Cold Napalm's page

Okay...so it sounds like you want the level of proficiency to be a big deal...but ultimately they are adding +1 to +3 bonus...while levels add 1-20. That seems odd from a design stand point of what you want the flavor to be. It would make WAY more sense if you changed it up so level add say only 1/2 level to the bonus and each level of proficiency adds say +1/3/7...which makes the legendary bonus +21...which is comparable to the numbers you have now. With this math, it means you get roughly half the bonus from levels and half from proficiency. The DC should probably stay at the +1-3 levels...but without more numbers...it's kinda hard to tell. It also gives freedom in NPC building if they don't have to follow those level restrictions. Having a level 1 legendary swordsmith now has a better bonus to make swords than your level 20 barbarian.

Actually, I make great use of reach weapons with just one feat...quick draw. You take your AoO, the drop your reach weapon and free action draw your primary weapons out. If you do sword and shield, use a quickdraw shield.

Is the goal of all your characters and the people you play with to win pathfinder by, in the words of John Compton, be a murder hobo that smashes his way through everything?

Hey, that describes at least half my characters....

season 0-3...yes. 4 if your a decent tactician. 5...you have to be damn good.

RtrnofdMax wrote:

Yes,... Is it to go Mystic Theurge? I don't think you will be happy in the long run with decreased casting progression for either class.

Yes, it is for the Mystic T. I think I will be happy.

Only if your happy with causing TPKs....

I would feel very uncomfortable sending a new player with a level 7 pregen into a 10-11 scenario. I would feel less uncomfortable having a new player play a level 7 in a 5-9, depending on the scenario. It depends on the out-of-society experience of the character and the difficulty of the scenario. It also depends somewhat on the effect that a level 7 pregen will have on the APL of the adventure.

Generally speaking...a level 7 pre-gen in a 10-11 is just bad news. Doesn't even have to be a new player.

Belafon wrote:

rode a hellhound through the Oparra Opera House - 30 Cool Points!)

Damn!

No cool points for me; I used a riding dog instead. Do I get a consolation prize? Please!

No...but you can have a participation ribbon.

Despite Silent Tide currently being 3.5 rules, I think it is the closest example of a current scenario that could double-purpose as an Evergreen Tier 1 Scenario we have. Something about Silent Tide still makes it a good first run for new players today.

Murder on the throaty mermaid...seriously, if there is a scenario that BEGS for replays, that one is it.

Acedio wrote:

I would love to see high level scenarios written for PFS that can be played in a scenario time slot.

I know some very adept GMs (and like to think I'm one of them). I know of hardly any 7-11 scenarios that can get done in 4-5 hours, unless role playing is tossed aside completely.

Having said that, I certainly don't want to see 7-11 scenarios trimmed of content in an effort to fit the 4-5 hour slot. I like them as they are, and people expect a little "overtime" when they are played. No big deal.

It really depends on the players more then the GM...assuming the GM is at least rules savvy. High level play can be FASTER then lower level play depending on your players. Especially as highly speced high level character are playing rocket tag and PFS NPCs are not. So it becomes a game where you spend 1-3 rounds in a fight, get that over with and get to the fun RP part of the night. If they are not however...high level games get bogged down. I have been in many 7-11 where combat wasn't even 25% of the night, we got done early and had plenty of RP fun.

thistledown wrote:

There are only 5 scenarios where Disarm is listed in tactics or implied by abilities. 6 scenarios for sunder.

It's not something you're allowed to do very often anyways.

(did a search-in-pdf for the words. I think a'misunderstood" / "misunderstanding" came up more than "sunder". I'll admit I only have about half of season 4, but based on the other seasons I don't think it'd be much higher.)

Sure, that's when it's listed in the tactics. But when someone takes a ranged attack next to an intelligent enemy, you can bet they're going to try to disarm the ranged weapon. Smarter enemies will take the first AoO to sunder the weapon cords.

And the smartest ones sunder the bow itself...thereby making the poor foolish archer waste a round before they can get another weapon.

Todd Lower wrote:

Doesn't the highlighted portion prevent having more than one weapon per hand?

No, not in the slightest. That just tells us that you can't change the weapon on the end of the weapon cord. It doesn't say you can't have more than one cord.

And so your gonna mutilate the basic understandings in the English language to get there...yeah...I don't say no to a lot of things...but stuff like that I say no to...early, often and twice on sunday.

