End the Year on a High[-Level] Note!

Monday, December 8, 2014

I could swear I've written this blog before, and I could swear it has started a different way each time.

In fact, this blog has been about a year in the making, ever since I took a copy of Paizo's second 64-page model with me over Thanksgiving break to begin working on that adventure's sanctioning document. It's been through about four revisions since then, each one not quite turning out as I had envisioned before other priorities put an end to my edits.

Something changed with this last go-around. I put an end to saying, "No, this is too silly to be a boon" and began asking, "What needs to happen to make this a boon?" I began taking out some of the weird limitations and tweaked the language in the Seeker Arc Option section (yes, a seeker arc option!) to make it easier to schedule and play. I began experimenting with ways to let the player choose the rewards. I began to open up some stranger options, and I began to write something other than a number in the "GP Gained" box. In the end, the Chronicle sheets began to look like the Chronicle sheets should for a high-level module full of clockwork, mutants, and gunpowder: awesome.

Really there's only one thing left to begin: playing Pathfinder Module: Wardens of the Reborn Forge, now sanctioned for the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign. One important thing has come to an end: the long wait for this fine opportunity for high-level play. You can download the rules and Chronicle sheet on the product page or the Additional Resources page.


Bwa ha ha! Sanctioned for Organized Play at long last!
Illustration by Dieter Miller

Check by next week when I continue spreading the holiday cheer with some Treasure and Terror... or was that Jewels and Jeopardy?

Happy gaming!

John Compton
Developer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Dieter Miller Pathfinder Modules Pathfinder Society
51 to 100 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

Myth Lord wrote:

That.

Is one beautiful son of a Gug!

Awesome artwork!

You should also take a look at the half-page art of our iconic gunslinger and fighter taking on a gug. I beleve it's the Chapter 1 opener.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

1970Zombie wrote:
Joseph Kellogg wrote:

So I want to make sure I've got this clear. You can get the 4th chronicle sheet if you:

1) Play in "campaign mode"
2) Play as a "Seeker arc" with a level 12 PFS character (not level 11 or 13)
or 3) GM in any mode

Is that correct?

It sounds like as a player you can only earn the 4th chronicle while playing the "Seeker Arc Option". Must complete the adventure in order without playing anything else in between.

GMs can earn it for running the the whole adventure and applying the chronicles to the same character.

1970Zombie is correct. The 4th Chronicle is only available for true Seeker characters using the full Pathfinder Society rules set (and GMs in any mode): basically options 2 and 3. It's esentially a capstone for a Pathfinder Society character--cool enough to feel great without being so potent that it's essential.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

David Neilson wrote:

Nice to see the boon, really surprised you included the ** spoiler omitted **

In Response:
I went back and forth on the Golden Curse for a while (i.e. many months) but decided that most wouldn't want it--and those who did would be ecstatic.

As for the gems, the resale thing is just a metagame balancing feature that gives you a lot of wealth if you're going to spend it in a certain way and a more modest amount if you'd just lie cash now. If the gems had their full resale value, the first option would actually be twice as good as the basic gold reward.


techno-shaman gug? techno-shaman gug. TECHNO-SHAMAN GUG!!

Silver Crusade 5/5

The art in Wardens, from the action scenes to the NPC's was pretty awesome, I thought it was much better than usual. The art for a certain hill giant on the cover convinced me to take a knife and some glue to the cannon golem and hill giant minis from the Battles line. It turned out pretty decent.

Liberty's Edge

trollbill wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
rknop wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
So, after three straight years of being promised a new seeker arc we finally get one, and it's filled with gunslingers and science fiction... two categories that a full 50% of your customer base doesn't want in PFS. Gee, I wonder why you had a six hour meeting about how D&D is starting to steal people back...

I'd be extremely surprised if that 50% statistic were correct....

(Of course, it's well documented that 37% of all statistics are simply made up on the spot.)

I wouldn't be surprised at all. When gunslingers came out the boards were split evenly between people that wanted it and people that didn't. The fires flared up again when season 6 was announced. Generally speaking, though, people that can't stand Paizo's current direction have just stopped voicing opinions because everyone realized they were just yelling at two brick walls.

