down to an adventure that deals with ongoing metaplot elements. The working length for each handout is about four paragraphs or 300-400 words. There would be one such document for each season and perhaps one for a few of the most complex ongoing metaplots (Grandmaster Torch, for example).
  • You should start seeing these changes implemented at the beginning of Season 7, though some like "The Story Thus Far" handouts are likely to appear sooner.

Quests

From our feedback about the success of the Silverhex Chronicles quest line, we are aware we need more Quests and Quest-like events. Since we already have nine different Beginner Box quests broken up into parts one and two, this was topic was a no brainer.

We have added two Chronicle sheets to the development schedule for the Beginner Box Demos. One will be for the four demos in part one and the other will be for the five demos in part two. These should allow for you to draw more interest from players wanting to try the system out, as well as give you another two sets of quest-style adventures to run, bringing the immediate total of quests to three sets with the inclusion of the Silverhex Chronicles quests. Look for these two Chronicle sheets by the end of 2014.

We have quite a few more changes and additions in the works, and I can't wait to tell you about them. However, some are more ideas than polished action plans, so we need a bit more time to make sure we get the other exciting changes to PFS in order before we release the rest of this information publicly.

As always, we look forward to trying to create the best Organized Play experience we can for all of you. Please read our collected thoughts above and let us know what you think, how we might improve upon the ideas, and what we could change to make them better. Thanks again for being the best fanbase any game company out there has. Without your input, as well as that of the awesome Venture-Officer corp, we certainly could not make PFS the best organized play campaign available anywhere in the world.

Mike Brock
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Factions Pathfinder Society Pathfinder Society Quests Pathfinder Society Scenarios Taylor Fischer
251 to 299 of 299 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
5/5

kinevon wrote:

So, what to do? Send me home? Send the other GM home so I can GM? Give up on PFS entirely?

If it's that tight, I'd suggest running the scenario people signed up to play and give the new player a pre-gen.

Yes, it's not best to give a new player a level 7 pre-gen, and should be avoided if possible, but if it is that or send a signed up player home by switching scenarios, then that's what you do.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Jiggy wrote:


I've never seen a 2nd level cross-blooded sorcerer

I've never seen a crossblooded dip without the orc bloodline. Ban that, solve that whole problem.

I have seen a fey/impossible crossblood and an undead/impossible crossblood, but I agree the orc/draconic is most common.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Re: level dipping;

In general I think dipping really isn't that troublesome. You gain some benefits, but PF is set up to reward focusing on a single class, so you also lose out on some other things by dipping. There's only a few dips that I have concerns about;

  • Using MoMS/Unarmed Fighter archetypes to skip prerequisites on style feats. In the case of the Unarmed Fighter, all it needs is to say that you can only take the first part of a style chain without prerequisites.

    In the case of the MoMS, something similar. You should be able to take style entry feats without prerequisites, because that's clearly meant to facilitate actually having many styles.

    Follow-up style feats should perhaps not be prerequisite-less, or at least you shouldn't be able to ignore "level" prerequisites, like "monk level X", "BAB Y" or "skill ranks Z". It's okay to ignore a few feat prerequisites though, because that's probably necessary if you want to actually follow up on multiple style chains.

    The main problem with MoMS is ignoring explicit or implicit level prerequisites on style feats; that's the thing that needs to change.

  • Crossblooded draconic/orc bloodline dips for wizards. This results from a peculiar ruling that class abilities like "your spells can affect X" or "you gain Y to spells" also affect spells from different classes. If you reverse that ruling, this dip ceases to be useful.

  • Dark Archive 2/5

    N N 959 wrote:
    I support the ban on open replay. If an area really has that many people who can't find an unplayed scenario, they can always group them up into an AP, or play a table of entirely no-credit-only players and just not make it an official PFS game.

    I don't know that I want open replay.

    But we run 2-3 tables for week night events, and I don't always have time to prep to GM (I have both full time work and grad school). So I frequently just have to go home because I've played everything and there aren't enough consistent players on the side for an AP. :(

    (Edit: I look forward to whatever the option is. I'm just adding this here because it's tiresome to hear the routine obstacle that I weekly face spoken of as if it were purely hypothetical.)