Rynjin wrote:

Hey now, don't be insulting my peroxide. It's got a whole 3%.

The stuff I work with is about 30%. If you get it on your hands (which you should not) the skin turns white. We use it to boost chemical reactions. And while I do sometimes carry the stuff around I try to be as careful as possible when hauling the 90lbs cans.

Why it is so dangerous (apart from being corrosive) is that it is a strong oxygen donator which means is boosts fires to burn hotter and faster. Don't smoke when you work with it.

I may or may not have caused a small napalm like fire in one of my chem classes involving a high concentration hydrogen peroxide solution and a polymer.... On top of it causing hotter and faster flames, it also makes it HARDER to knock the flames out. Pretty dangerous stuff.

Also I have a scar from dropping a bit of the 80%(I think) solution on my hand. That one was definitely NOT my fault. My lab partner got super careless when she read hydrogen peroxide and spilled it everywhere as she thought it be harmless as she uses it to color her hair. Course she also picked up a red hot crucible with her hand and tossed it at me...have a scar from that too. Also she spilled hydrogen bromine on me and poisoned me with that as well. I believe the term worst lab partner EVER comes to mind....but meh...off topic.

Rule 1 of custom magic item is base the price on what it does FIRST. Do NOT use the formula unless you like breaking your game. Enlarge person is a powerful effect to be able to do at will. The juggernaut pauldrons gives you enlarge person at will with a few other bonuses and that costs 40k.

Yes, just yes. Extra risk should always have extra rewards. If this lets some people get extra gold, so be it. They earned it. Due to the geometric nature of item costs, the gold is not that super overpowering.

Hard mode is an OPTION. You do it because you WANT to...not for rewards. If waking runes hard mode had an extra boon or extra gold or extra ANYTHING, can you imagine how many more tables would have been tempted into doing that? And how many more TPK and perma deaths we would have? I'm not even talking about bulling or peer pressure to play hard mode, I'm just talking about pure greed temptation. I'm sorry, but that is bad for the campaign as a whole. If you WANT the extra challenge...great, awesome, I'll join ya. Extra reward...yeah, I'm gonna say no to that for sake of the health of the game.

Walter Sheppard wrote:

While all that dirt does exist on the carpet, focus more on the hairs. When you do, you'll find that the carpet is once again nice to walk on.

And when someone gathers up a giant pile of dirt, tracks it all over the carpet and insists its allowed on the carpet, like the paladin oracle with a +12 bonus on his dex save and the mysterious stranger pistelero with +18 damage to all gunshots because sometimes you can add the same bonus and sometimes you can't...?

Honestly...I never really saw this as large piles of dirt.... I mean really, if it doesn't break the game as much as a full caster, I just don't care.

I'm like you. I switch every other character. Don't know where I picked that up from.

When I play video games, I do pick female avatars tho. My friend summed up why best. Her reply was "if I am gonna be staring at something for hours, it's gonna be something that is hot". She of course picks male avatars. In a few of the games we play together, we have hurt some people's brains tho with this. Quite funny.

Cold Napalm wrote:

So...since the field guide is not in the additional resources list, it's not legal for use now as well? I was under the impression that the core assumption listed on the additional resources were correct until they moved the field guide into the additional resources list so as to make it so we can still use said book. It remains to be seen if the bestiary stays on the list (the old guide to organized play did not list that under core assumption either I believe and it was just listed under...

Really? The Field Guide isn't on the list? Check again. (Or use Ctrl-F)

Why is it not in red...razzle frazzle. Anyways, the old guide to organized play doesn't listed the bestiary under the core assumption. It is only listed as such on the additional resources page. So while the field guide definitely should be removed, I think the bestiary is still suppose to be a part of core assumption. Which mean a PRD print out should be just fine for the summon happy player.

So...this is all moot.

In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list. (If you're bringing a printout of the pages, it must be from the actual Paizo PDF and not text copied and pasted into a blank word processing document). Since the core assumption for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, we cannot assume that every Game Master will have the products listed below. As such, it's up to players to bring these items in order to familiarize their Game Masters with the rules.

The bestiary is part of core assumption. So...to the OP, just bring the PRD print out (or look up using phone/tablet) of whatever monsters you wanna summon and have at it.

Humm...a proof of purchase source sheet might not be a bad idea there redward. Have a sheet with all the books on it and have a GM sign off any physical book that you have and you don't wanna carry. After that any old photo copy should be fine for reference right?