Paizo has decided they're going to do what they want regardless of how the customer base feels. We've all seen this once before, but some people just can't seem to learn from other companies' mistakes.

Or maybe they learned that a vocal minority that uses volume and made up statistics to compensate for actual numbers is not actually representative of majority of the customer base. And that the customer based is best served by listening to the majority rather than the ones that pitch a fit the loudest.

Locally Fanexpo ends a season so the new season starts in September. A month after Season 6 began we had an 80% drop in attendance compared to the previous year, 40 players down to 8. There are likely a number of different reasons for this and numbers were declining anyway, but we still had 30+ players June to August and there was no post-Expo bump.

Demoyn likely saw the same kind of effect in his locale and came to his conclusion and he is neither the loudest voice nor a small minority.

They have been running pre-season 6 missions here and attendance has rebounded to about 13 players, but new Season 6 scenarios are now filling as well, so maybe there are other factors at play. I can only speak for myself, I will never run or play a Season 6 scenario.

Grand Lodge 4/5

EricMcG wrote:
I can only speak for myself, I will never run or play a Season 6 scenario.

I heartily recommend you reconsider this stance, at least in regards to 6-04 through 6-08. There's nothing tech based in them, as far as I'm aware, and they're definitely better than the first three Season 6 scenarios.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

No drop around here that I am aware of. Though of course the local VCs and VLs could give better numbers. I can understand not wanting to play the tech scenarios, but having played in 06-04 to 06-08, I would say in my opinion missing out is really biting ones nose of to spite your face. There is nary a robot in sight, and we have been hitting the four corners of Golarion checking in on places we have been in new and interesting ways.

On the upside there are a lot of call backs to earlier seasons, and if you have played some recently you might have a leg up in certain of the scnarios.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

Jeff Merola wrote:
EricMcG wrote:
I can only speak for myself, I will never run or play a Season 6 scenario.
I heartily recommend you reconsider this stance, at least in regards to the current scenarios past the first three (6-04 through 6-09). There's nothing tech based in them, as far as I'm aware, and they're definitely better than the first three Season 6 scenarios.

You might want to check 6-09 again - there's some amount of tech in that one. Not enough to be a real problem (we just played it last night, and it didn't really have too much impact), but it's definitely there, both in an encounter and in the backstory.

Grand Lodge 4/5

John Francis wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
EricMcG wrote:
I can only speak for myself, I will never run or play a Season 6 scenario.
I heartily recommend you reconsider this stance, at least in regards to the current scenarios past the first three (6-04 through 6-09). There's nothing tech based in them, as far as I'm aware, and they're definitely better than the first three Season 6 scenarios.
You might want to check 6-09 again - there's some amount of tech in that one. Not enough to be a real problem (we just played it last night, and it didn't really have too much impact), but it's definitely there, both in an encounter and in the backstory.

Fair enough. I'll amend my statement to end at 08 then.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
EricMcG wrote:

Locally Fanexpo ends a season so the new season starts in September. A month after Season 6 began we had an 80% drop in attendance compared to the previous year, 40 players down to 8. There are likely a number of different reasons for this and numbers were declining anyway, but we still had 30+ players June to August and there was no post-Expo bump.

Demoyn likely saw the same kind of effect in his locale and came to his conclusion and he is neither the loudest voice nor a small minority.

They have been running pre-season 6 missions here and attendance has rebounded to about 13 players, but new Season 6 scenarios are now filling as well, so maybe there are other factors at play. I can only speak for myself, I will never run or play a Season 6 scenario.

And I haven't seen any of this locally. I don't recall anyone even saying they had a dislike for the tech of Season 6, let alone rail against it like some people on these forums have done. I am sure there are some. There were probably some that didn't like the demon theme of Season 5. But they are taking it in stride if they don't.

Which begs the question, "How much of this is self-inflicted?"

If we, as GMs & coordinators tell our players we don't like the theme of the latest season and will not support it, why would we expect them to turn out for it?

Dark Archive

trollbill wrote:

Which begs the question, "How much of this is self-inflicted?"

