Thanks for pointing this out, I know that we have to run scenarios as written but HYPOTHETICALLY if I was running this this weekend I would HYPOTHETICALLY add the following exchange to the briefing;
"One more thing, you will of course be going into the heart of Aspis territory, do any of you carry Wayfinders?"
No- "Very good, much less chance of discovery, though at the same time if you do meet our agent having a wayfinder in your group would help identify you, hmm, something to think on I suppose"
Yes- "Well I recommend you keep them well hidden, though useful they will bring danger down upon you if sighted"
----PCs take this to mean don't bring it- "Very good, much less chance of discovery, though at the same time if you do meet our agent having even a single wayfinder in your group would help identify you, hmm, something to think on I suppose"
GM Lamplighter wrote:
You have to be within the normal range of height and weight for your PC. That is a core rule and nothing in PFS changes them.
I have to say just from a personal preference, its also slightly tiring when everyone has that special snowflake character. Oh yes I am a dwarf, but I am a 7ft tall one, and the last of my village and I was the sole survivor of a deadly curse and am fated to save the world.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I would agree with this, the idea of pre-gen templates isn't going to help much because as Mark said he could just as easily play these pregens himself, its about how players create the characters and what discoveries they find.
I would think it would be much better to have strict guidelines on how to create a high level character and play them as a pregen (for instance the gold restrictions suggested by Hirsch) and the ability for GMs to Veto. Players who want to play these high level characters should in fact have to talk to their GM before the game to ensure they are ok with the idea.
If we could have played at higher levels by effectively generating our own pre-gens then I would have partaken in this playtest even if you WEREN'T allowed to apply the credit if the playtest character was used this way.
As it is I knew I would not get more than a game or two and did not feel like wasting them playing a level 1 character and being able to provide very little feedback.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I'm equally sure it is frustrating for those who try and game as much as they can but when it comes down to the wire they choose to spend their vacations with family hear those of you who are willing to sacrifice such things tell them that they just aren't willing to make the sacrifice. True or not, it definitely oversimplifies things. And again I don't say this to suggest that those who do make the sacrifice are any worse (or better) merely that people should look at it from all angles.
I personally GM because I enjoy both it and the feeling of giving back, and am in no way jealous or envious of those who get boons for attending the big cons (although I also wouldn't be averse to other lottery methods or something to expand boons beyond cons).
However I do just want to address this point (not made by Kinevon alone, I just chose to use his quote), but it really is an oversimplification to suggest having holiday days means you can attend a con. You are not taking into account financial issues which may be associated with travel, nor how flexible employers are wrt to holidays (eg my current employer does not allow holidays during Dec-Jan period), and finally you assume that Pathfinder takes priority for Holidays, people with families might have to dedicated 99% (if not 100%) of their holiday days to family holidays.
Again I don't agree that the world is a horrible unfair place because not everyone can attend a con, but I also don't think we should reduce the counter argument to "you have holidays so go".
That -to me- seems a bit harsh, I know where I play that some GMs who run scenarios cold are the best kind of people. The reason? They are standing in for someone else, or else more people turned up than was planned for and in either case these GMs will step up and offer to run something cold so that players can still have a game.
I'm not saying GMs should run a scenario cold if avoidable, but I do think its overly harsh to assume all GMs running a cold scenario are doing it out of lazieness.
Meadow lark wrote:
I personally would let the player play (though I would warn them about the dangers of their character in case it was a mistake), but I would ensure a) they didn't try and "hog the spotlight" to make up for their disastrous build and b) that they didnt OOC bully other players into keeping them alive. IMO if the other players feel they arent pulling their weight and decide not to waste the healing I would have no problem with that.
Meadow lark wrote:
Oh and one more thing, what the hell is with the idea of even floating the concept of banning someone, work with it, don't be a dick simple.
The idea would be that floating the concept of banning someone is just as allowable as someone creating a terrible wizard, which is to say everyone can do whatever they want (and float whatever they want) it's only an issue if they try and impose it or if it has a net negative penalty on peoples enjoyment of the game. Insinuating someone is a "dick" for suggesting a course of action is hardly any better.
David Bowles wrote:
Most players don't take kindly to someone doing on the job learning with level 7 Ezren in a tier 8-9 or 7-8. That's the problem. They'd prefer to have the level 7 in a tier 3-4. Player preference, to me, trumps the way the GM thinks it should be in this case. The GM is getting their 1 XP 2 PP and table credit no matter what. The GM should have zero say in table composition as long as its legal.
