I feel like individual volumes of APs are relatively standalone. These 3- part APs have shown that you can switch and swap different parts of different APs together and still have satisfying arcs and stories. At the end of the day it's about the players, and less about the (loosely framed) narrative in these books, which rarely build on previous Npcs or locations.
So my initial reaction to this was "meh, I've seen it before in other systems", but then I remembered that you get more ancestry feats as you level up, and suddenly this becomes very interesting.
Now as a player you can determine how human and how orcish/elven you are.
Very much looking forward to how the ancestry feats will shake out now.
Marco Massoudi wrote:
Ooh I like this idea. Having a new world order style Inner Sea World Guide would be awesome. Extra points if the APs are shown to be canonical to the world's progression.
I've actually ranked my hypedness for each class that's been previewed thus far:
As you can tell, I'm not too hyped at the new alchemical mechanics, but I think its more a case that the new martial options sound a lot more meaty and diverse to me, so I've plenty more ideas for builds for each of them.
Like it sounds as though you could easily build three completely different types of Barbarians, Monks, and Paladins. Rogues and Alchemists sound overall quite same-y.
Expect updates upon more class previews!
So are we talking combat-wise, or is utility a factor?
I do like Lady-J's answer though, because commoner is objectively worse than a rogue, with worse BAB, saves, fewer class skills, and no class features. But I assume OP didn't have NPC classes in mind.
been playing persona 5 lately, and I've been thinking of making a phantom thief type class. Currently dabbling with the idea of a vigilante/medium hybrid class, or perhaps just a medium-flavored vigilante archetype or vice versa. My original thoughts on it were that medium itself would be enough, but I think the build could benefit from elements of the vigilante (like dual identity).
I'm so glad you brought up APs. I'm under no illusion that these kind of subsystem would lend itself to a published AP, but lately I've been feeling a little unsatisfied with APs in general. I'm finding them a bit too rigid and gated within themselves. Like if players don't do X, then they cannot advance past point Y. I've only run two APs (Rise of the Runelords and Iron Gods), and read a third (Mummy's Mask) from start to finish, and I'm just finding that they lack a certain amount of thematic consistency, from a narrative standpoint there's little scope for twists or turns, "revelations" feel stilted and lack punch. And that probably because the AP isn't so much about the players as it is about the AP.
I'm looking to broaden my horizons and perhaps run a more sandbox-y adventure, and emphasizing a class's place in the setting would hopefully add to that. In that same idea, I'd want to scale levelling back. Whenever I start with a new group, they always comment on how rapidly their characters level up in the AP. When its happens every week or every other week it feels more like homework, or so I've been told. Don't get me wrong, I love the rush of leveling up, but not so much as to cost diminishing returns.
But yeah, maybe rolling it back a bit and asking for downtimes with regards to levelling might be more streamlined. I mean there's nothing preventing me from listening to those descriptions and developing encounters or scenarios based on them.
Too often there's a disconnect between a character's class and what that class represents in the campaign's setting. A fledgling wizard who has spent their life studying to reach level 1, seems to ascend to universe-creating levels of power without doing more than reading their own journal on thereafter. A medium who forges a pact with a spirit, is granted increasingly greater powers without ever renegotiating their deal with said spirit. Or the mighty fighter seems to intuitively learn more efficient fighting styles as they adventure (Well this one I can almost get behind).
I like to think that PC classes separate players from NPCs, they are special in some way, and on a different level from NPCs. It seems the training to assume a player class can be quite difficult, so why is it that that character can then self-teach themselves all the way to level 20?
I'd like to implement a system that gates leveling, and requires the completion of class-specific quests, to earn new levels (assuming the players have accrued enough XP). Maybe the aforementioned wizard must periodically return to the acadamae where they first trained to pass a trial or test. The medium may seek out the help of a mysterious hag who offers advice on securing more favorable pacts with spirits, while entering further into their own imbalanced deal with the hag. The fighter may be compelled to seek out celebrated warriors who can teach them the finer points of a fighting technique.
The fear would be that this kind of thing would break the pace of a campaign. But these quests needn't be too arduous, they should only serve as acknowledgements that players are of a certain class, that their power is growing, and the world acknowledges that fact.
What kinds of thoughts or opinions do other people have on this kind of leveling system? Has anyone tried using a system like this in the past? How did it work out?
