Bojask

Bob Hopp's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 75 posts (77 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 5 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Guy Martelle wrote:

I also am interseted in starting PFS play in Dubuque. I was planning on talking to Comic World about starting weekly game play. We have recently started weekly PFS in Platteville WI at UWP but are slaved to class schedules and are currently in winter break https://www.warhorn.net/events/platteville-wi-uwp-pfs. We are planning on 20 tables of PFS play at Plattecon 6-8 March. Sign up is open on warhorn https://www.warhorn.net/events/plattecon

I am very interested in supporting any PFS gaming interest in Dubuque.

Just an update for any interested players searching the boards:

Guy has been organizing (and GMing, most of the time) PFS games at least bi-weekly at Comic World & Games. I have played both Core and Classic with our merry band of Pathfinders, and it has been great. Come join in the fun!

Event Schedule at: https://warhorn.net/events/dubuque-pfs

Dark Archive

I just came back after a similar break, and Core Campaign was a huge surprise to me. Basically, there is a separate PFS campaign wherein you can only take things for your character that are in the Core Rulebook. This goes for race, feats, class, equipment, etc. (unless a chronicle sheet gives you access). You can ignore that whole Core thing and just continue to play your existing characters, though.

However, it becomes important for you if you are signing up for a PFS scenario. If the GM is running the scenario for the Core Campaign, you won't be able to use your non-Core characters. For session reporting purposes, it's all or none: if it's going to be logged as Core, then only Core characters can play and get credit. If it's non-Core (I believe "Classic" is the term), then only non-Core characters can play and get credit. There can be no cross-pollination, so to speak.

Usually, GMs posting events for open signup are pretty clear, but if they just tack "(core)" on the end of the description & you don't know what that means, that could lead to frustration. As I said, this may not impact you at all, but I wanted to say something so you don't show up to play at a PFS table only to be told, "You can't play with us."

Good luck and welcome back!

Dark Archive

TimD wrote:

Sad (and surprised Paizo would go with Tor).

-TimD

TimD, would you care to expand on why you linked that particular blog post? I'm sure you were trying to make a point, but I don't get it.

Dark Archive

Jeff Alvarez wrote:


Hey Wally West,

Our warehouse is cranking out orders as quickly as we can. We have between 6 and 8 full-time folks down there picking and packing orders all day long but there's just a ton of orders to get through. In addition to the sale, we also had a subscription run right in the middle of things that added loads of more orders into the process.

There are all kinds of reasons why someone's order from the first few days of the sale might not have shipped yet. They may have had their CC declined and we're waiting for them to fix things, they may have ordered something that we don't have in stock (something that wasn't on sale) and we might be waiting for that product to come in, or maybe their order was so huge that it is hung-up in our system (and we've had some with hundreds of items). Honestly there are a variety of reasons why something like this might have happened and we're working as hard as we can to get answers for those folks and get orders shipped.

I can say that everything we put on sale is in house (ie we're not waiting for it to come in from a supplier) so that's not the problem. There's just a ton of orders and that takes time.

Jeff,

I understand what you are saying, but if I recall correctly, we had much the same situation with the last Great Golem Sale. Now that we're nearing the end of this sale, and the order I placed at the beginning of the sale still hasn't shipped, I am having serious doubts as to whether I will participate in Paizo.com's next big sale.
I am a Paizo fan, and I am sure that "too many orders" is a great problem to have. However, it seems like maybe you folks can't handle this kind of volume in a way that keeps your customers happy. I would hate to see the faith of Paizo's loyal customer base falter when maybe all that is needed is a temporary staffing increase.
All the best,
Bob Hopp

Dark Archive

Bumpity, bump, bump, bump!

Well, Comic World & Games has begun holding boardgame night on Tuesdays. Still no PFS there, that I am aware of. Any Dubuque gamers doing any PFS these days?

Dark Archive

I'm looking to get back into PFS, and I recently moved to Dubuque. I didn't find any regular PFS games at Comic World (or even board games). Where is all the PFS going on?

Please drop me a line if you have info about gaming in Dubuque.

Thanks!
bobhopp@gmail.com

Dark Archive

Thank you both for your answers. I thought of a slightly different question on the same topic:

If we come across scrolls or spellbooks containing 1st level spells during a scenario, can we scribe those for only the scribing cost? Or, since they will never appear on the chronicle (scrolls of 0th or 1st level are always available), will we need to buy the scroll then pay to scribe it as well?

Dark Archive

I would like clarification on the "Wizards and Their Spellbooks" section of The Guide.

1. Does successfully scribing a scroll found during a scenario remove it from the wizard's chronicle? That is, can a wizard scribe a spell then ALSO buy the scroll of that same spell? Should the GM cross it off the chronicle?
2. Would successfully scribing a scroll during a scenario remove the scroll from OTHER characters chronicles, since it was consumed?
3. A general chronicle access question: Can multiple consumables be bought when listed on a chronicle? When a potion of cure moderate wounds is listed on the chronicle, does that mean we can buy just one or do we have the option to buy two or more, assuming we can afford it?

Dark Archive

Rereading this now, I would have rejected this myself. The summary is unfinished (doh!), there should be at least one tiered combat, and it's probably too free-form for use as a PFS scenario. However, I am interested in feedback. Could this concept be made into a viable scenario (or at least a stronger submission)? Could "status quo"/non-tiered encounters work in PFS? Given the way experience works in PFS, its artificial argument against taking the better part of valor is removed.

This submission started from a couple of ideas I was kicking around to address some of the criticisms of the existing scenarios. Cramming them all into a scenario submission was perhaps not the best plan, but...

Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks!

Forge of the Dark Smith:

Forge of the Dark Smith

Introduction/Prologue
Lumberjacks working in western Darkmoon Wood have noticed a new light coming from The Crags. Smoke and a fiery glow have begun to pour from a large cave in the middle of the cliff face. A dwarven venture-captain would like The Crags explored. She is particularly interested in the cause of the new activity and any connections to the ruined dwarven monastery to Droskar nearby. She makes it clear that violence is not required on this scouting mission.

Summary
The encounters in this scenario are set, not tailored to the level of the characters. If the Pathfinders try to resolve every encounter with combat, they will likely reap what they sow. Use of this style is a deliberate attempt to promote roleplaying, critical thinking, and teamwork.

While the cave is clearly visible, a path is not. Players may attempt to fly to it or climb to it from above or below. The cliff face is dotted with caves, openings to a network of tunnels, which can be used as a place to hide or an alternate path to the Forge cave. The route they take determines which encounters the Pathfinders face.