You really sound like you have been lucky enough to not have to GM a bad table. I know a lot of gamers who would be too "nice" to say to someone "we would really prefer you play down" and who would then have a bad game because of it.
I'm not saying the GM should have the preference, I'm saying that if the table needs a ruling or a "bad guy" that the GM is the one (IMO) who should step up and lay down the law. (in as nice a way as possible!)
David Bowles wrote:
I understand that but I would advise them to look for a higher level game if they wanted to play a higher level pre-gen. I'm not saying this is always an option and when I say "insist" what I actually mean is "insist if at all possible".
Also to be fair there is a certain degree of "learn by doing" that means players do kinda just have to bite the bullet and learn with their own characters.
Authority can be a bit of a grey area, seing as the GM has the authority to back out of a game (it's bad-form, but the fact that they can does tend to lend them a little bit of extra authority in decision making).
And there is also the RAW vs RAI, I personally believe pregens are available as an option for those who CAN'T play their own character, NOT as an alternative to them. As such you should just be happy to have that option, you should not be trying to play your pregen at a different level to the party.
Again all this is just my opinion, as you can see from my name I'm not some venture captain or anyone important, so its probably not worth much :D
Agree with Sniggy 100%
If the party are playing level 4s and 5s you are playing the level 4 pregen. Whether you wanted to play level 1 or level 7, I'm going to be insisting you play at the level closest to the others.
Everybody is equal and all that, but those who are playing their actual characters are MORE equal than those just playing a pregen ;)
So whether this means you dont get to play a higher level pregen and can't beat the scenario one handed, or whether it means you can't play a level 1 pregen and be of little to no use, either way I would have you play closest to the avg level.
No, no matter what the outcome you have to just suck it up. The GM should give out the chronicle with the 1-XP and whatever gold and PA they did manage to get (even if nothing, although thats unlikely as hell).
To do otherwise would IMO be very much a case of bad form. Everyone gets to play their character for a certain number of sessions before hitting level 12, if you start taking 0XPs it gets you more time with your character than others.
Also on a personal level it just seems so wrong to me, it's like treating this like a computer game, oops I didn't make a perfect run, better reload and start again. Your character should be able to make mistakes and mess things up and that's part of their story!
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Can I just say, and this isn't aimed at your quote in particular Walt, it's just yours was the latest. Why the hell is it "Wheatons Law", christ don't be a Dick has been around as long as, as, as, well christ!
Sorry, small off-topic veering over :)
You kidding me, I want to get GRRM to DM for a game with Baird playing!
I have access to a 3D printer and decided to just print one myself. It's a multi-tailed fox, so not humanoid form, but close enough for what I want. I'll have to see if I can find the link again and post it here.
That is so friggin cool!
Any chance of you posting a pic of the outcome? Would love to see the results!
12: Unfortunately this will be hard, I mean don't get me wrong I of all people would love this rule, but what grosses out one person will have another asking for the recipe. I am a horrible eater who is grossed out by the smells of among other things, tomatoes, onions, garlic, chip dips, nachos.... So basically anyone playing by that rule at my table could have, eh, crackers? ;)
13: Just ewwww, to the cat licking example. *shudders*
Chris Mortika wrote:
Which is why both of us quoted DragonCats rule which singles out phones as something which should be banned at the table. I think I (might be possibly able to?) speak for FoC when I say that the rule should be more along the lines of:
"You are there to play PFS, you should not be entertaining yourself in other ways like checking facebook on your phone or reading that book you can't out down"
I feel your pain, I was angry about this at first, BUT I just checked with Google maps and apparently I am only:
from the place, so really I'm probably overreacting.
5. Don't bring your phone to the table, and especially don't text people in the middle of the game.
I'm guilty of this and don't particularly feel bad about it, I bring my phone because although gaming is my hobbie and interest I have a life outside of it. I don't mean that "hey I'm so cool I need to be on twitter and facebook with an update every five minutes", what I do mean is that if my Wife needs to know where I hid the TV remote this time or my Mam and Dad need help with something or Work rings asking about the latest project, then I will text them back, if needed I will even apologise and step away from the table to take a call.
It's not ideal, but I try keep it to a minimum, I don't do it just because I am bored with the current box text, and if I feel I am being disruptive I always apologise.
My own personal idea of how this ideally should have been handled is to mix the old and the new (and therefore piss EVERYBODY off!).