Some prolific GMs run 3, 4, 5 or even 10 or more tables a month. How good is it for the community if those tables don't happen?

And all because the gm chooses to stereotype for the greater good of his table, game day, and community?

So...I started GMing PFS less then a month ago and I have my first star already...so I'm in the 10 or more class right now. So I can do whatever I want because I am a prolific GM now? Wow that's AWESOME. Well when I TPK a group because I triple the number of critters, I'll be sure to say that Andrew a VL said it was perfectly fine for me to do that because I run 10+ games a month. /s

A jackass running 10 bad games a month is STILL BAD. So instead of the jackninnie running 10 games, if you had somebody good running the games, maybe you would get more player retention. Which leads to more GMs. Which leads to not needing to have the same person running EVERYTHING. Which prevents burn out. Which means less bad games. Which means even MORE players. You grow a community with GOOD things...not repeating a lot of BAD things.

Gravity bow? Deadly aim, decent strength with a magic composite longbow? Am I missing anything for the damage calculation?

You don't even need gravity bow for that. Rapid shot, many shot, iterative at 6 is 4 attacks for the 4d8. Strength +2 bow, +1 magic weapon, Deadly aim +4, weapon spec +2, weapon training +1. Seriously, 4d8+40 over 4 shots at level 6 is...well meh.

Gunslingers don't get Targeting till 7, and that's when they truly hit their stride.

Alchemists don't start getting the good discoveries until 12, they don't even get a better mutagen before 12.
Witch doesn't get major Hex or until 10.
Most don't get 5th level spells till 10-14 area
a number of feats need a BAB of +9 or more.

Unless your looking at monk, fighter, or possibly certain gunslinger builds you are just getting good when the game drops out from under you.

If your gunslinger needs targeting and alchemist need their 12+ discoveries and mutagens and your witches need their major hex and your casters need 5th+ level spells to make actually WORK...your seriously doing it wrong from a mechanical stand point. You can make perfectly working all those things from level 1. Remember at level 1, you shouldn't be facing anything that needs 5th level spells.

As a PFS GM, I'm locked into what the book says to do. Often it is quite easy for my players to come up with builds that mess up the bad guys' tactics, but I have to try and stick with it. In a home game, I could compensate. Here, I can't. Players can do strange stance combinations, or put me in a pit, or trip or grapple me, or any number of things to make the bad guy pointless. But I still have to try and keep to the scenario. This is not fun.

Really, you listed the pit second? The pit wasn't even remotely near as bad as the accursed slumber witch. And I can't believe you didn't list the sundering of spell component pouches. For shame :P .

Out of curiosity, Kyle, what would you do if that exact situation came up at a PFS table?

Bonus points - what if it came up on more than one occasion?

Edit: Extra credit question - what about builds so powerful that they can solo an entire scenario with no one else at the table doing anything? (or powerful enough to take the scenario with just one other powerful build-character, leaving 4 people twiddling their thumbs for 4+ hours)?

If one player's build ruined the fun for everyone else at the table, I'd pull that player aside and have a small chat with him about letting the other players shine and have fun. I'd politely ask him to tone down his tactics and let the others do stuff.

If he continues to be a disruption to the fun, I would ask him more sternly to watch his behavior. After that, I would talk with the local coordinator and if need be a VO about if we want his continued disruption to be a part of the society. A bad player who drives away others isn't worth keeping around if we want to continue to grow after all.

As for powerful builds...my cleric did exactly that. We played up. The party REALLY should not have. Basically, I kinda ended up soloing the scenario by going from normal I'm having fun tactics to I'm going into overdrive tactics. Since the result was we had one death instead of what should have been a TPK...I don't think the other players minded one bit. Just because you CAN solo a scenario doesn't mean you HAVE to.

pathar wrote:

TimrehIX wrote:

@Andrew Christian: Yes

@redward: I don’t try to get in that position. I sit at every table with a healthy supply of potions just to avoid that situation. Being left behind is not a choice I would make but one I am willing to deal with if it is made for me by the other players.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you trying to tell me that you spend 50 GP per on potions but don't want to spend 15 GP per charge on the wand just because someone said you needed to?

Not JUST because they told me I need to but, Yes I would. I know it is not cost effective. But back at level one I decided that this character (just this one not all of them) would not carry a healing wand. He can’t use a cure wand himself, and as a lawful good expatriate of Cheliax he wasn’t going to use Infernal Healing. I show up with plenty of potions. That’s how I roll.