The dwarves have been living beneath the mountain for some time, and are

Encounters
- Cliff Top:
Harpies – The Pathfinders spot the harpies cavorting around the cliff edge at a distance greater than the range of their captivating song. The cruel creatures are in plain sight, arguing over a fresh kill. The Pathfinders can escape if they stealthily move away, but if they move closer or tarry too long, the flight of harpies will attack. The harpies first try using their song to lure their prey off a cliff (which allows a second saving throw), then attack with their clubs and claws. Once two small or larger prey are slain, the harpies attempt to withdraw to their nest to enjoy their meal. Once two harpies are slain, the rest flee.
Gargoyles – The local wing of gargoyles numbers roughly the same as the flight of harpies, but they fear the harpies' song. Consequently, they hunt cautiously in this area, using their stealth to lie in wait for prey to approach. The Pathfinders encounter a single gargoyle in hiding (who most likely spots them first). When outnumbered, the gargoyle flies back to their lair to bring the rest of the flight. The party can escape if they are quick and stealthy.
- Cliff Base:
Bear – A very territorial brown bear snores loudly in a cozy cave. If intruders approach noisily, he will attack until the intruders are dead or flee at least 100' from his lair.
Duergar – A small team of duergar are in the area, spying on the Forge. Their clan covets its power, and they have been sent to learn much the same information as the Pathfinders. If attacked, they will flee unless cornered. They would be willing to work with the Pathfinders, if they can be convinced through bluff or diplomacy that the party would share information with them.
- Tunnels:
The dwarves using the Forge have placed traps in the tunnels to keep intruders out and to kill dangerous animals.
- Cave:
Dwarves from deep within Droskar's Crag mountain have found an ancient temple to Droskar, the Dark Smith. While they do not revere Droskar, a wizard among them has discovered that the Forge within the temple has magical properties. The dwarves are unfriendly to outsiders, fearing they come to steal their treasure or despoil the culture and history of their ancestors. The Pathfinders can use diplomacy to gain their trust, or they can use stealth to spy on the dwarves.

Conclusion
The venture-captain rewards the Pathfinders monetarily for determining the cause of the glowing cave (the Forge being used), the connection with the monastery (yes, it is a temple to Droskar), and for their discretion. These rewards promote completion of the main Pathfinder mission, which in other scenarios can seem inconsequential. The last award prevents the players from feeling penalized for resolving encounters by means other than killing whatever they meet.

Dark Archive

dragonvan wrote:

Hello, everyone!

I would like to know if the gears (except the weapon, the armor or a healing potion) have a utility in a scenario of the Pathfinder Society. I would be interested to know if there are a utility to these gear.

Thanks a lots for the answer, it will help my perspective of the choice of gear.

I'm not 100% sure I understand your question, but I'll try to help. If you are buying your starting equipment, I'll remind you that, according to Step 10 of Chapter 4 of the Guide, "You may not purchase any magic items during character creation." So, you can't purchase potions as part of your starting equipment.

I will say that I have not yet run into scenarios where I have needed the dungeon delving equipment I often buy when starting a new home campaign. I have never had a character say, "Drat, I wish I had some pitons and 100 feet of rope." I would make weapons and armor your main concern with starting equipment. There are some scenarios out there which are very unforgiving to starting characters, but that is mainly in combat, not in your choice of equipment.

Dark Archive

nathan blackmer wrote:
Second, I have a player who desperately wants to play a paladin of Asmodeus hell knight in training.

Well, if AP #27 was out already, you could refer to the pre-reqs of that prestige class, but you probably don't want to wait that long.

The easy way out would be to apply the cleric alignment restriction to paladins: "A cleric's alignment must be within one step of her deity's, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis (see Additional Rules)." That's what I would do. On the other hand, it's a shame to squelch that much enthusiasm. Would she play a LN cleric or fighter/cleric? How about a very devout LG fighter?

If you let her play the paladin, she's going to constantly run into her fellow Asmodeus-followers doing really evil stuff, and something will have to break, either her code or her allegiance. I think there's potential in the concept, but it seems like it would become the focus of the story. So, it doesn't seem like a good idea for a group game. It might work better for a single-player (plus GM) game or as the subject of a short story or novel.

In any case, good luck!

Dark Archive

Piety Godfury wrote:

1) First off. Tiers and *playable* character levels able to play are IDENTICAL and there are NO EXCEPTIONS.

In other words: A 7th level character may ///NEVER/// play a mod whose Tier is capped at 6. Likewise a 4th level may ///NEVER/// play a mod beginning at Tier 5, until reaching 5th (of course).

I don't believe that was the intent of the language in the guide.

The Guide wrote:

Tiers are a level restriction for play. If a character is level 1, he must always try to play in a Tier 1–2 sub-Tier

whenever possible.

It sounds like the first sentence was being read independently, when I feel like the second goes on to clarify it as a goal, rather than a restriction without exception.

Piety Godfury wrote:

2) If you are in the correct level range and the table you play at qualifies for another tier you MUST play that Tier even if you are 3 or more levels out of that 'Tier.'

In other words: if you are a first level character (playing a tier 1-5 module) and the average player level is Tier 4-5, you MUST play Tier 4-5. Even if the ENTIRE table wants to run 1-2.

You are never forced to play up. You are never forced to play, for that matter. Sub-tier 4-5 for that table was ridiculous. The GM can cite all the bad math they want, but that is plainly the wrong sub-tier for the table. It worries me that this GM is out there, running PFS scenarios, and potentially driving people away seven at a time.

Piety Godfury wrote:


He explained tiering math this way:
1) add all character levels and divide by the number of characters.
2) round all fractions up
3) add 1 for a full table of 6
4) add 1 for every player above 6

#2 is not supported by the rules, as was already pointed out.

"You should always round this number to the nearest whole value."

Plus, #4 is also a complete fabrication.
"If there are six or more players at your table, add +1 to your APL."

I'm sorry so many people got hosed. I hope everyone will give PFS another chance. I also think it would be a good idea to try and educate that GM, so they don't wipe any more tables through their misapplication of the rules.

Dark Archive

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I'm impressed how polite this discussion has remained even though some of you have very strong feelings either way. I appreciate that we're all being civilized here and I think that reflects on the caliber of player and GMs we have in Pathfinder Society. So thanks. :-)

I'm going to propose a purely hypothetical rule and I want you to agree or disagree with it.

I could live with this.

I think GM rewards should stay, though. I think there are many people who are "mostly GMs" out there who just can't get other folks in their group to GM. When they do get someone else to GM, I think it's better that they have a character that is near the same level as their players, rather than forcing the others to replay lower tier scenarios whenever the GM wants to play. Actually, when the session reports come in, that's going to look a lot like a violation of #3.