If we, as GMs & coordinators tell our players we don't like the theme of the latest season and will not support it, why would we expect them to turn out for it?

What do you suggest the coordinators and GMs who don't like it do?

I suspect it is the PC killing reputation of the first 2 scenarios and the tech overdose in one month that has done the damage. It should rebound some, if it becomes clear that was a blip.

A small percentage of GMs have reduced their running or now wont sign up to run new scenarios before they are released (and vetted for quality and/or unwanted elements). So the GM pool is impacted, and latest scenario running is impacted. In locations where the GMs affected are one of a small number of GMs that's going to have a disproportionate effect on the local scene.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ZomB wrote:
trollbill wrote:

Which begs the question, "How much of this is self-inflicted?"

If we, as GMs & coordinators tell our players we don't like the theme of the latest season and will not support it, why would we expect them to turn out for it?

What do you suggest the coordinators and GMs who don't like it do?

I suspect it is the PC killing reputation of the first 2 scenarios and the tech overdose in one month that has done the damage. It should rebound some, if it becomes clear that was a blip.

A small percentage of GMs have reduced their running or now wont sign up to run new scenarios before they are released (and vetted for quality and/or unwanted elements). So the GM pool is impacted, and latest scenario running is impacted. In locations where the GMs affected are one of a small number of GMs that's going to have a disproportionate effect on the local scene.

It is generally bad practice to complain about the scenario you are running. A GM's job is to help his players have a good time. Do you really think that the GM is doing that job if they are complaining about the scenario they are running?

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

In our local scene, we've always run both new and old scenarios, depending on the whims of players and GMs. People want to play the new shiny stuff and the golden oldies. So if people don't like the new stuff, falling back on older stuff comes naturally.

Currently we're in a bit of a slump compared to the summer holidays, but summer holidays is when a lot of people have more than normal free time, and december is a pretty hectic month.

Dark Archive

Andrew Christian wrote:
It is generally bad practice to complain about the scenario you are running. A GM's job is to help his players have a good time. Do you really think that the GM is doing that job if they are complaining about the scenario they are running?

That is clearly a different point to the one I was responding to.

However you do raise a contributing factor. If a GM has signed up to run something that is not yet released and then finds they don't like it but are committed to run it. Then they can either run it as best they can (and their lack of enthusiasm likely comes through) or they can drop it and let several people down, or if the option is available run something else which likely lets someone down. Either way they are likely to not do that again in a hurry and the GM pool is impacted.

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

ZomB wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
It is generally bad practice to complain about the scenario you are running. A GM's job is to help his players have a good time. Do you really think that the GM is doing that job if they are complaining about the scenario they are running?

That is clearly a different point to the one I was responding to.

However you do raise a contributing factor. If a GM has signed up to run something that is not yet released and then finds they don't like it but are committed to run it. Then they can either run it as best they can (and their lack of enthusiasm likely comes through) or they can drop it and let several people down, or if the option is available run something else which likely lets someone down. Either way they are likely to not do that again in a hurry and the GM pool is impacted.

When I played The Merchant's Wake, at a certain point a Chase starts. The GM apologized profusely for "inflicting a chase" upon us. As a result, we expected it to be really annoying, and some people were already groaning. It was actually fairly painless, although there's that hilarious editing mishap (Swim check to open a door).

So because the GM was apologizing for it so much, people were already ready to think the worst of it, which turned out to be unwarranted.

So if you're committed to running a scenario you're not wild about, don't talk it down. Pretend you think it's fine and just make the best of it. If you actually tell people you don't like the adventure, they'll be actively looking for the un-fun stuff.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think of it as another NPC to play: "Sir GM-Happy-to-Run-This-Adventure"

Liberty's Edge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ZomB wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
It is generally bad practice to complain about the scenario you are running. A GM's job is to help his players have a good time. Do you really think that the GM is doing that job if they are complaining about the scenario they are running?

That is clearly a different point to the one I was responding to.

However you do raise a contributing factor. If a GM has signed up to run something that is not yet released and then finds they don't like it but are committed to run it. Then they can either run it as best they can (and their lack of enthusiasm likely comes through) or they can drop it and let several people down, or if the option is available run something else which likely lets someone down. Either way they are likely to not do that again in a hurry and the GM pool is impacted.