Have the faction missions work as they currently are with a single secondary goal that avoids everyone having to ask the GM every 5 minutes "Is that the guy i'm looking for? No? How about him?". BUT to tie in the factions and to keep people feeling like the mission is more personal to them bring back faction handouts. These handouts would expand upon the main mission and explain how this could benefit your faction.
Andoran - We also want this because these pirates are also rumoured to partake in slavery.
Silver Crusade - We feel among all pathfinders that this mission to bring justice and peace to the defenseless is close to our hearts.
Scazrni - These pirates have paid no "taxes" and are fishing without a license if you know what i mean.
This has the benefit of;
They never said it was about the cantina effect, what they said was that when weighing whether to introduce new races they had to worry about the balance of many things, one of which was the cantina effect.
Blog Post wrote:
It's tough to balance the lure of race boons for conventions against letting as many people as possible play the types of characters they want. Add to that the heated discussions about whether or not some non-standard races are overpowered and the concerns about the so-called "cantina effect." That's a lot to juggle when making a decision, but we decided that introducing a few new options would be best for the campaign.
I personally think its a nice balance to cycle in some new and out some old.
My own opinions is that I really like the removal of Aasimar and Tieflings, aside from the balance issues mentioned I really like the cycling. It allows people access to more and more races but by cycling them back out again we dont't just keep growing, instead we get to keep a nice stable base of the core races plus a small amount of non-core that are currently in-cycle.
Also I understand the problems of people with boons etc, but this is the first complete cycle done (Aasimar and Tiefling in then out again), so for those who have boons for kitsune etc they can probably keep them for when THEIR turn comes to cycle out, or take whatever alternative John Compton ends up deciding on.
Depends how its reported, if he goes looking for action then maybe so, but if he presents it as just;
"I felt these players were rude, and they were very late and didnt seem to care. If this is the only occurence of such then that is fine, but I thought it worth bringing to your attention in case this is a reoccurring problem"
That way if the players ARE consistently late but the VL was thinking "hmm I better wait and see if anyone else has this problem with them" then they have their answer. But by the same token if they aren't a problem usually the VL can say "Ok, well it seems like an isolated incident so i will just keep it in mind and let it go for now"
Right so took a quick look at a season 1, the one I thought I had possibly made a mistake in (I didnt woo!)
Kingdom of the Impossible:
Tier 3-4 Max Gold 1800
As for how this is described, the majority of encounters and optionals are described with "If the PCs complete this award EACH PC with Xgp". With one exception for the Tier 3-4 Scenario there are a number of diamonds to find and it just tells you how many diamonds there are and that they are worth 100gp each. I would assume that you divide the gp by the number the encounter was designed for (4 for early seasons 5 for later or something like that right?)
Andrew Christian wrote:
I don't know for sure, but I definitely ran one or two scenarios that were somewhere in seasons 1-3 that I totaled up the Gold rewards for and found it came out over the max gold. (I could have made a mistake though)
I definitely remember it, because it was one of my first GM-ings and the player/VL came up to me after and said I think you made a mistake, you gave us more than the max gold.
It seems a little ambigous, the text from the PFS guide reads:
"In addition, every player who completes a scenario receives
So it says both that its a set amount and that it can change?????
I always thought that if you didnt find all the loot in a scenario that you might not get the full gold, but there was usually overspill eg:
Scenario has 5 "treasures" each worth 250gp (total 1250gp), the total gold for the scenario is 1000gp. So you can get at most 1000gp, but if you missed say 2 pieces you would only get 750.
This thread however has now thrown that belief up in the air!
Not even really that hard, just whenever you are organising games send around a sheet with the sign in sheet asking people if they want to opt in to the service and if so provide signature.
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
I thought the reward was that you always got to play what you want and didn't have to worry about getting a seat at the table.
In my experience (not an organiser, just from watching them) this is very much not true. I have seen organisers coralling players (see; herding cats) for games, making sure everyone has what they need etc and then actually missing out on sitting in for a game themselves.
The Fox wrote:
That said, a lot of scenarios (though by no means all) are pretty blatant about "THIS IS THE BOSS FIGHT!", so if you do only have a 1/day ability you know when you're in your last fight (although it can suck to get to the last fight and realise the ability is useless in this case).
Player: I have a crazy ability that will do super high fire damage, take that big bad boss guy!
GM: You know that he is actually clearly healed by fire right?
Player: I don't care I have been saving that ability ALL DAY!!!