If you did put the hypothetical rule into effect, you may want to consider if #3 if valuable enough as a position statement to leave in, or if it would be better left out for lack of enforcement. It's kind of like saying, "Don't cheat in your home games." If it works smoothly, #3 might result in a GM alerting you via email about a potential violator(s), and you would scour the session reports, warning or sanctioning the player if there has been abuse. Worst case enforcement would be if Zealous Replay Watchdog is GMing at a con when Flagrant Replay Gamer brings his stable of characters to his table. Zealous points out that his fighter is fine, but his cleric, rogue, and wizard, are leveled entirely through replays. Flagrant says that all those replays were necessary to fill tables. Zealous firmly bars Flagrant from playing at her table, and Flagrant gets upset. No good can come from this.

#6 would also amount to, "Don't cheat at your home games," while further locking those "mostly GMs" into their role. I also agree with Mattastrophic that it works against a group of veterans bringing a new player into the fold. Is it really better for the GM/new player to have to play up to the veterans' tier, in order to avoid replays?

I also think Kyle's "boon instead of xp/gold/PA" idea would be viable, although I would prefer replays for full risk & full reward.

I'll reiterate, though - if enacted as written, I could live with it.

Dark Archive

James Risner wrote:
dm4hire wrote:
Basically the rules should reflect that each player may play a module once with a PC character, but any repeating plays should be done with pregens. That's my opinion.
Which brings it back to "there is no benefit from replay so people won't bother spending the time to help make tables." Basically making replays in any form useless.

+1 to James. Since I'd really like to see this issue laid to rest, I'll try to back this up. Playing PFS with pre-gens for no credit is very much like playing one-shot, stand-alone modules at conventions. You can roleplay the character you are handed however you want, you play recklessly or conservatively, etc. You cannot, however, take that character to the next table with the scars and spoils from their previous adventures. In PFS, you could play the character with the same name, but they would be "reset" each time.

So, let's look at events offered at conventions. I looked at other cons, but Gen Con Australia 2009 shows the individual event registration. Here's what I found:

Long List:

This data is just looking at registration shown online. I acknowledge that more or fewer people may have shown up at the event itself.
Crypt of the Everflame - No one signed up.
#1 Silent Tide - 5 of 6 seats filled.
#3 Murder on the Silken Caravan - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#9 Eye of the Croc King - 3 of 6 seats filled.
#19 Skeleton Moon - No one signed up.
#5 Mists - 5 of 6 seats filled.
#7 Among the Living - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#9 Eye - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#13 Prince - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#17 Perils - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#19 Skeleton Moon - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#3 Murder - 5 of 6 seats filled.
#11 3rd Riddle - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#12 Stay - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#23 Tide - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#29 Shipyard Rats - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#8 Slave Pits - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#23 Tide - 1 of 6 seats filled.
#24 Decline - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#30 Cassomir's Locker - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#14 Many Fortunes - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#17 Perils - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#2 Hydra's Fang - 2 of 6 seats filled.
#6 Black Waters - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#23 Tide - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#29 Rats - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#4 Frozen Fingers - 4 of 6 seats filled.
#10 Blood - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#15 Asmodeus - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#30 Locker - 6 of 6 seats filled.

So, some generous GM offered to run the well-reviewed "Crypt of the Everflame" adventure as a one-shot. There was a golden opportunity for enjoying the company of friends, roleplaying pregenerated characters, and having a frolicsome romp through a great module. No one even bothered to sign up.

On the other hand, 29 tables of PFS adventures were offered, and 151 of those 174 seats were filled via online registration. Many of those scenarios are not as good as (less well-reviewed than) "Crypt". The only extra thing these tables offered is the advancement of the personal character of the players.

It seems clear to me that, however trivial it might seem to some folks, the chance to advance one's personal character is a real benefit to many players. It puts players in the seats, which is the whole point of PFS. Suggesting that people just forgo that benefit is kind of like asking teachers to sub for free. It's for the greater good and can still be fun, but you've removed a tangible positive reinforcement for the desired behavior and the opportunity for continuity & growth over time.

Dark Archive

yoda8myhead wrote:
After someone has played a scenario, what makes them a player and not a GM standing in playing an iconic to fill a table? Because that's allowed.

I'll answer this two ways. You can take your pick.

Sarcasm:
Players are wicked. Even if they were playing an iconic, they would spoil the scenario for those playing through the first time. They would kill off the clue-givers, attack the city guards, and bring on a TPK.
GMs are pure and kind. They would never intentionally or accidentally spoil a scenario. In fact, they each have the amazing ability to selectively edit their own memories to forget the details of the scenario. So, they can fully participate, rather than hanging back saying, "No, I'm sorry. I can't help brainstorm ideas for the solution to that riddle. And no, I can't give you advice on what buff spells to put on before we tackle the evil wizard."

Straight:
That, good sir, is an excellent question.
How about it, Josh?
*innocent smile*

Edit:

yoda8myhead wrote:
I think everyone who wants replays only so that they can level up more characters, or even just play THEIR character, instead of just playing a pregen and having fun with friends is being a little selfish.

I applaud your PFS promotion efforts, but I don't agree with your "holier than thou" implication... wait, no, you came right out & said it. Your statement, then. In any case, I'll spare you the philosophy lecture wherein I reveal that all motives are selfish, even your desire to simply see PFS grow and thrive. I think you have raised an excellent question as to why one group of people is allowed to replay scenarios with pre-gens while another group is not. I would rather focus on that, particularly since a large number of individuals belong to both groups.

Dark Archive

yoda8myhead wrote:
In your example, the few who have previously played can play iconics. This allows everyone to have fun sitting around the table and rolling dice, and provides enough players for the table to happen.

Even disregarding the debate on whether playing pre-gens for no credit is more or less satisfying than replaying with a different character, what you have said is incorrect. Those who played it previously cannot play iconics. They can't play the scenario at all.

Josh has stated in the 121st post of the FAQ thread and confirmed in this thread that a particular player can only play a scenario once.

Dark Archive

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Since small, medium, and large weapons are detailed (price-wise) on page 144 of the PRPG Core Rulebook and that chapter is part of the "always available for purchase" section of the Guide to PFS OP, large weapons can be purchased.

On a slightly different issue, the currently rules allow the purchase of oversize weapons (like Amiri's large bastard sword) through the Always Available Items in Chapter 10 and through faction access with PA per Table 11.2. Chronicle access to large weapons is never allowed, though. Would you consider removing the size restriction "for their size so long as their size is Small or Medium" from the second-to-last paragraph of Chapter 9? That same paragraph already reminds players of the cost difference when buying equipment of sizes other than small or medium. That seems a little odd since the Guide just prohibited them from doing so a few sentences ago.