So when the Villain Codex was released I was quite happy to hear that it included the new feat "Two-Weapon Grace". Finally, I thought, a Dex-to-damage build for two-weapon fighting that might provide viable builds to stay up to scratch with a two-handed fighter. Y'know something in line to how the Advanced Class Guide tried to patch up One-handed Dex fighter builds.
Quick note: when I say "fighter" I don't mean the class, it's more a reference to the build.
But I revisited that feat this week and was distraught to find that I'd misread it initially, and that it actually imposes a further -2 penalty to attack rolls when used. WHY? Why would you even make this feat if you're going to just add this egregious cost to what is already a feat-heavy build?
I crunched the numbers, and it turns out that you can get maybe 2 damage per hit extra, compared to a strength-based-damage two-weapon fighting build. I apologize for all the hyphens by the way, I swear I'm trying to use them correctly. The problem is that this extra 2 points of damage, comes at the cost of even more feats to make it work.
And feats are only one of the costs associated with two-weapon fighting. The simple fact is that you are less likely to hit on a per-attack basis. Sure, in the long run you land more blows, but your damage-to-attack ratio is way off compared to every martial character who swing a greataxe or a falchion. This problem is only exacerbated as DR becomes the norm for enemies you face up against. DR punishes two-weapon fighters twice as hard, because the little damage they put out gets soaked up that much faster.
The last big cost of two-weapon fighting is the monetary cost. You now have two weapons to maintain and upgrade instead of one. When single-weapon fighters are reaching their +5 enhancement bonus, the two-weapon fighter is still struggling to make ends meat to make sure both their weapons are at a +4.This once again makes DR a bigger problem for the two-weapon fighter.
Now in case it wasn't obvious, I LOVE two-weapon fighters, or rather, the concept of two-weapon fighters. I have three of them in PFS, heck one of them is high enough a level to take on the seeker arc. But they simply underperform at a table when paired with some schlub waving about his oversized hurtstick with two-hands.
Some of the arguments I've seen for nerfing two-weapon fighting is that bonuses are more pronounced, like a rogue's sneak attack, a ranger's favored enemy bonus, or a bard's inspire courage. IF this is the reasoning behind it then I feel unconvinced. My rogue has never landed more than one sneak attack in a round, inspire courage doesn't really help enough with DR issues, and favored enemy is too situational.
I'd really like to know why two-weapon fighting is designed to perform so poorly, I'm probably missing something rudimentary, but I just can't see it.
The Gold Sovereign wrote:
I was thinking this as well. Its awesome to wildshape a la beast shape, elemental body, form of the dragon, etc. But I'd REALLY like to see some love for transforming into celestials, infernals, lawful,and chaotic outsiders. Think the Eidolon subtypes from unchained Summoner, but maybe encompassing even more outsiders that didn't get any love in Pathfinder Unchained, like kami, kytons, qlippoth, etc. In fact, why not introduce these eidolon subtypes in the hardcover as well?
Also, does anyone else think of the Harmonixer class from the Shaodw Hearts series when they think of the shifter?
Yeah, I'd have to disagree with OP's post, there are plenty of high-level world-shaping shenanigans, going on in Golarion. Baba Yaga and Razmir are just the starting point. You have the Runelords, the Wizard rulers of Geb and Nex that have also been mentioned, Tar Baphon who was only taken down by a God. Oh that's right, some people have literally ascended to Godhood in the setting.
The Inner Sea World Guide, pretty much has at least one such game-breaking (read world-changing) NPC per country. And I really loved that when I read it. Because I felt it helped to make sense why there was no singular BBEG, there's several dozen of them all at various stages in their plans for world domination/destruction/etc. and are often the primary antagonists in Adventure Paths.
And that's just Golarion, never mind the Mythic-tier nonsense that occasionally leaks in from other planes of existence.
You've already banned paladins and zen archers for being too strong. However, if you keep banning the strongest option, then the second-strongest option will just be the new strongest option.
That's exactly my point, I can't just keep bringing down the ban hammer on everything or there'll be nothing left. So I need more creative solutions.