Not everyone is gifted at hiding their true feelings about something while they are running a scenario. I'm not always gifted at it either.

But I am always reminded of something:

One time at Gen Con 2013, I was running a scenario I really didn't like, 4 times or so. And I put as much effort as I could into making it fun for the players rather than worrying about my own feelings. I found that as the players smiled, laughed, and engaged with not only the story, but my portrayal of the NPCs and my silly voices, that I had fun too.

And one of the players even commented that it was the most fun they'd had in PFS, ever. And this was from a multi-year veteran.

The anecdote is not to toot my own horn, but rather a very personal experience I wanted to share that is poignant and germane to this topic. I was dreading running that scenario 4 times. And it turned out that my effort to hide my feelings and work extra hard to make it fun, turned out an exceptional experience for not only the players, but for myself as well.

Now I don't mind running that scenario anymore. I actually enjoy it.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually liked the Segang Expedition too, but it felt like we had the exact skill set for that one in the party.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

ZomB wrote:
trollbill wrote:

Which begs the question, "How much of this is self-inflicted?"

If we, as GMs & coordinators tell our players we don't like the theme of the latest season and will not support it, why would we expect them to turn out for it?

What do you suggest the coordinators and GMs who don't like it do?

Well, for starters, unless you think harming your player base is worth proving your point (an attitude I find particularly selfish), don't inflict self-inflicted wounds by grousing to your players about how much you don't like it and how you refuse to support it. Do a little research. Ask your player base what they honestly think of the tech in Season 6 without, hopefully, poisoning them with rants prior to doing so. Collect data that Paizo can use to make an honest evaluation of how much people dislike the tech in Season 6 and give that to them rather than send hate-filled threats about how you are going to hold your breath until you turn blue if Paizo doesn't give you what you want.

Grand Lodge

Seeker mode question

Can I run this for some people playing in seeker mode and some in campaign mode in the same game?

Say 2 players are normal 12th level players, and the other 2-3 build appropriate 12th level characters. Can the full pfs players get seeker and the other 3 get campaign credit from the same game?

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

Michael Thompson wrote:

Seeker mode question

Can I run this for some people playing in seeker mode and some in campaign mode in the same game?

Say 2 players are normal 12th level players, and the other 2-3 build appropriate 12th level characters. Can the full pfs players get seeker and the other 3 get campaign credit from the same game?

No, mixing and matching the two formats is not allowed.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

PZ09543-Chronicle.pdf wrote:

Legal Pathfinder Society Characters

All players must use an existing Pathfinder Society character (without modification) within the legal character levels range for the specific sanctioned portion of the adventure being played.

Alternatively, you may play the entirety of Wardens of the Reborn Forge, afterward receiving credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the module are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign (such as 20-point buy, unavailability of hero points, etc.) when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters playing through this alternative format may not play in the same adventure. Characters in this format do not qualify for the fourth Chronicle sheet (see Seeker Arc Option below).

Pretty much the same rules as when playing in any of the adventures offering a campaign mode or PFS mode option.

Grand Lodge

Oops. Must have missed that in all the excitement of the release.

Grand Lodge

Sooooo...when will Iron Gods be ready for PFS play?

SM

Grand Lodge 5/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

StarMartyr365 wrote:

Sooooo...when will Iron Gods be ready for PFS play?

SM

It's on the list of things to look at. However, we don't have a date to provide for when, or if, it will be sanctioned.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
trollbill wrote:
EricMcG wrote:

Locally Fanexpo ends a season so the new season starts in September. A month after Season 6 began we had an 80% drop in attendance compared to the previous year, 40 players down to 8. There are likely a number of different reasons for this and numbers were declining anyway, but we still had 30+ players June to August and there was no post-Expo bump.

Demoyn likely saw the same kind of effect in his locale and came to his conclusion and he is neither the loudest voice nor a small minority.

They have been running pre-season 6 missions here and attendance has rebounded to about 13 players, but new Season 6 scenarios are now filling as well, so maybe there are other factors at play. I can only speak for myself, I will never run or play a Season 6 scenario.