Dark Archive

Deussu wrote:
The grudge I've kept having about replays is not the issue with other people coming and playing something they played already. Some who have read every post noticed the infamous Team Finland is already against replays, and as a localized community and a similar mindset we wouldn't have to accept that in our home games. So it's not much of a problem seeing people who, for some really odd reason, want to play tabletop games like any MMORPG. Okay, sure, give them a chance.

Ooo, them's fightin' words, mister!

Deussu wrote:
But please don't let that affect the scenario quality. The last thing I want to see is an increasing absence of plot-driven scenarios. I feel the need to press the issue as particular kinds of murder mysteries and other investigations would become idiotically easy and boring if too much caution is taken. This is my only fear in allowing replays.

I plan to submit a scenario for the Open Call, and I can tell you I have no intention of just stringing some combats together. I have been dismayed by the number of 2- & 3-star-reviewed scenarios offered. These are Paizo products, for Heaven's sake! However, doing something about it is probably more productive than my *****ing about it, so I'll see what I can come up with.

Deussu wrote:
So I shift my position to 'indifferent', as long as the scenarios don't suffer with replays.

Wow... I didn't expect that. I thought the Finnish PFS community would stop playing entirely if replays were allowed, but perhaps you didn't say that. My memory is pretty poor - another reason I'm not worried about replays spoiling the story for me! :D

(I am SO using an alias if I ever go to www.ropecon.fi)

Deussu wrote:
Btw what's with the access things anyway? Most items are gathered with prestige points anyway. Also, why bother with bracers of armor +1?

It might be only a low-level phenomenon, but it seems like you get equipment faster through chronicle access, rather than faction prestige. My wizard plays one scenario (okay, two scenarios to get enough gold) and gains access to bracers of armor +1, but only if he plays that specific scenario. Otherwise, he has to play nine scenarios to get access through his faction. Looking at one of my other chronicles, a 4th-5th level character could get access to +2 full plate armor, which could otherwise take 22 scenarios (7th level) to acquire via faction PA. I remain unconvinced that chronicle access is pointless. To me, it clearly impacts character advancement. Plus, it's cooler to wield a greataxe which you wrestled from the grasp of a flea-bitten gnoll... than to wield the axe you bought from MagicMart.

Bracers of armor +1 are an improvement over no armor at all, which is what my wizard currently wears. Yes, BoA +2 (or +8) would be better, but he doesn't have the gold or the access for those. Mage Armor gives a better bonus but takes a round to cast, while bracers are always on.

Edit: Mattastrophic, that was a brilliant post.

Dark Archive

Rene Ayala wrote:
I think replaying scenarios should *not* be an option for Pathfinder Society. The scenarios are story-based so the person replaying it will just sit by to play the combats? I don't understand why someone would want to sit down, quiet and uninvolved, until it's time to roll initiative. If the reason to create replay rules is to fill out a table that's short a seat I say toss that detail over to the coordinators at the game days to figure out. I run A Gathering of Players in metro-Phoenix. I sometimes get stuck in 7-player sign-up situations and don't feel replay rules is the way to fix the issue. Also, if replays were allowed I can see it becoming a burden for the coordinators. There are many people who are only players and who are not involved as coordinators or judges (which is fine, no issue there), but, I can foresee demands on the coordinators and regular judges by these play-only players to run the scenarios again so they can get credit on another PC. Makes me shiver actually because there is a lot of work to run regular game days. If there are people out there saying they want replays so they can get exposure to play a different race/class then just create it and play it at the next, new scenario run. Or play Paizo's Adventure Path's and Gamemastery modules.

Kudos to you for coordinating, Rene. I see that you do post the scenarios which you plan to run on Warhorn. Do you have an idea of how many people decide not to come down to the Inn because they have already played the offered scenario for that slot? For instance, you probably know a number of the players who regularly attend. Do they call you to let you know when they aren't coming?

I get the sense that you feel that if replaying were allowed, all these replayers would clamor for scenarios to be rerun so they could level up different characters. Are you worried they will want these reruns in addition to the two (presumably) new scenarios you run each month, thus burning out you and your judges? I assume that's the case because I find it hard to believe someone would want to skip playing the new one in order to replay an old one. So why not tell them (or put in your Warhorn overview message) that the current judges are maxed out? If people want reruns/additional slots run, some new judges are going to have to step up. Maybe that would be enough to nudge some of those folks who only play to try their hand at GMing.

I share your fear (if I interpreted it correctly, that is) though. Losing GMs is the worst possible result. As much as I have heckled the honorable gentlemen from Finland about "taking their ball and going home", losing a GM has a LOT greater impact on the amount of PFS that gets played than losing a player. If replaying causes issues which affect all GMs, then those will need to be addressed.

Rene Ayala wrote:
I know there's a lot of assumptions on people's motivations who want replays. They do not apply to everyone but I do believe they apply to some degree.

I think your assumptions are pretty applicable. I hold my stance on the issue (I think replays should be allowed) because I think it will allow more PFS play. However, I am personally motivated to engage in replaying to level another character, as you suggest. The first character I played is a barbarian on track to be a dragon disciple. I also have a Chelaxian conjurer (the crunch and fluff for such a character in PFS/Golarion is just too cool to pass up) starting out. Yes, I can play the conjurer in new scenarios instead of the barbarian, but there are several reasons not to:

  • If I slow the advancement of the barbarian to a crawl, it could be years before he ever gets to his prestige class, and frankly, I'm impatient. Who knows? I might get a job which precludes PFS play. I could grow tired of PFS. I could get hit by a bus. My nerd-dream of breathing fricking lightning on some doods would never be fulfilled.
  • I don't currently have any characters who can (safely) play in higher tiers. This has caused me to play PFS less often. This Saturday evening at Fields of Honor scenarios 10 and 32 are offered. Neither of those*** can be played by my first level characters, so I'm missing out on some PFS play because of the bad combination of my characters' levels and the scenarios offered.
  • Of the 32 scenarios offered, only 22 of them can be played below 5th level. So, it is currently only possible to have one character beyond 4th level. Once you play 8 scenarios with one character, no other character can make 5th.
  • If trying other character concepts means that my characters don't advance much, then they become static and a little bit more like playing pregens. To me it seems like PFS is currently only set up to allow each player to play ONE character to its fullest. Is that what's best? I guess I should have put a little more thought into which character I wanted to be my "main".

***

Spoiler about scenario #10:
Yes, #10 technically offers sub-tier 1-2, but the encounters are much too strong for that level. A table of five with an APL of 2+ could do it (with one or more player deaths). A table of four 1st level characters will get TPK'd. At least, that's what I have heard.

Dark Archive

Erik Mona wrote:
And the ocean, she is a harsh mistress.

[RAHeilein]I thought that was the Moon...[/RAHeinlein]

Also I'd like to apologize for my earlier post in this thread.