Example: the players are invading a chamber in which a robot overlord lairs. He's used cameras and observer bots to spy on the players and he knows what to expect. So the room is filled with thick smoke that causes trouble breathing and obstructs vision. This is a problem for the gunslinger, but the arcanist might be able to use Gust of Wind spells to clear a firing line for him. However, that clean area will only last for so long if the smoke-belching apparatus continues working. So someone needs to get there and destroy it. But it's heavily armored to a disarm/rogueish approach will probably work better than trying to blow through heaps of HP. Meanwhile, guardian critters are converging on the party from all directions hidden by the smoke (but using built-in radar functioning as blindsight) and the party will need a melee guy to keep them...
Excellent suggestion. I suppose I forgot that combats can include non-combat elements. We have a Rogue as well in the party, and making greater use of the environment will not only add to the complexity of encounters but also the options available to engage enemies. I like it, I'll try tweaking encounters accordingly.
One tweak I used when running this part that my players seemed to get a real buzz out of, was that opposition schools to a wing's school simply didn't work while in that wing. i.e conjuration and transmutation spells didn't work while in the the Shimmering Veils.
Even though some wings shut down an entire class (e.g. most summoner spells and even calling one's eidolon stopped functioning in the Halls of Wrath), my players loved having to rethink strategies. Suddenly the Dragon Disciple couldn't transform into a dragon any more, and the Arcanist loved the chance to try out different spells that he wouldn't otherwise gotten around to using.
At one stage an enemy teleported to a different wing, but had teleported to a wing where conjuration spells didn't work. So they didn't have the same escape options and were that bit more desperate in the second confrontation.
Definitely sounds like system mastery, blending so many different character options together, I am thoroughly impressed! May I ask how she went about employing her various crafting feats? The crafting system in general makes me break out in hives.
If I'm understanding this correctly, you would suggest I use my all-powerful GM abilities to nerf the techslinger class? Maybe nerf is too strong a word though, but basically re-write how it functions?
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
No the problem isn't that the others aren't doing damage. Its just that the techslinger cuts through bad guys like a hot knife through butter so there's very little fun to be had for the rest of the party, because after the techslinger has their turn there's only a fraction of the encounter left.
While maybe not min-maxed, I wouldn't say the other PCs are sub-par. It's just that classic problem with Gunslingers and Swashbucklers. There's pretty much just one way to build it. WIthout being completely obtuse. Its not like they can choose what rage powers they get, or the spells they learn. They just have a set of abilities and not building around their proficiencies makes no sense.
No no no, you're not thinking big enough. A Colossal Cyborg Void Dragon in a Mecha Suit
Ah I'd seen that, but that one word "may" worries me.
Hey guys, I'm GMing Iron Gods, and my party has reached the Palace of the Fallen Stars. They're currently level 14 and nearly every player has had at least one character death.
The only character left from the original party is our Techslinger. Now the other players have started taking notice that this guy is putting out crazy damage each turn while they struggle to dent enemies. And the main problem lies in the Techslinger's ability to hit touch AC. It's infuriating if I'm being honest. Like I said, the other players have taken note and we now have an archer fighter, who, for all intents and purposes should technically have the same damage output. But they don't hit touch AC so they're underperforming by comparison.
One saving grace is that many of the enemies in this AP are constructs, therefore, have hardness, therefore are classified as objects, and therefore take half damage from energy-based attacks. I haven't been enforcing this for our lightning-themed arcanist, but thats in an effort to balance it. Because even when I apply these damage modifiers, the arcanist is just barely keeping up with the damage output of a full round attack from our 'slinger.
I really need advice how to fairly balance this issue. I've spoken with the player. And they themself say they now hate the class. Thinks its broken AF, but because they're the only survivor of the original party they want to see the game through to the end with this character.
I've previously brought the ban-hammer down on Paladins, Summoners, and Zen-archer monks after each of those acted as one-man parties in previous campaigns. But I can't keep adding to that list. I'm desperate for suggestions here guys, what do you think?
Oh sweet baby Erastil that is an ugly logo and cover for the core rulebook.
The original mock up logo was a bit flat but at least it was clean. Now it looks like a mishmash of the Animorphs logo and some kind of testosterone-laden military-themed game from the 80s.
As for the cover, while I understand the desire to show off the iconics, the original android/kasatha/ratfolk poster was much better composed. Judging by just about every other hardcover released for the Pathfinder line, we'll actually end up with some kind of intense battle scene that includes an iconic or two. But really hoping that this is just a mock-up placeholder.