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    If you ban the crossblooded dips you're looking at banning the only way of making damaging builds viable, which pushes casters back into the much more effective "save or the fights over" strategy.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

    @BNW: the Admixture-driven Blockbuster Wizard build looks quite viable to me. It's not going to one-shot bosses, but that's A) not fun anyway, B) that's what martials are for. The blockbuster's job is rather to clear the field of minions so that barbarians can pounce, cavaliers can ride by etc.

    For blaster sorcerers, it wouldn't change anything since they're not dipping sorcerer anyway.

    For arcanists, dipping sorcerer looks extremely painful. I doubt that's a strong strategy right now. They're better off taking Admixture as an exploit.

    In general I'd like it if blasting were viable, but preferably through feats/archetypes/spells that make it so without this kind of ugly workaround.

    In a perfect world, making a blaster caster would be easier than making a battlefield controller; beginning players usually want to play a neat blaster at level 1, and it's not realistic to expect a beginning player to understand how to play battlefield control.

    Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    In the case of the Unarmed Fighter, all it needs is to say that you can only take the first part of a style chain without prerequisites.

    That is already how it works. The Unarmed Fighter only lets you skip prereqs on style feats, and only the first feat in the path is a style feat.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    kinevon wrote:

    How about those areas, like mine, which have the problem of a few very experienced players (I have been involved, at different levels of participation, since 2008, Season 0) and an ever-changing roster of newer players?

    Literally, my list of available, eligible-to-play, non-Evergreen scenarios for tier 1-5 & 1-7 consists of 8 scenarios, including the most recent Season 6 stuff.

    I've been encountering similar issues recently as well. I did post up a topic talking about it a bit ago if you are interested in taking a look (all).

    It was focused more on GM's credit vs players, but I'm always interesting in hearing more arguments for and against.

    LINK

    4/5 *

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    The problem with replay is that it is a slippery slope. No matter what, if you play as much PFS as you want, you will run out of scenarios. Either you will run out because there is no replay, or you will run out a bit later because you've already replayed and are bored of it. Unless you live where there are venues running every scenario every night, replay does not really open up many options for you. Modules and APs have opened up a lot mroe material, and that is a better fix than replays IMO.

    Remember, PFS was never intended to be the sole Pathfinder experience for its players. While it's a great campaign and we all love it, there are 2 new scenarios per month and many folks play multiple times a week. It's really a gateway drug to the PFRPG. It is also a bit like speed dating: eventually, it is assumed that you will move on to a full-length date. Sure, the convenience of just dropping in and playing is nice, and for myself it fits my child-trashed schedule nicely. But the benefits of replay apply only to those people who have already played it all; the downsides will apply to everyone.

    Frankly, I'm awaiting the replay announcement with a mix of fear and anticipation - I know Mike and John and the VOs will have thought it through, but I still can't see a way to allow it without causing more problems than it solves.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    I'm not certain that's true, really. A lot people like to play PFS because it allows that to return to play with others at special events, or to be able to take their character to any group and for the most part jump right in. Others like the expected time frame for a PFS scenario game, knowing that they can devote say 5 hours to play and be pretty certain that it will rap up close to that time.

    Another aspect is that it allows people to be able to jump in and not have to worry about the campaigns long backstory before they can play.

    As for me, with deployments, PFS style play is actually pretty optimal, because it doesn't necessitate having a consistent player group in order to continue the story, and that isn't something that everyone just has sitting around.

    Assuming that players will just go on to play a "real campaign" later on really just doesn't solve the issue of the more people join PFS, the more problems there will be trying to find scenarios that everyone can play, and I honestly think that the idea that players will just go on to play PF instead of PFS is much more likely to lead those players to play another game (5E) entirely.