I can't wait for this book! The previews have been awesome. Another home run for Paizo.

Dark Archive

Steven Tindall wrote:

Best thing in life is making the tough choices in life and seeing yourself in a better place because of them.

I have a apartment now instead of sleeping under park benches, I have a carrer instead of a job,I have an education instead of my next hit.
The best thing in life is being proud with the life you have and looking to the future with hope about where your going to next.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Dark Archive

Crow81 wrote:
Yes but the majority of people who are against it are the ones who organize game days and GM tables.

Really? I'd like to see the data that you've collected to support your statement. I've seen some people say they are GMs, but I've also seen a lot of people just expressing their views without mentioning how many players they'll take with them when they take their ball and go home. If you have to rely on unsubstantiated claims to make your case...

Crow81 wrote:
It is easier to accept and like when you are a player you get more opportunities to play.

So... are you against players having more opportunities to play? Are you saying that GMs having more opportunities to GM is not a plus?

Crow81 wrote:
As an organizer I think the motive of the players needs to be considered.

Uh oh, I sense danger.

Crow81 wrote:
If it is truely to make a table then the pre-gen only replay should work for everyone.

If playing pre-gens for no credit was fine with everyone, we wouldn't need all this organized play structure. We would just play one-shot adventures set in Golarion. I think it's safe to say that playing a pre-gen for no credit is less satisfying than playing your own PFS character.

Crow81 wrote:
If the idea is to advance multiple characters through the same stories I have to suspect that the player will not abide by the non-interference rules discussed in this thread.

Are you saying that you would suspect that any replayer would spoil the story? If, as you say, their motives must be considered, does that mean you would turn people away because you think they might break the rules?

Dark Archive

WelbyBumpus wrote:
replaying...removes worries that you'll play an adventure with the "wrong" character... (and many other things I agree with)

I've kept my big mouth shut on this thread for a while, but I just ran into this. I played a scenario Saturday ([sarcasm]I'm up to FOUR now. I'm a veteran. You should listen to me.[/sarcasm]) for which I was rewarded the chance to buy Bracers of Armor +1. Unfortunately, I played that scenario with my ranger, not my wizard. At low tier (where the new players dwell), chronicle access to items seems to play a big part your overall item access.

Now this might lead to such metagaming thoughts as, "I want to play PFS scenario #85 again so I can get access to the Uber Sword of Special Destiny with my fighter instead of my wizard." Metagaming my irritate some people, but it's hard to argue with a sentence which starts off, "I want to play PFS..." One scenario I played granted access to a book called, "The Inward-Facing Circle" which is a really "flavorful" item with a minor game effect. I would love to buy that & use it in play sometime, but my barbarian played that scenario. He's not much of a reader. :( I also played a great Taldor scenario... that my Taldor character missed out on.

Legalizing replays would likely reduce the amount "wasted flavor" (where cool parts of a scenario are wasted on characters who are disinterested) and reduce the occurrence of people deciding to NOT play a scenario because they want to save it for the character who could actually use the rewards. To illustrate the latter part, here's an example:
There's a sub-tier 4-5 table of Scenario #74 that could use the help of your 4th level fighter. You have heard, though, that #74 rewards cool stuff for wizards, so you would rather wait until your 1st level wizard is high enough level. You could play up with the wizard, but with AC 11 and 7 hp, it seems too dangerous.

Now, the anti-replayers may say, "You shouldn't be snooping into what rewards are offered by scenarios!" If replaying were allowed, though, "chronicle chasing" would be unnecessary. You could always go back with your Andoran ranger if you ran across The Longbow of Freedom and Devil-Piercing with your Chelaxian wizard.

Dark Archive

Kyle Baird wrote:
yoda8myhead wrote:
A successful PC could have 9 prestige after 5 scenarios
Is that technically true right now? 31/32 are high tier. Are there two tier 1-X scenarios from season 0 that offer 2 PA? (just curious)

Yes, there are Season Zero scenarios which can award two Prestige, as early as the second or third month of that season. I don't know how common they are, though. I have played four scenarios from Season 0, and only one offered a chance at a second PA.

Which specific scenario offers two prestige award:
It was #6, Black Waters.

Dark Archive

Abraham spalding wrote:
It will be an odd situation where a wizard will get more than 3 opponents with color spray and if the wizard was bold enough to get up there and get 7 opponents in his cone, and they all fail their save, don't sweat it...

Also, if the caster throws out that color spray while adjacent to any foes, they have to make a pretty scary concentration check to cast defensively, now. (DC 17 for 1d20+CL+casting ability modifier)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
encorus wrote:
Without a clear rule for line of sight a player can have quite a few questions: do I draw the line from the middle of my square? Can I draw it from a corner? From a side? From anywhere I want? What happens if the line touches a wall but doesn't go through it; do I then have line of sight then?

I'm a little disappointed that your specific, straightforward questions weren't answered by those who dismiss Line of Sight as a concept too simple to warrant explanation. However, I think the rules do address your questions:

The Concealment section of the Combat page of the PRD wrote:
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

So, I would answer your questions by saying you must draw line of sight from any one corner of your space, and if any line from your chosen corner to any corner of the target's space touches or crosses something you can't see through, then you don't have line of sight.

Dark Archive

yoda8myhead wrote:
But you can't by a large maul under normal circumstances, even with 50 or 60 prestige points.

Wait, this isn't right, is it?

Guide to PSOP wrote:
For example, Bob’s character has achieved a Prestige Award of 27 with the Cheliax faction. As a result, Bob’s character may now purchase any item below 11,750 gp that’s legal for play. Purchasing items in this way represents your faction’s willingness and ability to find and sell you new and better gear, equipment, weapons, and magic items.

It doesn't say "any magic item", it says "any item". So, unless Mr. Frost outlaws large weapons altogether, as long as she has enough Prestige Award to afford it, Amiri should be able to buy that large bastard sword.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
Dalvyn wrote:
Has the PDF price already been announced? If not, any idea when it will be?
It hasn't been announced yet. I would assume we'll announce it soon... but I can't say for sure when.

Oh yeah it was. I think it was somewhere in this thread, but I couldn't find it. Could you remind us? I'm pretty sure it was $19.99...

Dark Archive

Larcifer wrote:
stuff about a place
joela wrote:
Thanks!

+1 on those thanks, Larcifer. Jason also did a post about that spot:

Setting Spoiler:

Dark Archive

Setting Spoiler:
Are there previous stories/scenarios/details set in Falcon's Hallow that we need to watch out for? I don't have the Campaign Setting book yet, and I am not familiar with all of the published adventures.