Don't get me wrong, I'll still be buying these products, but I REALLY hope that the final product looks a little more appealing. Though I have a feeling the ship has sailed on that unfortunate logo.
Hey guys, so I've been thinking about this build the last couple of days based on the Astrologian Job from Final Fantasy XIV.
For those of you unfamiliar with it, its basically a healer type character who uses the power of astronomy and fate to heal and buff allies. One of its cool features is the ability to provide a random buff to party members by pulling from a tarot-like deck of cards. Sound familiar?
I've decided that they're essentially a combination of the Harrower and Stargazer prestige classes. So I'm thinking something like Cleric of Pulura 5/Harrower 10/Stargazer 5 for a level 20 build.
But I started thinking about it more and really they're more Stargazer than Cleric, and I was wondering if using the retraining rules I could turn some of those cleric level into Stargazer levels? Technically the basic requirements of being able to cast 3rd level spells is offset by the Harrower prestige class.
Without Cleric levels I end up with no spell list, so the best I could get to is Cleric of Pulura 1/Harrower 10/Stargazer 9.
But is this legal, or am I cheating the prerequisites of the prestige class?
Hmm, definitely getting the sense that you guys are better at adapting the AP to suit your players. I think my style of GMing could definitely do with developing that skill.
Moving forward I think I'll be treating them less like gospel and more like a framework to bust out as needed, and just avoid railroading in general.
I like CCS's recommendation to read the entire AP through. I've run two APs more or less blind now, and its been really irritating when I've found out in later parts that an early NPC was more important than I played them. Or that I glossed over a detail that returns in later parts.
The problem with that then are the locations. Especially important towns or cities. How do I make them feel lived in and how do you develop side-plots or characters effectively and efficiently? But that may be getting off topic and is probably covered in another thread.
captain yesterday wrote:
Yup, those would make more sense. Must've had a mental block as I was writing that post :P
So in my short career as a GM, I’ve noticed two approaches to prewritten campaign structures. The first is more all-encompassing, and prescriptive, much like Pathfinder Society scenarios, or the Rise of the Runelords AP, and mean less work for GMs, with everything the game will need written on the page.
The alternative is more descriptive, and more of a rough outline of a campaign, that provides a Big bad and some major events and dungeons, but maybe lacking the detail in between those points. This style seems to allow for greater control on the part of the GM who can weave the story as they like.
For shorthand sake we’ll refer to the former as prescriptive and the latter as descriptive. The prescriptive is a railroad adventure with little room for player character development. It does however leave you with a much more coherent storytelling that requires less “filler” so that you can get right to the most important bits. The descriptive however can lead to wide expanses of possibility but runs the risks of derailing from the story entirely. It requires more improvisation, and arguably more preparation on the part of the GM, but it allows for a deeper connection with the setting and its characters.
Having spent most of my hours as a GM running PFS, I’ve come to think of all prewritten material as prescriptive. But a recent dalliance with 5th ed, has opened my mind to descriptive storytelling. Now I’m having some serious issues with Iron Gods as a prescriptive structure, and I’m starting to think it was never meant to be run as written, and that maybe I’ve approached Aps the wrong way up until now. So my question is, do you use a more prescriptive or descriptive approach when GMing Adventure Paths?
Glad to hear about the other empyreal lords, by the end of my Rise of the Runelords campaign more than half the party was worshipping one of those lords in particular.
Also, I LOVE the artwork for the muse, definitely gonna have to build a PFS character around the art.
Wow, I really wasn't expecting this thread to branch out into so many topics, but its great to see so many opinions and perspectives on it. And I definitely wasn't expecting Tonya to weigh in, but thank you for taking time to get involved!
With the benefit of distance from the event and additional clarity, there was little that could be done. At one stage I found myself moving a problematic player's pawn and realized I'd crossed a line. I realized that no matter how frustrating their actions were, I'd broken the social contract that we were each in control of our respective characters. And if my words couldn't get through to them then I was in no way entitled to play their characters for them.
To be completely honest, I don't think there was malicious intent behind these players' actions. It was more the case of suffering the consequences of the rule system, such as a gunslinger needing to reload their gun, thus provoking an attack of opportunity or a rogue's stealth-ing invariably splitting the party. My experience has shown that a party can sustain one player making poor choices like these, but when half the party begins taking disadvantageous actions there's not a lot to be done.