    Tied to that directly, there is also the issue people like to play the characters they have already invested in, but also to meet other gamers, and to be able to take those characters between different groups without needing to rebuild or change things to fit in. So the idea of finishing up PFS and then going on to a real campaign also means just tossing aside a lot of characters that people have invested time into.

    This also does not take into account that many of those people that move on are going to be the GM's and less likely the new players, as it's the older ones that are having the issues finding material to play or run. And that, if it happens, is what is going to be kill PFS.

    I'm actually still very curious where this fear of replay even comes from? I just don't get it. For one, how is it an different, in any way whatsoever, from first running and then playing in any given scenario? And yet there is no problems with that, as far as I know. Secondly, in my opinion, it actually allows for increased RP opportunities, as it allows for people that do have some knowledge of the scenario to actually act like mentors, or better yet, to RP concepts like prophets/oracles/fortune-tellers.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    If you ban the crossblooded dips you're looking at banning the only way of making damaging builds viable, which pushes casters back into the much more effective "save or the fights over" strategy.

    If by 'viable' you mean, 'attractive to uber power gamers.'

    Sorry, but a straight up, unbuffed fireball or lightning bolt is still a viable option in many encounters. Is it always the best choice? No. But that isn't the definition of 'viable.'

    My fire domain theologian's ability to spontaneously cast fireball has saved the party's butt on many occasions. It even allowed me to solo an encounter when the rest of the party had been taken down in the surprise round. All with nothing more than a high wisdom and the Elemental Focus feat to buff it. That, to me, certainly counts as viable.

    Would a cross-blooded sorcerer have been more effective at doing my trick? Sure. But again, that is not the definition of 'viable.'

    4/5

    I think part of it is that past living world RPG games have allowed infinite replay. With the result you would have the same people playing the same game, over and over in an insular and clique like manner.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    But, with PFS's 1 chronicle per character, and the way that Tiers and Sub-Tiers work, sure, that might happen, but it's not likely to happen very much, and as far as I can see the benefits (mainly making it a heck of a lot easier to make tables everyone can play without sending people away) would far outweigh the drawbacks outside of a few, localized cases.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    DM Beckett wrote:
    But, with PFS's 1 chronicle per character, and the way that Tiers and Sub-Tiers work, sure, that might happen, but it's not likely to happen very much, and as far as I can see the benefits (mainly making it a heck of a lot easier to make tables everyone can play without sending people away) would far outweigh the drawbacks outside of a few, localized cases.

    I have played in 2 long running living campaigns prior to PFS.

    In Living Greyhawk there was absolutely no replay. You couldn't even play an adventure if you had GMed it and if you GMed it, you couldn't apply the rewards to one of your characters.

    Advantages
    1) It encouraged GMing by creating situations at Cons & game days where if you didn't GM you didn't do anything.
    2) It minimized metagaming problems caused by inside knowledge.

    Disadvantages
    1) It discouraged GMing because no one wanted to GM a mod before they played it as this meant they could never play it. This lead to Slot Zeroing being an absolute necessity, but even then, someone had to 'eat' the mod.
    2) It made it harder to make tables and pretty much required all Cons to have exclusive new adventures in order to make sure there was something offered that everyone could play.

    In Living Forgotten Realms, there were no restrictions on replay other than you couldn't play it with the same character twice.

    Advantages
    1) It made it easier to make tables.
    2) You were always guaranteed you could play what they were offering when you went to a game day or con.

    Disadvantage
    1) Sometimes decreased the enjoyment of adventures due to metagaming players. (Note that most of the time this happened, this was not a case of someone deliberately being a jerk and blatantly metagaming the adventure. Rather it happened most often by inadvertent actions of the players.)
    2) Discouraged GMing because more than 1 in 7 players would rather play than GM if given the choice, and when you have infinite replay, you have the choice.
    3) Created situations where people would game the system by playing the same mod over and over again to get the particularly cool boon it had for all their characters.

    Clearly PFS has looked at those two extremes and strove to get a balance between the two that minimizes the disadvantages while maximizing the advantages. And, as far as I can tell, PFS's system works better than either of the other two. So, to me, any major change in the direction of either of the two above methods would not be beneficial.