Any class I play that can use a healing wand will. A different caster who could use infernal healing would. My gunslinger wont, but he will have a ton of alchemical goodies. If they come out with alchemical healing he will have that.

Okay...so if you had a stack of potions (like say 25 then...since you don't need a stack of 50 like a wand), why did you need the channel for down time healing? Or was it so you could save yourself some gold at the cost of increased risk to the party at a later encounter? If potions fit your character more then a wand and you wanna waste money...hey go for it. It's all you. But once again, if your stacking up potions instead of wands, how did you run out? Was it a particularly hard scenario where others were burning through half their CLW wands? I get the feeling it was not and you just wanted to save some of your money. Your choice was to dump a bunch of money into potions instead of wands, the other players should not have to support your choice by burning their channels, spells or their own consumables instead. You show up with 25 CLW potions at the start and you actually had to use them all...then yeah, I'll share my healing items. Hey tough luck happens. You had CLW potions left or didn't have a proper stack to replicate what the CLW is suppose to do however and your gonna get advice with that help. You continue to ignore said advice and yeah, I'm not gonna continue to weaken my character for the sake of yours.

My stance is new players should die game one or game two, softballing any of these games helps no one. All of us will cry, eat characters, and the like if we become too attached, at seventh level, you are too attached. Mostly softballed tables crumble under pressure, we played that game and the most memorable thing that happened is the Gnome made the Blackros matriarch fall in love with him forever.

Well...yes and no. Crushing new players is not a very good way to get new players...and we WANT new players. I do agree that if you coddle them too much, they tend to carry bad habits into higher tier games...bad habits that can get the party killed. I have pulled back on some near TPKs that were at the low tables, BUT they all learned some pretty valuable lesson on how to avoid those in the future in the process. So you don't actually need to kill anyone to teach new players to play better. Having them within an inch of their character's lives can serve just as well.

No I don't mean the second part of first steps.

I just got through reading lamontia's first death thread and also been meaning to address this from a few sessions I was involved in as well. So it seems a lot of players...especially the new players, seem to not know to carry some common items on hand for higher level play. Things like potions (or scrolls if you can use them) of fly. It shocks me how many characters lack a fly option in PFS at level 5+. Or cold iron and silver arrows/weapon. Adamantine weapons blanch unless you have an adamantine weapon. You know, the common stuff that you should have on hand for high tier play. Along with tactics in high level play.

So...what about doing a series of scenarios around level 6 that goes about teaching new players how the game shifts at the higher levels? Maybe even have a rebuild boon at the end so if they find that their character just can't handle how the game changes at the higher levels, they can switch and continue with their character?

So what do you all think?

Yeah, I suppose.

I'm a rather... Diffrent... Human. And not in a good way...

No...you want to be unique...just like everybody else.

Remember that a elemental metamagic rod can change your fireballs into cold balls or acid balls as needed, for only 3000gp.

Doesn't change the spell type however for the effects of...say rimed spell. Just the damage type. You need the elemental water bloodline to change the spell into a cold spell. Then you can elemental rod it if they are immune/resistant and still apply rimed :P .

At the VERY least, you have a general idea. I'm a chef by trade. So lets use cooking. I have a recipe for chocolate chip cookies. Well I'm fairly well skilled so with a quick look, I know I can do this while half asleep. Then I see a recipe for quail stuffed with pate with a cherry zin glaze. Well once again I am quite skilled so I have a pretty good chance of doing this one just fine as well. Now I have a recipe for a souvid chicken served with crispy skin on a bed of frisee with a hollandaise vinaigrette and pouched egg. Only I have no souvid machine, no oven, no oil, no salt no pepper and using a campfire to do everything in. Yeah I am pretty dang skilled but I'm pretty sure that ain't coming out right. Exact numbers, probably not, but generally yeah you know.

You seem very committed to the powergame or go home position. I hope you have fun with that, but there is a lot more out there than just that stance.

As to tyranny, a player chooses and makes their character, with input and any restrictions from the dm. It isn't any business of the other players to interfere in this. Not in the class, or how it levels, or what feats are chosen. The design is none of their business they are not in control, nor should they be. A character is a very personal choice, it isn't up for peer review and doesn't require committee approval.

If it fails it fails.