Tonya, you suggested getting the event organizer involved, but unfortunately in this case, that would have been me. And I suppose I simply didn't have the necessary experience to better handle the situation. Moving forward, I may encourage GMs to go "softer" on tables with so many new players.
I suppose that then raises the question; how much should/can GMs deviate from scenarios as written, or more specifically battle tactics as written? But I'm sure that that topic has been discussed in other threads.
Ok, it seems I'm in a minority about level 1 characters. But some very valid points have been made. This was a thread mainly borne out of frustration than anything else. It was a frustration caused by careless and obtuse first-time players and I suppose I was directing my frustration at an abstract rule rather than at the problematic players.
Compared to losing, say, a level 4 character to several uncaring newbies, this was a minor setback. I suppose I was just hoping to hear of others who had had similar unjust experiences.
All that said, I would hope that my experience (and other players with similar ones) with difficult players help shape future rulings or policies.
What different resources?
And Kenku, you've completely ignored my point that there is no difference between two identically built Druids aside from which character number each one belongs to.
As a point I don't spend gp or pp before level 2 for this very reason.
Sorry for the confusion Jeff, Matt, I was playing a Sylph Druid I'd built myself, not a pregen. The problem is that due to the new rules I have to elect which of my characters will get credit before sitting down to the game (i.e. XXXXX-10). So even if it had been a pregen I was playing, my -10 would still receive the chronicle sheet of death. Previously, if you had been playing a pregen you could elect another character number after a TPK, so none of your existing characters would suffer.
I suppose my argument is that at level 1 all characters are transient and can be completely rebuilt before level 2, which puts them on the same level as a pregen. For instance my Sylph Druid could be a Half-Orc Paladin in the next game and would still have all its chronicle sheets. But theoretically, there's nothing differentiating my XXXXX-10 Druid from my (not even yet registerred) XXXXX-11 Druid in terms of what's on their character sheets. So why not assign the chronicle sheet of death to my XXXXX-11 Druid, and save the XP of my XXXXX-10 Druid?
The thing is problematic players aren't really hurt by this new rule, dedicated players who have actually put their time into their characters are. A problematic player is going to be problematic with or without consequences. In fact the players who caused trouble at the previously mentioned game refused to take their chronicle sheets at the end. So I'm just not seeing the logic in why I can't reassign that chronicle sheet to an inconsequential character number that I haven't even built yet.
And Minna is right, it was indeed
Spoiler:which meant that there were thugs hidden among the brawlers looking to do us harm.
Shades of Ice Part 1
So firstly, apologies to the forum mods. I saw that you've already locked a thread on this very discussion. But I feel the need to share my experience this weekend and illustrate why I think the new rule about being unable to reassign level 1 deaths isn't entirely well thought-out.
So pros of the new system: real risk, real play, no messing about. I get that, in theory you're less likely to suffer problematic players.
The problem is that problematic players now have an even greater ability to cause harm, as with what happened this weekend. Now I'm prefacing this by saying I'll be griping about 1 previously earned XP. Just 1, surely I should let that go, right? Well why should I? I earned that XP, I earned the gold, I earned the Prestige. I paid for that game in money, in time playing, in time building the character. That was 3-4 hours of my life playing, and several more building the character. That's time I can spend doing other things, but I didn't, I chose to play Pathfinder and I respectfully played the game and earned my chronicle sheet.
But this weekend I was playing a game at a convention with many first time Pathfinder players. Players not entirely aware of the gravity of society play. Players who did not want to listen to advice on the best way to approach combat. Who deliberately did not engage in combat as I an entire bar brawl turned on us. Because as a Rogue pregen, the first-time player wished to stealth away. As a Gunslinger pregen, could not decide whether to drop a pistol and fight in melee or to provoke attacks of opportunity by shooting in melee. Despite gentle prodding from both myself and the GM, these players refused to assist in combat. And because of this, we were TPK'ed.
I was so angry, because I was powerless to do anything but watch as we were outnumbered and swarmed by NPC who weren't even armed. I couldn't escape because we were surrounded, and I couldn't just play their characters for them. And so my character died.
These players had had Pathfinder Society explained to them before the game. They understood what was at risk, but they endangered my character in the process.