    Silver Crusade 5/5

    Paz wrote:
    UndeadMitch wrote:
    Forgive my ignorance, but where is this blog post that mentioned replay? I went back through some blog posts and didn't see it. I just thought it was strange, given the stance that has been taken by leadership on replay in the past.

    HERE:

    Michael Brock wrote:
    We've come up with an idea that we think can address limited replay. For those worried about replay destroying the campaign, don't worry. We are very cognizant of that. I believe every VO can attest to my vehemence against replay on the VO message board. However, an idea has been presented that I think could work very well, that changed my vehement opposition against replay into a very excited positive, and would open up replay in a way we think the player base will like and appreciate, but at the same time won't destroy the campaign or the play experiences of people sitting down to play the game with someone who is replaying.

    Thanks Paz, I appreciate it. I remember that thread, I guess I just stopped checking it before Mike posted in it. I'm somewhat hesitant about replay, but if they have found a solution that they think will work, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The changes they have coming sound pretty good, I like the idea of the faction achievement cards and the direction Mike and John are taking factions in.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    trollbill wrote:
    DM Beckett wrote:
    But, with PFS's 1 chronicle per character, and the way that Tiers and Sub-Tiers work, sure, that might happen, but it's not likely to happen very much, and as far as I can see the benefits (mainly making it a heck of a lot easier to make tables everyone can play without sending people away) would far outweigh the drawbacks outside of a few, localized cases.

    I have played in 2 long running living campaigns prior to PFS.

    Thank you for responding. I appreciate you taking the time to explain some of the downsides. :)

    Dark Archive 4/5

    The mid term fix to wanting to replay because not enough scenarios is to produce more scenarios and quests. A short term fix looks likely to allow a single replay per scenario with certain strings attached.

    I suspect they will also speed up sanctioning of existing modules - though they can have scheduling issues due to length - so that only partially addresses the problem.

    An idea: are there any existing modules that can easily be split into two or three and run as independent scenarios or as a loosely linked scenario arc? This could perhaps be done to the 3.5 modules that are scheduled for sanctioning. This avoids production delays and should be significantly cheaper than producing new scenarios.

    Silver Crusade 2/5

    Jiggy wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    In the case of the Unarmed Fighter, all it needs is to say that you can only take the first part of a style chain without prerequisites.
    That is already how it works. The Unarmed Fighter only lets you skip prereqs on style feats, and only the first feat in the path is a style feat.

    +1

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

    Jiggy wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    In the case of the Unarmed Fighter, all it needs is to say that you can only take the first part of a style chain without prerequisites.
    That is already how it works. The Unarmed Fighter only lets you skip prereqs on style feats, and only the first feat in the path is a style feat.

    It seems you're right. In the introduction to style feats, and also in the tables summarizing the feats in UC, they make it look like all the feats in the chains are [style] feats. But if you look at the actual feat descriptions, only the entry feats have the [style] descriptor.

    So, it's just the MoMF that's causing trouble.

    Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

    ZomB wrote:


    An idea: are there any existing modules that can easily be split into two or three and run as independent scenarios or as a loosely linked scenario arc? This could perhaps be done to the 3.5 modules that are scheduled for sanctioning. This avoids production delays and should be significantly cheaper than producing new scenarios.

    Dragon's Demand.

    The Adventure Paths, Emerald Spire and Thornkeep also fit the bill

    Grand Lodge 4/5

    Wardens of the Reborn Forge (waiting for chronicles)
    Tears at Bitter Manor (sanctioned, chronicles available)

    Plunder & Peril (next 64 page module on the schedule)

    And, farther in the future, additional 64 page modules on the schedule:
    Daughters of Fury....
    Feast of Dust...

    Grand Lodge

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    The idea of banning, or restricting multiclassing, leaves a taste of vomit in my mouth.

    Further, the accusations of those taking 1, or 2 level dips are only "power gamers", which is somehow a bad thing, is disgustingly offensive.