And I haven't seen any of this locally. I don't recall anyone even saying they had a dislike for the tech of Season 6, let alone rail against it like some people on these forums have done. I am sure there are some. There were probably some that didn't like the demon theme of Season 5. But they are taking it in stride if they don't.

It might be worth pointing out that I really disliked the first couple of Season 6 scenarios and I utterly love the sword & circuit flavor of the Tech Guide and Iron Gods. There are lots of reasons why there might be some impact on attendance beyond "tech sucks and no one wants it."

5/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

The term I usually hear is "Sword and Blaster", and the first three season six scenarios are difficult, but fun. Scenario 06-02 was interesting for me since I compared it to the other Blakros scenarios, and it was not quite as good as was average for them. However still liked it, even though the horrible thing was difficult. We were greatly helped by an Archivist Bard that had the Technologist feat.

Grand Lodge

Michael Brock wrote:
StarMartyr365 wrote:

Sooooo...when will Iron Gods be ready for PFS play?

SM

It's on the list of things to look at. However, we don't have a date to provide for when, or if, it will be sanctioned.

Thank you for your reply! I would like to see all of the APs sanctioned at some point, however, I understand why that might not be possible. Iron Gods is the adventure that I've been waiting to play since I stated gaming in the mid 80s. I usually get stuck GMing so PFS is about the only way I'll get to play it.

SM

Dark Archive

I've seen absolutely no blacklash against the tech stuff in any of my local PFS play groups. Then again, the GMs and VO's don't sit around complaining about it either.


Question for John/Mike.

I recently started running this module with a mixed table of level 12 and 13 chracters under the assumption that notice has been given that this module would be sanctioned for pfs (eventually) and we would do sign in/reporting/chronicles once it was done.

We are not very far in but now I'm not sure of what happens as far as the level 12 players having the possable option to recive the 4th chronicle.

Would we have needed a party of level 12's only to hand out the rewards under the seeker option or will the level 12 players have the option to gain the 4th chronicle adventuring in a mixed party?

*edit Thanks for putting the chronicles together for this.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Kolby: As far as it is written in the Chronicle instructions, the only restrictions are:
Characters who are eligible to receive the 4th chronicle must have been 12th level, 33-35.5 XP, at the start of playing through the entirety of Wardens, must not have played anything else between starting Wardens with the first sanctioned part, playing the second sanctioned part, and playing the third sanctioned part.
All PCs involved must have been PFS legal PCs.

I admit that it is unclear as to whether it would be considered a "special challenge" if the actual party included any 11th or 13th level PFS PCs, in addition to the 12th level "Seeker" PCs.

I think it was stated, in one of the earlier posts in this thread, that you could, at least as a GM, give the 4th chronicle to a PC who had the full Eyes of the Ten on them, also.

From a post about this blog by John Compton, post 14 wrote:

The flavor of the option certainly lends itself toward applying credit only to a 12th-level character (or someone of a level appropriate to play using the Seeker Arc option), but there's nothing in the text that prohibits it.

Lightly spoiler-y other note: **spoiler omitted**

I don't have any problem with it.

Silver Crusade 2/5

John Compton wrote:
Michael Thompson wrote:

Seeker mode question

Can I run this for some people playing in seeker mode and some in campaign mode in the same game?

Say 2 players are normal 12th level players, and the other 2-3 build appropriate 12th level characters. Can the full pfs players get seeker and the other 3 get campaign credit from the same game?

No, mixing and matching the two formats is not allowed.

Looks like John is implying no mixing and matching.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Victor Zajic wrote:
I've seen absolutely no blacklash against the tech stuff in any of my local PFS play groups. Then again, the GMs and VO's don't sit around complaining about it either.

A player I was playing in a game with last night expressed specific excitement about Season 6 because of these elements. (There were two VOs in this game, but it was one of the other players who expressed this opinion.)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
DesolateHarmony wrote:
John Compton wrote:
No, mixing and matching the two formats is not allowed.
Looks like John is implying no mixing and matching.