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
d. A brief summary of each encounter—minimum six encounters with one encounter detailed as optional

Perhaps this is something I would know if I had played one of the Season 1 scenarios already, but is this new? An optional encounter could come in handy for both stretching a scenario (My table finished five encounters in 2 hours, uh oh...) and adjusting the threat level (The optional encounter could be at the "high" end of the sub-tier).

Well, I'll order the PFCS and I'll get to play Season 1 mods at Fields of Honor, so maybe I'll answer my own questions. I don't want to spoil any adventures for myself, though, so if anyone has tips regarding my Setting Spoiler, I would welcome them.

Thanks!

Dark Archive

Kjob wrote:
Spoiler:
and another trait that improves the hp of fiendish animals you summon by 1 per HD

Spoiler:
What trait is that? I have been looking, but I haven't found it.
Dark Archive

Jabor wrote:
Quote:
And for the elephant riding, this is something that has completely distracted my volontary disbelief suspension. But it is very subjective.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1235

(threadjack) I had never seen this webcomic, and it is hilarious! Thank you so much. :) (/threadjack)

Dark Archive

Tarren the Dungeon Master wrote:
When I download the Bestiary Preview, I get the Bestiary Preview II. Am I missing something?

I think perhaps you are missing today's blog. I repersonalized the Preview, downloaded, and I got the BP2 as well. Once you do that, though, I'm not sure how you go back to get BP1.

Dark Archive

Chris, check out this group. Several folks have been asking about evening games, though I don't know how many of them have FG2.

Dark Archive

NiTessine wrote:

As I recall, one of the things Living Forgotten Realms lost when they allowed replays was the whole of Finland, including Sampo Haarlaa, the Point of Contact for Northern Europe. They still haven't managed to get a replacement, and to date no convention in Finland has run a single table of Living Forgotten Realms. (Granted, driving off every active RPGA member in the country required a bit more than allowing replays, but that was one of the core issues.)

While Pathfinder Society in Finland isn't quite as centralised as the old RPGA thing was, allowing replays would still very likely kill off PFS at our conventions, probably to be replaced by Living Greyhawk legacy games or nothing at all. As the RPG adminstrator of the biggest Finnish convention, Ropecon, I would prefer not to see this happen.

Why? Why would you quit PFS altogether if replaying is allowed? Why do you think that every other PFS player in Finland would also quit playing? In another thread, you said, "In Finland, our active PFS player pool is about 30 strong, with five active Dungeon Masters." Do all 34 feel the same as you?

I've tried to avoid singling people out in this thread, but this type of scare tactic doesn't seem to add much to the debate. "Rational discussion" was requested, and I don't see how threats qualify.

Dark Archive

Kyle Baird wrote:

Perhaps a better clarification:

I never want to set at a table with people replaying a scenario. I don't have an inherent problem with people replying scenarios, just not at my table! ;)

What about another option? For the first 6 months after a scenario has been released, no replays are allowed. After that time-frame, allow replays (with whatever restrictions, etc come with it).

I feel like a waiting period where no replays were allowed would unnecessarily inconvenience both sides. Those against replaying would have to hurry to play every scenario within the waiting period. Those who felt the need to replay scenarios would be forced to wait.

An example of the first case would be a player who does not have a regular group of their own, instead playing at conventions or game days. They have to rush around to make it to the right scenarios, rather than playing them at their convenience.

For the second case, suppose part of a group attended a con & played a new scenario. When they rejoin the rest of their group, they still can't play that scenario (to advance an alt or fill out a table which would otherwise be short) during the waiting period.

I think it's much easier to just specify if a certain table is going to allow replaying or not. If it's a home game where communication about who is playing is pretty easy, it's a non-issue. The GM just works it out, "Hey guys, we have five, but Brian could join us if he replays with his alt. Anyone object?" If it's a convention running only a handful of scenarios, they're probably running the newest ones. They can put "No Replays" in the blurb if they want. If it's a game day or online game where the GM tries to put together a table from whoever shows up, replaying only makes it easier. If Sally will only play if no one else is replaying, then that's no different from our current situation - she still be playing. If John can only play if he replays with his alt, then we've got one more player if there are no "Sallys" and no lost players (compared to the status quo) if Sally is there.

There is a danger of players showing up to muster but not getting to play. Sally might find that the replayers are needed to make the minimum table size. John might find that the anti-replayers are needed to make the minimum table size. I maintain, however, that allowing replaying will only reduce the chances of people being turned away.

Dark Archive

Huppolitan wrote:

I'm against allowing replays. I sat at an LFR table recently and it turned out that all three of the other players had already played the module once. They were good players. They didn't throw out any overt spoilers. Neither, however, did they seem to be having a lot of fun. As far as I could tell, the players were essentially doing homework -- advancing characters beyond their primary PC through the only means available to them. Not allowing replays might paradoxically encourage players to have more fun (even if in another activity) since it rules this possibility out.

Part of the joy of roleplaying games is being at least a little bit surprised about how things turn out, wondering where the twists and turns are going to be in an adventure, and adapting to changing circumstances on the fly as a team. There are a number of out-of-game reasons that allowing replays might be a good idea, but in the end replays undermine the sense of discovery that is fundamental to roleplaying.

There were three other players, so assuming LFR has a max table size greater than four, I'm guessing there were no other players available. So, if replaying had not been allowed, there would have been no game. You're saying you would rather have gone home than play that table? I'm genuinely curious.

Setting aside my fundamental disagreement with legislating how much fun I can have, I'd like to point out that no one missed out on the joy of discovery here. Those other three players also got to delight in the twists and turns of that adventure. They just did so at an earlier date with different characters.

Finally, I think the PFS rules should aim to encourage people to play PFS. If our aim is to encourage people to have the most fun possible, the Guide might start off, "Go have hot, hot lubbins with your spouse/partner. If that is not an option, use these guidelines to play PFS..." Since lubbins don't pay the electric bill, Paizo's probably going to stick with the PFS rules to promote PFS play.

Dark Archive

How about something like important PC decisions in specific scenarios which could be reported & tallied? For example, the PCs recover a relic for a shady patron, but they discover it is a dangerous weapon. Do they keep their mouths shut and hand it over to their patron, or will they blow the whistle? The decision of each table could be reported and after a certain length of time, the more common result would determine the direction for a followup scenario or arc.

Pro:
- It gives players the opportunity to impact their shared world. This may (or may not) expand the player base.

Con:
- It requires a little extra time from GMs (to fill out one additional field for the PCs' decision.
- It requires an investment on Paizo's part in the areas of reporting (to add the extra field) and scenario writing (commissioning the follow-up scenario instead of just accepting submissions).
- It means a significant delay between the decision scenario and the followup, in order to allow time for a majority of the player base to play it and then to have the followup written.

I hope there is a better way to do this type of thing, because what I've suggested sounds like a pretty risky venture on Paizo's part.