    Liberty's Edge 2/5

    Hey, I only threw it out there as crazy speculation.

    I have 4 characters who are currently or planned for multiclassing.

    Some are more stylistic, like the Fighter/Rogue and my current Battle Herald.

    My Lore Warden predates the Swashbuckler and will go Duelist to make him a competent combatant.

    But my gunslinger/inquisitor? Pure power cheese. Bane bullets against touch AC at 10th level? But he's got to make it there.

    Still, multiclassing isn't a right, nor is it some sacred cow that can't be questioned, even if it's been part of the D&D way for as long as I can remember.

    1/5 **

    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    The idea of banning, or restricting multiclassing, leaves a taste of vomit in my mouth.

    Further, the accusations of those taking 1, or 2 level dips are only "power gamers", which is somehow a bad thing, is disgustingly offensive.

    Hyperbole aside, I agree. Thankfully, I doubt banning multitasking is something we need to worry about.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

    Derek Weil wrote:
    Still, multiclassing isn't a right, nor is it some sacred cow that can't be questioned, even if it's been part of the D&D way for as long as I can remember.

    How is it not a right? It's totally allowed by the core rules. It's not some obscure trick based on a dubious reading of a rule in a weird out of print supplement.

    Subject to questioning? Sure, all rules can be questioned to see if they're working for the good of the game.

    Is it OP? Rarely, I think. Most level dips are comparable in power to going straight in a class. Different, sure. Delightful, sometimes. But bad for the game? Not in most cases; the only one that I think is actually bad is the MoMS dip that undermines the proper balancing of style chains. The crossblooded sorcerer dip is ugly, but not actually unbalanced. It's got a hefty price tag, and a competent blaster isn't more powerful than other strong builds like pure God wizard, pounce-barbarian, paladin, zen archer etc.

    Liberty's Edge 2/5

    Ascalaphus wrote:
    Derek Weil wrote:
    Still, multiclassing isn't a right, nor is it some sacred cow that can't be questioned, even if it's been part of the D&D way for as long as I can remember.
    How is it not a right?

    Well, in my mind it's different than something that we are philosophically entitled to (as human beings/citizens/etc. - but I rarely think of games in those terms).

    That said, I agree with you.

    As long as it's part of the core rules, I think that multi-classing should NOT be banned for PFS. Full stop. That's why I threw it out here, instead of on the "what you want banned" thread.

    And I also agree that it rarely is MORE powerful than following certain classes through every level. There are many reason for doing it, and I am certainly a player who enjoys using it on at least 1/3 of my PFS characters.

    For the record, I really have no interest in seeing current options banned. If players want a harder game experience, I expect them to build characters appropriate for this.

    Most of my PFS characters are 90%+ Core Rulebook. I would really like to buy certain books for access to an odd item or Feat here or there (not even obscure ones, since I only own CRB, APG, UC and Animal Archive).

    But I can't justify spending even $10 for a pdf for something that I'll use in a game that I play less than twice per month on average.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    Right now, I am taking advantage of a boon that gives me more Replays as I GM more Scenarios. Still, I never knew there was something in the works to change up the current paragam.

    So... would going into a PrC constitute a Multiclassed character?

    Multiclassing as it is now was not the way it was in previous systems. There were limits, based on race, class and for the Druid, structure. (You had to wait for the current xx level druid of the region to die before leveling up past it. I believe it was 13, with 12 only having few spots for the taking)

    Humans multiclassed differently than the other races, but had no limits on class levels except for Druids and maybe one other.

    Just dipping into classes as we do currently was something that was the result of taking away almost all those limitations. (and PrC's were based loosely on Kits introduced in the splat books, though Archtypes are more like they were)

    In second edition, the bard was the closest thing to a current multiclassed character, without any of the advantages of the first level goodies dip.

    So...

    The one class that would be completely banned if one would ever be so would be the Summoner.

    I'm out!!

    Grand Lodge 4/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    No campaign management has ever said multi classing was going to change in any way.

    Silver Crusade 2/5

    Before I start this discussion I would like to say that I am with Mike Brock, I am against replay in most situations.