That said, very few GMs will argue with you if you've got a tablet with an internet connection and just show them something on the prd. But do you really want to take the chance of being at a table with a GM who enforces the letter of the law and won't let you play your character?
Eh, to be fair I think you are misusing the term "letter of the law" here.
If I had bought a book, pdf etc and used it to create a character but then accidentally left that at home and had to make use with the PRD but the GM said no (despite me actually owning the material but just having forgotten it) that would be a GM enforcing the letter of the law, as he is correct about the technicality but the spirit of the law was actually to ensure people owned their own copies of additional resources items, which in this case would be incorrect.
But for a player who wants to use the PRD without owning the actual additional resources and a GM enforced it then that GM would really be upholding the spirit and the letter of the law. (Because we support PFS with our money)
I agree that there are not many GMs (I have seen) that call people out on this too much (unless its a HUGE part of the character), but I think its highly unfair to those who do call people on it, if you are to make out like they are blindly following the letter of the law.
Of course as always that's just my take on it.
BNW You really seem to be taking this too personally I agree with Paz and Kerney that his position was quite neutral, and he wasn't calling people out for being unimaginative he was just suggesting maybe they should try make the best of what they have and come up with cool concepts within the system (and races) available.
I also don't think his Tolkien comment was insulting, you can read into it that he is saying people suck at making characters but tbf most people can read anything INTO anything. I read it as a simple case of trying to turn a negative (restricted races) into a positive (a fun challenge), I really think you are reading too much into it. In fact YOUR posts are now reading as antagonistic to Kerney, so maybe just take a breath and see if its possible you are reading intent where there was none.
I say all of the above without malice, I generally find your posts and positions to be quite well thought out, but I think you may have the wrong end of the stick with this one.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
None, it was a turn of phrase, a cracked vibrant purple Ioun stone allows you to store a single spell (level 1 I think, but could be wrong) like a ring of spell storing.
You can activate it as a standard action, no attack of opportunity, no risk of failing a UMD and you don't have to hold a wand in your hand.
So pick up wand, at the start of every scenario cast wands spell into stone, and then use stone during mission.
@CathalFM—I would wonder, then, if perhaps your own stance needs to switch from "I am okay with X until someone's not comfortable" to "I'm not okay with X until everyone is comfortable". Not to tell you what to do or anything, just brainstorming options; this would seem to address your concerns, yes?
I completely get you, and I definitely lean strongly this way myself, I guess I am just played a degree of devils advocate here, but where exactly is the line? My "Im ok with this for everyone" level might still be cruder than someone elses offence level for instance.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
So as CathalFM says, I would feel hypocritical saying it bothered me or wasn’t welcome around me. And I’m pretty sure all my friends know it doesn’t bother me.
Pretty much spot on with what I mean, and it can actually make matters worse if you act falsely like this in the sense that your regular players may think "wow he is trying to cozy up to the new player" (not to be sexist but especially if its a woman, due to the assumption its me trying to "get in") and the new player could feel uncomfortable if they feel we don't allow that level of relaxed joking.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
This is also very true, and in a lot of cases where I have seen this its been the group GENUINELY trying to make a new person feel like part of the gang.
Jessica Price wrote:
Its not the exact words, I didnt mean to pick at your suggestion by any means, but as I said before people who knew me who might have heard me make such a joke before could find it hypocritical. Again all I mean to point out is the issue is a little murky.
Jessica Price wrote:
I apologise if this wasn't clear but no I genuinely only meant good natured but cruder humour etc, nothing with ANY kind of personal edge and definitely none of the above.
Jessica Price wrote:
I agree entirely and again I didn't mean to suggest GMs (or anyone) should do nothing, I was just pointing out the murkier areas and playing devils advocate to a degree. As I said in my original post I am someone who is genuinely bothered and upset if I know somebody else is bothered and upset, so I personally always strive to ensure this never happens, but I am sure I have probably inadvertendly offended people before. (I'm sympathetic not empathic!)
You make a lot of good points, but two things. First as an addition to your 4.5 point example, the Blue Balls joke. This was in bad taste if it was directed (even indirectly) at you a new member to a group and I agree wholeheartedly in your case. However (I probably overuse that word) the Blue Balls joke itself is not a definitive example of humour thats too crude, I know a few people who would find that joke extremely funny (if it hadnt been for the knowing look at you) and half of them are female.