Dark Archive

A couple fellow PFS players wrote:
Allowing replaying will encourage scenario authors to only produce hack & slash scenarios.

I have to disagree with this one. If these were authors trying to make a living off of what they produce, they might feel constrained to only produce the most popular type of story. Given the scale of PFS, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is impossible to support oneself writing scenarios for PFS. So, the authors we're talking to are doing this on the side, in their leisure time. To warrant investing their free time, it has to be an idea that the author is excited about. I don't think what excites these authors is going to be influenced very strongly by the small portion of their audience who might replay the scenario.

Also, I don't think anyone is asking for scenarios that are specifically replayable. Primarily, we want a fantastic scenario. If that fantastic scenario is replayable and we have a desire to replay it, then even better. Replayability is not going to be a selling point that will influence Josh or scenario authors. No PFS player is going to say, "Hmm, there are twelve reviews saying that #77 Linear Dungeon of Boredoom is really lame. But wait, it's replayable, so I could be bored to tears two or three times. Sold!"

Many PFS players wrote:
Replays should only yield partial credit.

As discussed in a few threads about GM rewards (here, here, and here), the effectiveness of a character includes their level, their wealth, and their access to items. If you artificially stunt the acquisition of gold or prestige award, then you end up with characters with noticeably less power than their level would indicate. This negatively impacts the enjoyment of the player of the nerfed character, it makes it much more difficult for the GM/scenario author to gauge what the party can handle, and it could contribute to an increase in character deaths or party wipes (worst case).

If we end up with a system where replays are allowed but yield only a half-strength character, then we will have made the situation worse. We'll have spent time codifying a set of rules to do something no one will want to do. Replay characters will tend to be segregated from non-replay characters, which could effectively give us two smaller groups (replay PFS and non-reply PFS) which don't really play together. That would be bad for our growth.

I understand the mindset of, "I did things 'right' and got this reward. You did things 'wrong' so you should get less reward." I understand thinking of PA and gold as the results of a scenario, but they are not ONLY rewards. Because of how fundamentally they are tied to the effectiveness of a character, they are also a cause as well as an effect. They help determine how well a character performs in the next scenario.

I read suggestions of partial credit as, "I would like to see people bringing nerfed characters to the table." I just cannot see how that improves anyone's Pathfinder Society experience.

I think what we really want is a level playing field. We don't want GMs to get full gold for eating a scenario, because they didn't have to use consumables, clear conditions, or risk death. We don't want GM Reward characters to have an advantage over regular characters. We don't want replay characters scoring max gold and 2 PA every single time because the average character doesn't get those max rewards. We don't want them to be overpowered, and I don't think we really want them to be underpowered, either.

So, what's average? How many potions should a PC have to quaff each scenario? What's the average death to scenario ratio, 1 to 12? 1 to 15? What's the average PA per scenario, 1.5? 1.75? 1.0? Ideally, we should have wealth that's pretty close to the PC wealth by level table in the Gamemastering chapter of the book. I don't have access to all the scenarios, but if someone who does could work out what percentage of Max Gold we would need to spend (on consumables, conditions, and death) to bring us down to the level of the PC wealth table, it might help. I would be happy to crunch the numbers, but I don't have the data. If folks did want to send me the Max Gold figure for each scenario they have, they're welcome to email me. I think it would help to quantify just where this level playing field ought to be.

Sorry for another long post,
Bob

email:
bobhopp a gmail d com

Dark Archive

What time of day, Brecla? Would these be during the day (in the US) or in the evening?

Dark Archive

Elyza wrote:
a separate character built solely for replay with a ####-#R society number

+1

Elyza, this is a fantastic idea for all the reasons you listed. Great job.

Dark Archive

Paul Watson wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with KEJr. A metaplot with modules that can be played in any order is incredibly difficult to achieve. In fact, I'm not sure it's achievable without forcing an order on people, which is not what I want in PFS, especially as I get to play so few of them.

Now, linked modules is another matter and I don't mind extended 2 or 3 part mini campaigns as long as they're clearly labeled. Recurring characters are also a cool idea that more advantage should be taken of,. Especially reusing adventure captains to give the missions occasionally.

Ditto what KEJr & PW said. With replaying outlawed, the best we can hope for is linked modules like The Devil We Know parts 1 & 2. I haven't had a chance to play them yet, so I don't know how "linked" they are or if they are any more satisfying to play than two unrelated scenarios.

Dark Archive

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

If I've given an indication somewhere that reading the scenario ahead of time is allowed please tell me where I've given that indication and I'll remove it immediately.

I see that I need to stress this in the next update of the Guide, but reading the scenario ahead of time is not allowed. At all. Ever.

To the best of my knowledge, you have given no indication either way, until 7.5 hours ago.

If you're going to put something in the Guide, you may (or may not) want to note that foreknowledge of scenarios can also be gained by reading the spoilers in the GM Discussion Board.

Dark Archive

Joshua J. Frost wrote:


I'd like to get a sense of the community. What say you? Should I or shouldn't I?

My Position: Allow replays with a different character for the same rewards a GM gets for eating a scenario.

Magnitude: I'm not going to stop playing PFS either way, but I do think that allowing replaying would help increase the rate at which PFS acquires new players.

The reason for this format:
I posted this way to give Josh a useful data point. I assume anyone reading my long post would get this same info, but if Josh only has time to skim through & check Pro or Con for each of us, I thought this would be helpful. I think anecdotes like, "On 9/1 we had a FLGS game day and two potential new players showed up, but they couldn't play because three veteran players went to see a movie instead of replaying with pre-gens." would be especially valuable, but I don't personally have any of those.

Dark Archive

Deussu wrote:
If you come across a table of 3 (fourth cancelled), the GM gives one of the players a pre-gen to control. Problem solved.

Wait, Josh said here that four is the hard floor. Saying that he meant four characters is a slippery slope. If one player- or GM-run NPC is acceptable, how about two? What if I've got a potential new player who really wants to get into PFS with scenario #1, but none of my veteran PFS players want to play #1. Why can't I run the game with the new person running their own character and three pre-gens?

Suffice it to say I don't think you can logically solve a problem with the rules by suggesting we bend the rules a little. Are we trusting every other participant to understand that "common sense" dictates that one NPC is okay, but 2+ is not? I don't see how we can trust the judgment of PFS participants in some areas (playing with NPCs) but not in others (replaying).

Deussu wrote:

Re-playing is an awful idea. People who've done it (I think Bob Hopp mentioned doing something like that) generally say it was poo and not fun.

Thus don't do it.