    However, I think this could be an excellent compromise. Since season zero is getting a makeover, they will be fully updated and refurbished, using new feats and tactics then what they were originally given, better CRs, access to fancier spells and combat abilities. So with the coming of season 7 they will release 2 updated scenarios of season 0 and 2 new season 7 scenarios. Season 0 scenarios will be repayable once if you have already played it before season 7 came out. This would continue with season 8 and season 1 would be repayable once. Monsters and combats and traps would be the only thing needed to be updated.

    This would allow organizers to draw in oldtimers who have played through everything but also add excitement because the combats are different. It would also encourage new and old players too see where we have been.

    Thoughts?

    Grand Lodge 4/5

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    The idea of banning, or restricting multiclassing, leaves a taste of vomit in my mouth.

    Further, the accusations of those taking 1, or 2 level dips are only "power gamers", which is somehow a bad thing, is disgustingly offensive.

    Showering with an open mouth in faeces is disgustingly offensive.

    Accusing 1-level-dippers of being power gamers is just mildly bothersome.

    I don't want to lower the stakes, but English works in certain ways and has various rules too.

    Grand Lodge 4/5

    Ill_Made_Knight wrote:

    Before I start this discussion I would like to say that I am with Mike Brock, I am against replay in most situations.

    However, I think this could be an excellent compromise. Since season zero is getting a makeover, they will be fully updated and refurbished, using new feats and tactics then what they were originally given, better CRs, access to fancier spells and combat abilities. So with the coming of season 7 they will release 2 updated scenarios of season 0 and 2 new season 7 scenarios. Season 0 scenarios will be repayable once if you have already played it before season 7 came out. This would continue with season 8 and season 1 would be repayable once. Monsters and combats and traps would be the only thing needed to be updated.

    This would allow organizers to draw in oldtimers who have played through everything but also add excitement because the combats are different. It would also encourage new and old players too see where we have been.

    Thoughts?

    Given: Mists of Mwangi made very few changes, besides updating the monsters and NPCs to PF versions, or CR appropriate, similar replacements.

    Thoughts: Other Season 0 updates would probably be the same way, minimal changes.
    Result: Probably not going to be where they go.

    4/5 *

    Mists of Mwangi was gutted in the conversion, actually... the final fight became much easier to 1-round, and that was even before the new classes and feat trains raised the APL even more.

    Grand Lodge

    KestlerGunner wrote:
    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    The idea of banning, or restricting multiclassing, leaves a taste of vomit in my mouth.

    Further, the accusations of those taking 1, or 2 level dips are only "power gamers", which is somehow a bad thing, is disgustingly offensive.

    Showering with an open mouth in feces is disgustingly offensive.

    Accusing 1-level-dippers of being power gamers is just mildly bothersome.

    I don't want to lower the stakes, but English works in certain ways and has various rules too.

    Depends on what you are into.

    Liberty's Edge 4/5

    GM star replays are a nice "thank you" to those who go to the time, effort and expense of running a table for 3 to 7 others. I believe there is even a GM convention boon allowing the replays to be reset. However if you want to allow unlimited replay, then only XP and GP should be awarded, no boons, items or prestige. GM replays would still get full benefits.

    Multiclassing is about the least abused of the options available to players and the downsides are not generally seen until the higher levels are reached. With a hard limit of 11 levels (yes there are modules, etc. beyond that) in regular play some builds may not see the negative aspects, but if the player put thought into the build, then let them play it.

    Factions
    The scavenger hunt is probably a good compromise. I personally prefer the original method, but I understand its drawbacks.

    Scenario Length
    I thought Optional Encounters already dealt with the issue. I do enjoy more RP time, the big issue is getting the players into the story in between slaughtering encounters.

    Scenario Difficulty
    I think you mean Scenario Execution as none of the suggestions change the CR of any encounter. Generally speaking, if I have time to prep the scenario then I look up the stuff online, if I don't then I fill it in with rules/items/monsters I know. The objective is to keep the game moving, although I think it's only come up twice since most scenarios are very complete.