...I do not think that word means what you think it means... :)

Aside:
My reading of your post was that you meant "imply" in jest. Sometimes hard to read these things on messageboards.


From my interpretation of the organized play rules for this module I think the situation I'm in with 3x level 13 and 2x level 12 allows for only the two 12's to get the bonus chronicle "if" having a mixed level party at the start does not disqualify them.

Just want to get official clarification.

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵

John Compton wrote:
Michael Thompson wrote:

Seeker mode question

Can I run this for some people playing in seeker mode and some in campaign mode in the same game?

Say 2 players are normal 12th level players, and the other 2-3 build appropriate 12th level characters. Can the full pfs players get seeker and the other 3 get campaign credit from the same game?

No, mixing and matching the two formats is not allowed.

While I can see a reason for not mixing Campaign mode & Seeker mode, is there a prohibition against having a full take of PFS legal PCs consisting of several Seeker candidates & others who have PCs of either 11th or 13th level?

Silver Crusade 5/5

Seeker Arc requires the entire module be played from beginnng to end, including content not sanctioned for normal PFS play, creating an awkward situation where someone not running as a Seeker could lose their character in a part not sanctioned for normal PFS play. So as far as I can tell, PC's only have the Seeker Arc option available to them if all of the PC's at the table are level twelve, with 33.0-35.5 exp.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Kolby Sample wrote:

From my interpretation of the organized play rules for this module I think the situation I'm in with 3x level 13 and 2x level 12 allows for only the two 12's to get the bonus chronicle "if" having a mixed level party at the start does not disqualify them.

Just want to get official clarification.

John Compton is the official to clarify. He and Mike Brock run PFS. So, when he says no mixing and matching, there is no mixing and matching. If they want that fourth chronicle, you need level 12 characters and play under PFS rules.

John Compton wrote:
Michael Thompson wrote:

Seeker mode question

Can I run this for some people playing in seeker mode and some in campaign mode in the same game?

Say 2 players are normal 12th level players, and the other 2-3 build appropriate 12th level characters. Can the full pfs players get seeker and the other 3 get campaign credit from the same game?

No, mixing and matching the two formats is not allowed.

Grand Lodge 5/5

This module is not listed as a reportable when I tried to create an event online. Is there any way this module can be reported before the aforementioned issue is addressed?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

DesolateHarmony wrote:
Kolby Sample wrote:

From my interpretation of the organized play rules for this module I think the situation I'm in with 3x level 13 and 2x level 12 allows for only the two 12's to get the bonus chronicle "if" having a mixed level party at the start does not disqualify them.

Just want to get official clarification.

John Compton is the official to clarify. He and Mike Brock run PFS. So, when he says no mixing and matching, there is no mixing and matching. If they want that fourth chronicle, you need level 12 characters and play under PFS rules.

John Compton wrote:
Michael Thompson wrote:

Seeker mode question

Can I run this for some people playing in seeker mode and some in campaign mode in the same game?

Say 2 players are normal 12th level players, and the other 2-3 build appropriate 12th level characters. Can the full pfs players get seeker and the other 3 get campaign credit from the same game?

No, mixing and matching the two formats is not allowed.

The question has nothing to do with campaign mode. Campaign mode is non-PFS PCs, not a mixed party of all PFS PCs.

John's answer was for mixing PFS PCs for a sanctioned section in with non-PFS PCs playing the whole module.

Also note, as mentioned above, it appears that, in order to play it as the Seeker arc, you would need to play a section of the module, the entire C area, C1-C18, which is not sanctioned for PFS.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

Note that while you can't play PFS PCs in campaign mode, you can clone your PFS PCs and play the clones. By which I mean, you can have PCs that are statistically and backgroundly identical to your PFS PCs. It's just that the experience (both in terms of game mechanics and life experience) that the clones who play through the module get will not apply to the actual PFS PCs, and the clones themselves are not PFS legal. Of course, you may well then be able to apply the "pregen" chronicle sheets you get from playing campaign mode back to the PFS character you cloned from.