So, it's not as fun, therefore it's forbidden? Yes, I did say here that it "ruined" it & "sucked all the enjoyment out of the experience" and that hurts my argument a bit. However, keep these things in mind:

A. I exaggerated a bit. I wrote that when I was feeling most negatively about the experience. I still had fun. I still plan to continue to play PFS.
B. Reading the scenario beforehand was only part of the problem. My roleplaying sucked. The GM went easy on us. I felt the scenario was too lethal for 1st level characters (as written).
C. None of the other players was impacted by my reading of the scenario. I didn't spoil any surprises. I didn't contribute to finding any treasure we would have otherwise missed.

I think legislating how much fun we can or can't have is a little too much micromanagement for me. Moreover, since reading the scenario beforehand is already allowed, outlawing replays does not prevent the potential negative impacts of foreknowledge of the scenario. It does rob us of the benefits of replaying, though. New players can more easily form a table and get involved in PFS. Veteran players who tire of their first character can try something new without having to wait for new scenarios to be written (having played a large portion of them already). Unless you outlaw pre-reading scenarios, outlawing replaying only hurts us.

Dark Archive

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
What say you?

Thanks for asking, Josh. Since we have chosen this hobby, we PFS players have opted to place you personally in control of some of the details of how we have fun. I grew discouraged recently when I read things like, "I have no plans to change how GM Rewards/Day Job Rolls work." I interpreted that as, "Even if there's an easy way to make things better, I'm not going to change things. I have spoken. I am the law." Seeing this thread makes me think I might have misinterpreted you, and for that I am glad.

A fellow PFS player wrote:
That's not worth credit, IMHO.

Uh oh, rewards based on subjective evaluation of the quality of other players' roleplaying. That way lies the Dark Side. To apply rules to a large group, I think we have to keep them quantitative.

Several fellow PFS players wrote:
Organized play should be a shared continuous storyline.

Wait, what storyline? Of all the thousands of PFS players out there, only a tiny fraction even have the option of playing scenarios in any desired order. If a player lives in an area so saturated with PFS players & GMs that they can just wait for someone to run the numerically next scenario, that's great for them. But I see a lot more instances of GM's saying, "I'm going to run scenario X at time Y" both at conventions and FLGS game days. Players in those situations must choose to play scenarios in the order they are offered, or they can decide to skip that con/game day. You might say it's okay to suggest they pick some other way to have fun that weekend, but I disagree for reasons I'll make clear in a minute.

Several fellow PFS players wrote:
If you allow replays, I will quit playing PFS.

Wow, really? Even if it has no effect on you? Just knowing that Jenny in Detroit is playing through #6 Black Waters a second time with a different character, that's enough to make you forsake this pleasurable pastime? How is this different from me reading #6 before playing it? That's legal, I did it, and now you're aware of it. Have you quit yet? No? Then perhaps what you meant to say is that you will quit if:

A. you find yourself forced to play PFS with players who are replaying the scenario and deliberately or accidentally spoil the surprises for you.
B. you find yourself forced to play PFS with players who have previously replayed scenarios and whose characters now have more wealth than yours (always getting max gold, never paying for raise dead).
C. you find your suspension of disbelief is strained by your knowledge that two characters of the same player have rescued the same princess.

I would like to point out that (in the case of A or B) you can always ask if other players are replaying the scenario and choose not to play with them if so. As a GM you could similarly add "No replays, please" to your posting of the date, time, and scenario # you are planning to run. If this choice means that a player or a whole table (due to too few willing players) doesn't get to play PFS that day, then I consider that an argument FOR allowing replays. As for C, I don't really consider it a valid argument when thousands of characters have rescued that same princess, but I listed just as another possible interpretation.

Here are the top three imperatives for Pathfinder Society:
1. PFS must continue.
2. PFS must be fun.
3. PFS must be fair.

Number one is important, and I fear that some (not all) of the naysayers are ignoring the fact that if PFS stops being profitable for Paizo, you can kiss it all goodbye. The Paizo staff has repeatedly demonstrated that they are not evil, money-grubbing villains, but they still have to pay the rent. It is in all of our best interests that Paizo continues to profitably crank out more fun stuff for us to play with. This means that if making some sacrifices in fun or fairness nets us gains in stability, then we can't just dismiss the idea out of hand.

So, will allowing replays cause PFS to increase or maintain profitability? I think it would. Based on anecdotal evidence (all I have, and unless I am very much mistaken all Josh/Paizo has) potential new PFS players have had trouble filling a table because otherwise-willing veteran players have already played the scenario. Allowing replays will increase the assimilation of new players into our collective. More new players = good. Unfortunately, allowing replays will reportedly cause some veteran players to leave. Losing veteran PFS players = bad.

How many would we lose & how many would we gain? Nobody knows. I think this thread will help get a sense of that, but unfortunately it will be skewed by who sees it. The veteran players will see it and post, but the potential new players are not likely to be avid readers & posters on these forums and will never know of this discussion. Eventually it comes down to Josh making a decision based on the data he has. I think it benefits us as a group if he has the best data possible. So, even though I can't understand wanting to quit PFS based on this issue, I encourage you to post if that's what your really going to do. After all, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Thanks for listening.

Dark Archive

PRD wrote:
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

It seems that technically, you could take Toughness as many times as you like, but only the first one gives you any bonus hit points.

Dark Archive

Bob Hopp wrote:
some stuff about buying and reading a scenario before playing it in PFS.

Okay, don't -ever- do this. It sucks. A week ago I played #6 Black Waters via TTopRPG. A week or two prior to that, I decided to buy the scenario to look it over to make sure I would like it. I skimmed through it a bit and it looked all right, so I went ahead with spending a significant portion of my Tuesday to play my first PFS scenario.

It was awful. It was hard to pay attention to the boxed text because I had read it already. I knew when the GM was giving us a break. I knew when he messed up. I knew when we were missing something important. I knew when the GM was introducing material from the scenario and when he was improvising. It sucked all the enjoyment out of the experience.

Don't get me wrong, I think our GM did an excellent job, especially since it was his first time and this scenario is tough on a group of four 1st level PCs. Unfortunately, reading the scenario beforehand ruined what would have otherwise been a fun time.

So, I just wanted to send this warning out to PFSland: play the scenario first, then read it later if you are going to GM it.

Dark Archive

Dzyu wrote:
Bob Hopp: The wizard frequenlty buff the melee members with enlarge person, we're often 5 players, and the paladin has the leadership feat with 18 charisma, so this 10-man limit is reached frequently. Used in a cramped area, like a hallway or next to a cliff wall, we won't even need enlarge person. Do you consider it broken if used for this purpose?

Well, the only other thing I would suggest is that you compare it with Invisibility Sphere, since that comes closest to the "we see you, but you can't see us" effect. If you and your group think the power level is on par, then go for it. I also think the 20' diameter is a good solution.