    Season Plotline
    I think Numeria looks great behind a regenerating wall of force. Others may feel the same way about the Worldwound or Varisia. In home play, they have the option not to visit these places, in PFS not so much. Frankly I didn't even know there were AP tie-ins until mid way through season 5.

    Quests
    Primary complaint I've heard is that you can't bring your own character. Never played one, so no opinion.

    3/5

    EricMcG wrote:
    GM star replays are a nice "thank you" to those who go to the time, effort and expense of running a table for 3 to 7 others. I believe there is even a GM convention boon allowing the replays to be reset.

    Weirdly, it is actually a player boon that allows you to reset your GM star replays.

    I have it, and the wording is not a clear as it might be.

    glass.

    Liberty's Edge 4/5

    GM Lamplighter wrote:

    Mists of Mwangi was gutted in the conversion, actually... the final fight became much easier to 1-round, and that was even before the new classes and feat trains raised the APL even more.

    yeah some of the Year 1s were better in 3.5 and easier with Pathfinder because of the rules changes.

    Mike

    Lantern Lodge 5/5

    The question that I've been trying to reconcile is:

    "With the 'scavenger hunt' style faction cards, will people who have played the vast majority of old scenarios have the ability to earn 'achievements' (for lack of a better word)?"

    I've played the two examples listed (Silent Tide and Voice in the Void)- -are those 'achievements' unavailable to me?

    1/5

    Jayson MF Kip wrote:

    The question that I've been trying to reconcile is:

    "With the 'scavenger hunt' style faction cards, will people who have played the vast majority of old scenarios have the ability to earn 'achievements' (for lack of a better word)?"

    I've played the two examples listed (Silent Tide and Voice in the Void)- -are those 'achievements' unavailable to me?

    My understanding/hope is that the faction requirements will be largely scenario independent. For example, if you're part of Liberty's Edge, you will have a standing order to free at least one prisoner/captive in three scenarios. If there are prisoner's to free in Silent Tide or Voices in the Void, you'll check two of those boxes off your faction card if you play them at some point in the future. But you'll be able to free prisoner's in any scenario, possible independent of which season the scenario occurs.

    It's still possible that future scenarios may be specifically tied to a faction, but, once again, my hope is that this is not the case. That way, I never have to worry about trying to match the scenario with a specific character.

    Grand Lodge 4/5

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Jayson MF Kip wrote:
    I've played the two examples listed (Silent Tide and Voice in the Void)- -are those 'achievements' unavailable to me?

    While your current characters may not be able to earn them, I believe future characters will.

    Grand Lodge 5/5

    Jayson MF Kip wrote:

    The question that I've been trying to reconcile is:

    "With the 'scavenger hunt' style faction cards, will people who have played the vast majority of old scenarios have the ability to earn 'achievements' (for lack of a better word)?"

    I've played the two examples listed (Silent Tide and Voice in the Void)- -are those 'achievements' unavailable to me?

    Also interested in this question. I have played all scenarios prior to season 4 (minus some retired year 0 scenarios). In all, there are 13 scenarios up to and including 6-09 that I have not played. A non trivial number of those on retired or soon to be retired characters.

    So even if you can retroactively get credit for something you played in the past, its not going to help me very much.

    If this is the way it works, then I feel like I'm being short changed for having stuck with the campaign for a long time.

    1/5

    Cire wrote:
    Jayson MF Kip wrote:

    The question that I've been trying to reconcile is:

    "With the 'scavenger hunt' style faction cards, will people who have played the vast majority of old scenarios have the ability to earn 'achievements' (for lack of a better word)?"

    I've played the two examples listed (Silent Tide and Voice in the Void)- -are those 'achievements' unavailable to me?

    Also interested in this question. I have played all scenarios prior to season 4 (minus some retired year 0 scenarios). In all, there are 13 scenarios up to and including 6-09 that I have not played. A non trivial number of those on retired or soon to be retired characters.