Secondly in regards to 6, this can be tricky, I know you say try and compliment something neutral and don't flirt etc etc, but I would be surprised if I was the only person in the world who had experienced a case of somebody thinking you were flirting when you were making an innocuous compliment. In some cases its really best to just skip this step, or at least alter it to a group case, ie "well done pathfinders, you all did really well there".
Ok, so A) thats a lot of text up there, and B) I probably do (but REALLY hope I dont) come across as a sexist jerk. Ah well, the perils of discussion!
Welcome to PFS like Walter above I understand what you are proposing, but I think it would be too open to abuse, too hard to keep track of and I generally just don't feel that the I'd anything wrong with the current system.
4 games really isn't that much. If you dont like your character to that extent you can just start a new one. You may come back to your first character with a new appreciation for them after playing your second or third for a while.
Hey so, I have a few counterpoints if you dont mind;
Jessica Price wrote:
To be fair, I very much understand your position, but at the same time this advice can also be seen as "lie to your table". Let me explain, I personally -for instance- don't mind a bit of crude humour, BUT not if it makes anyone uncomfortable. What this means is that if I am playing at a table where everyone is ok with that then it wouldn't bother me. If I was playing with someone who WAS bothered by it, then it in turn would bother me (I'm bothered by other peoples bother!), but if I say "Hey guys I don't think that kind of language is appropriate" etc, then that makes me a hypocrite as I have probably used it before myself. Its a very murky area.
I don't know what the alternative is mind you, I'm just making an observation. Perhaps you should instead go with something more ambigous like "lets tone it down before we scare away any newbies etc", eg try and half laugh it off. But then are you calling attention to the uncomfortable player? As I said murky. (By the way this is all in relation to grey area stuff like crude humour IC stuff etc, for flat out harassment I'm 100% with you).
Jessica Price wrote:
Again, You seem to draw two distinctions here, either;1) You personally arent cool with behaviour at the table
2) You are fighting for someone without being asked
Again though, I personally am the type of person who hates seeing other people being given any kind of hard time, so for me if the behavior itself wouldnt bother ME, but I see it would bother someone else and therefore I would like it to stop what camp do I end up in? After all I dont mind the behavior itself so much, so im out of camp1, and I am technically going to be fighting for someone else so that puts me in camp 2. I guess that makes me a White-Knight jerk doesnt it? :( ;)
My point is just that things are unfortunately never so clear cut. I do very much agree with your point though about "I am, however, always appreciative of people who'll stand by my side when I step onto the field". At least here there is no ambiguity, if someone says they have a problem with how things are going then you can step in and support them without worrying about offending them with your "presumption" that they had a problem.
Again I hope the above is read as it was written as a series of observations on the murky waters of defending people, as opposed to any kind of a problem with the intent behind it. Because despite all my observations I am personally more likely to risk offending people by "white knighting" then I am to let someone be given a hard time. Anyone who has a problem with that, well I probably don't care too much about their opinion anyway. :)
TLDR: Eh, Don't bother, not much interesting was said!
@ Blub - I was looking at that but I'm not sure if choosing that bloodline is worth it. If I choose water I effectively get a +2 to casing stat anyway PLUS the ability to convert spells to cold PLUS still open to crossblooding.
@ Andrew - Watersinger does look awesome and I've never played a bard before, but I was just worried about how often you would find enough water near a fight that a GM would allow you to control it.
@ Cao - Some cool synergies there, one thing though I believe (though I could be wrong) that the shaman is one of the classes getting a big rewrite so I'd be apprehensive about relying on it.
1 - Before anything else let me say that from what you have said so far I side with you, so take that into consideration before reading 2!
2 - Were you arguing with the GM? At the table like? Or did you make an argument for your case and then bring it up again only after the game was over? If the former then maybe the VC was just a bit tired and didnt feel like any more arguing, and you could bring it up civily again in future. If the latter then maybe your VC just had a bad day, it happens to the best of us.
3 - Try and in as non-confrontational way as possible bring this up to your VC again (after a few days have passed), either in person or via email. Explain your case, and that you understand that it needed to be adjudicated at the time, but that if he would kindly review the matter that you think he will find that it is viable etc etc etc.
4 - If none of the above work, then all you can really do is either accept it, try and get it added to the FAQ or (NUCLEAR OPTION) bring it up to Mike.
Of course in my timezone its pretty damn late, so take everything I have just said as the ramblings of a man about to fall asleep at the keyboard ;)
Hope it works out for you.