This may sound like cheating, but it's really not. You're not playing a PFS PC in campaign mode. But, if you really like that character and want to play that character, you're allowed (with GM permission) to play a character that happens to have the background and stats that indicate that it's gone on a bunch of missions for the Pathfinder Society and made friends with various factions, etc.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Rknop, if your comment is talking about making clones of PFS PC's so they can play in the non-sanctioned parts of Wardens that appear in Seeker Arc mode so other people can get the benefits of the Seeker Arc, then that would be mixing and matching Seeker Arc and campaign mode, which was specifically disallowed.

If however, you're just talking about people making versions of their PFS characters to play at a table of people all playing in campaign mode (not Seeker Arc), then that is absolutely fine. I've got people playing in my campaign mode run of Wardens that are using versions of their PFS PC's retooled for the rules of my run in camagn mode, I even told them they could use all the boons their characters had acquired on chronicles. In campaign mode it's our show, and we get to run it however we want.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka The Great Rinaldo!

John/Mike, do you expect to make any of the unique feats or items in the module available for players, particularly in Seeker mode?

Specific example:
I can see spellcasters wanting to take Stable Spell or buy a Stable rod when they get their first chronicle and level up to 13.

Silver Crusade 2/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 aka cartmanbeck

You can get a Stable Rod from the third chronicle, but getting the feat is different, true. If it's not on the chronicle right now, you probably can never access it, because the Modules don't have an Additional Resources entry the way Adventure Paths do.

Silver Crusade 5/5

That's something I would like to see, now that you mention it. The 64-page format modules have a lot of cool stuff that would be pretty sweet to have available for Society Play. Void Glass from Dragon's Demand, a there's a pretty sweet pair of boots in Tears that seem pretty reasonable, along with an item in Wardens that would make taking enemy casters alive much more feasible. Is there any chance we might get AR entries for the modules in the future?

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

So the question seems to be...

Can you play the module with PFS characters without going through the Seeker ark?

Campaign mode is a home game that give credit to PFS characters after the module has been played, I played The Dragon's Demand in this way.

End of line...

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolby Sample wrote:

Question for John/Mike.

I recently started running this module with a mixed table of level 12 and 13 chracters under the assumption that notice has been given that this module would be sanctioned for pfs (eventually) and we would do sign in/reporting/chronicles once it was done.

We are not very far in but now I'm not sure of what happens as far as the level 12 players having the possable option to recive the 4th chronicle.

Would we have needed a party of level 12's only to hand out the rewards under the seeker option or will the level 12 players have the option to gain the 4th chronicle adventuring in a mixed party?

*edit Thanks for putting the chronicles together for this.

The Eyes of the Ten series has a sharp cutoff of starting at exactly 33 XP (which has its pros and cons), and I wanted to ensure that the special method of experiencing Wardens of the Reborn Forge would have a more generous window to make it easier to run the adventure without a lot of careful coordination—especially since it took so long to sanction this module. That window involves the PCs all starting at 12th level, even if their exact XP total is not the same. That doesn't account for some of the PCs starting at 13th level, though, and the Seeker Arc Option is intended for a group that is all participating in that special option.

In speaking with Mike, we have agreed that the Seeker Arc Option is only available if all of the participants qualify. The primary three Chronicle sheets are still available for groups of mixed levels.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Basically if I get this right, 13th level characters can play this module as I see that part 1 tiers up to 13, but they can't qualify for the fourth sheet even if they go all the way through?

It's relevant because I'm in a group of people going through the Seeker Arc for Eyes of Ten right now and if we survive this, we'll be at 13.2 coming out.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

LazarX wrote:

Basically if I get this right, 13th level characters can play this module as I see that part 1 tiers up to 13, but they can't qualify for the fourth sheet even if they go all the way through?

It's relevant because I'm in a group of people going through the Seeker Arc for Eyes of Ten right now and if we survive this, we'll be at 13.2 coming out.

That is correct. The Seeker Arc Option only applies for groups that start with 33–35.5 XP (12th level), but the starting Chronicle sheet's level range is 11–13. A group of level 13.2 characters could play through the whole module, just barely qualifying for each of the first three Chronicle sheets.

51 to 100 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: End the Year on a High[-Level] Note! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.