    So even if you can retroactively get credit for something you played in the past, its not going to help me very much.

    If this is the way it works, then I feel like I'm being short changed for having stuck with the campaign for a long time.

    Let's look at the blog

    Blog wrote:
    The front of the card will list a series of goals (likely 10) to complete for the current season. These goals will be generic enough that they can be accomplished from playing not just the current season, but past season scenarios as well.

    Seems clear there is no requirement to do past scenarios to complete the faction card.

    1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

    Cire wrote:

    I have played all scenarios prior to season 4 (minus some retired year 0 scenarios). In all, there are 13 scenarios up to and including 6-09 that I have not played. A non trivial number of those on retired or soon to be retired characters.

    So even if you can retroactively get credit for something you played in the past, its not going to help me very much.

    If this is the way it works, then I feel like I'm being short changed for having stuck with the campaign for a long time.

    Not really understanding what you want to say there.

    You feel bad because you had the opportunity and fun to play through all that scenarios?

    Sovereign Court 4/5

    Jayson, it sounds to me like these achievements are designed to be open to as many scenarios as possible. That example was not "find the books from Silent Tide and Voice in the Void," but rather "Find # books with names." Silent Tide and Voice in the Void are just two of probably dozens of scenarios you can find appropriate books for that criteria in.

    Likewise, as I understand it, a completely hypothetical Grand Lodge goal of "Rescue # Pathfinders from Captivity" wouldn't require playing any particular scenario, but could be met by any past scenario, as well as at least two season 6's released so far.

    1/5 5/5 **

    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

    Things should be done to make replay easier, we have a group of players that meet weekly, some players are big going to conventions, whilst some go to no conventions. There are some really good scenarios that cannot be run for the group because it means a replay for one of the players. And with the group playing different games all over the place, it really gets ever more difficult to find scenarios we can play. Because of the way the group runs, modules and adventure paths are not suitable.

    So making scenarios replayable would be a real benefit.

    4/5

    Well if it is only a replay for one player, have you considered having them run?

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—San Antonio

    Now this is VERY good news.
    We really needed to get shorter arcs, and more inclusion into the ongoing story, regardless of what scenarios have been played so far from that season.
    Also, making Factions matter more is very important... there had been an ongoing trend of defaulting to Grand Lodge because "factions don't mean anything anymore"... the few times a preference was shown was due to what faction traits would be available at character creation.
    Basically, that is a mechanics-based preference for a faction and then no real affiliation there-after. Hopefully this will make faction affiliation mean something again.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—San Antonio

    Well, I also need to add this, as I just finished reading some of the newer replies and I think there is one concern with merit: Older scenario "lock-out".
    In essence, if a scenario was played before and the character with the credit retires, those scenarios are "gone"... not currently supporting a valid PFS character AND not playable. It's as if they never existed for the purposes of that player.
    This phenomenon may hamstring completion of these faction cards by long-term players unless they make new scenarios ham-handedly included copious amounts of objectives from the faction cards.
    In a move reminiscent of the bloated faction mission days: "A rescuable pathfinder: check, a forbidden tome: check, a scrap of Osiriani lore: check, a mercantile opportunity: check, a damsel in distress: check, etc., etc., etc."
    Perhaps we could add a retirement chronicle sheet that "frees up" the scenarios and modules which supported the now out-of-play PC?

    Grand Lodge 4/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Second to the last paragraph:

    We have quite a few more changes and additions in the works, and I can't wait to tell you about them. However, some are more ideas than polished action plans, so we need a bit more time to make sure we get the other exciting changes to PFS in order before we release the rest of this information publicly.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—San Antonio

    Michael Brock wrote:

    Second to the last paragraph:

    We have quite a few more changes and additions in the works, and I can't wait to tell you about them. However, some are more ideas than polished action plans, so we need a bit more time to make sure we get the other exciting changes to PFS in order before we release the rest of this information publicly.

    If that means what I THINK it means, that is very good news indeed. :)

    251 to 299 of 299 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: Improvements Are A-Comin' All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.