This is a petulant, and childish rant, I know, I should be a bigger man. But after a situation like this I'm not allowed to reassign the death to an unplayed character. That's frustrating. That was a meaningless death and a waste of 8+ hours of my life because of a poorly conceived change to the rules.
OH SWEET BABY JESUS YES!!!!!
I'd love to see mecha battles in the upcoming Starfinder, but as people have already mentioned, big mecha battles create a severe power imbalance. While mythic rules might be a good starting point (with a lot of adaptation needed), you'll effectively be splitting any kind of AP in to two "modes" one with normal PCs, and one where the PCs fight in warmachines. Getting a satisfying blend of the two may not be easy.
I'd also imagine that you'd have to provide several mecha options that different class builds can take advantage of. Obviously if Dex or Int were the main steering stats, you'd end up with a party of maybe just 2 classes. So you'd have to create several classes of mecha suits. Maybe one that magnifies the magical power of its pilot, while other benefit primarily from the pilot's fighting expertise.
Some people seem concerned about mecha fights not being suitable or appropriate for the typical dungeon crawl we're used to seeing in RPGs. I'd have to disagree, games like xenogears and xenosaga have done it quite well. The trick is to make sure that the enemy is also fighting in mechs. Of course kaiju-sized enemies would also be appropriate. Man could you imagine fighting a space-dragon in a mech? How cool would that be?
Either way, I wouldn't expect to see mechs in the core rulebook. It definitely seems like something that would need to make up a large chunk of another hardcover. But hey, that just means that Paizo will have more content to release for Starfinder later on.
I'd definitely like to see some psychic representation in Starfinder.
With the whole idea of mixing science and magic, I can totally see science and psionic powers mixing. I've always been a stickler for the tortured science experiment who manifested destructive powers as a result. For me Psychics fit that mold better than arcane. Divine also make sense. But nothing scarier than needles and other sharp implements suddenly levitating before being flung in the direction of a merciless, but defenseless scientist.
Hmm what would I want from Pathfinder in space? I mean Starfinder...
Well first things first, I'd like to feel like I'm in space, so some kind of interplanetary travel at the very least, but preferable some kind of system where I can find/buy/modify a spaceship. I'd like to build a crew, or more than likely fill in the gaps in the crew that the PCs don't already occupy.
As a plot, perhaps discover the remains of ancient race that had its fingerprints in some of the civilizations found on Golarion (full disclosure: I'm not sure how Osirion is explained in Pathfinder lore, but think ancient race comes and build pyramids then leaves without a trace), and now also crops up on some of these unexplored planets. Maybe by tracking members of this ancient race down the PCs might be able to unlock some clue as to the fate of Golarion.
I'd also like to see a mix of both primitive and advanced races to fight, with terrifying megafauna ready to swallow me whole one second, and an all powerful technomancer ready to obliterate me the next.
Settling and establishing a colony on an unexplored planet would be cool, like something in the vain of Kingmaker but with more aliens. But that would be a separate AP.
Those are just some ideas I'd like to see.
lol I didn't mean part II literally, instead I meant that there was scope to return to Tian Xia.
Of course there's plenty of scope to develop an AP for a number of untapped countries/places in Golarion. The ones I listed above would just be my poor attempt at narrowing down a top pick.
Thanks, this actually makes a lot of sense. As I understand there's maybe fewer members on the PFS team than fingers on the average hand. And APs/modules do have quite a lot of content. With the amount of content they produce on a monthly basis its a miracle we aren't plagued with delays.
With the recent updates to the pregen iconic roster, I have every faith that the team will eventually circle back to the old APs.
However a new question occurs to me; if the writers and editors for the APs are aware of the PFS chronicle sheet system, then why don't they try to develop an appropriate one as they write the AP? I have a feeling that its because the PFS team work separately, and therefore collaborating on these projects would slow down both teams, but I just wanna make sure I understand the mechanics of this machine.
I've been playing Pathfinder for about 2 years now, and so I've arrived somewhat late in the game where nearly everything was already in place. But I've noticed that there's a delay with chronicle sheets being made for APs. I'm sure there's any number of reasons behind this, but my question is; what is the typical amount of time between an APs release and it getting a set of chronicle sheets?
Secondly, why do some of the older APs have chronicle sheets but not others? Sure, in the case of Wrath of the Righteous you have mythic ranks which would be impossible to make work for PFS play, but what's the deal with say Second Darkness or Legacy of Fire?