Your have no idea what PFS is do you....

Also, the last time I played a weak build in a PF game, I had an immense amount of fun. My weaknesses were balanced by canny tactics, good timing and a fine base speed carrying me away from trouble. Very enjoyable, did my part, didn't listen to what the group wanted from my character. Great sessions.

Be the maverick. Lol.

Great session for you I have no doubt. Was it great for everyone ELSE? Because you see, without that second part, there are issues.

Renegadeshepherd wrote:

2) talk to people more. Learn what they want or expect. I admit I should have do e this earlier but I was the new and just thought it best to roll and shout. Clearly a mistake

This is why I would describe the other players as the jerks.

PFS is a gateway for new players. As such, experienced players should guide newer players toward creating fun and effective characters.

Many of the experienced players in this thread are doing an excellent job of that!

The players at the OP's table instead just criticized, which is not helpful.

Instead of saying, "your build is weak!" they could have said, "I know that Power Attack seems awesome, but for your monk the trade off isn't worth it. Consider Dodge or Weapon Focus instead."

We don't know they did not offer help. We don't know a WHOLE slew of things other then the OP reported that they were NOT JERKS but that they DID complain about his build. Why are people on this board have such a freaking hard on to say that they were jerks when the OP has already said they were NOT.

So, the OP built a self buffing Monk who can use divine magic items without need of UMD, has great ability to identify monsters and this improve non meta gamed tactics for the party...and people are saying he's useless?

Interesting. That reflects more on what this community has become than I'd hoped, sadly.

He may not be useless NOW...but how about at level 4? 7? 10? If the OP is gonna be a regular, higher level is definitely a concern. If I saw his character at a table, I would not be worried when he is playing 1-2 tier where the AC target is like 14ish and they have 4 hps (early season 1-2 are cakewalks). I would worry what his character is gonna be like when he has to play higher tiers however.

The 10 con, 14 dex rogue (yes that is an AC of 14) that continues to rush ahead of the party and get dropped so I as a cleric has to spend my actions healing him and the fighter not attacking things near him but rushing over to the rogue side and drawing AoO is dead weight. Not only is he losing his action, he's wasting mine and the fighters. In low level play, I would say that is pretty much the ONLY dead weight character I have ever seen in PF. Now at higher levels...oh so many ways to get things wrong by the time your at 7+....

You know that saying?

If you gotta ask....

Cold Napalm wrote:

You assuming that there IS AN ISSUE to begin with. And even if there is an issue, your going about it the wrong way. You don't focus on how to deal with the uber or gimp, you focus on how to make the game more fun for the vast majority of players. You seek to change the game to minimize the impact of the extreme. You should seek a change to the game that makes it more fun then it is now.

I don't assume there is an issue. I have witnessed and experienced the issue. And obviously so have a lot of other people, judging from the number of posts of people venting about mod ease/difficulty. Seeking a change to the game that makes it more fun is precisely what I am doing.

So...how many people have you met, that was on either spectrum, who when told that they are ruining the fun for everyone and they should either tone it down or up refused to do so and continue to ruin games? For me...that would be one so far. One out of dozens of PFS players I have met. I don't see that as an issue honestly.

As for the change...no your attempt is to minimize the impact of the optimizers and you HOPE that will make the game more fun...if they are present. But what does the change do for groups who don't have an optimizer around? Does making save using casters suck horribly make the game more fun when there are no optimizers abound or does it just frustrate a player for no good reason? Does a damage cap make the game more fun or less fun when there is one guy who can do 10+ damage a round with a bunch of support characters? Your focused on the extremes...not the average players.

I think the real question should be - what can be done for these players. How can we help them to avoid losing them. The gap between good and weak players is growing due to more complex options. The question therefore should be - what can be done to close the gap or at least to soften the problems caused by it.

Teach them to play better. Seriously. Tactics trumps builds. You can have the most awesome character on paper...but if you lack tactics, it will do you no good. Good players can take those god awful pre-gens and make them rock in the scenario. So instead of worrying about if a build is weak or not or if there are too many options, just teach players to play better. Course that is MUCH harder to teach and learn then how to make a powerful build.

I also want to point out that while spells like Clone are neat, they aren't very practical. When your clone wakes up, unless you sacrifice your own money and gear, the clone will have ni items or gold and will not know where you died nor where to find your gear. It would also be up to your DM whether or not he's going to provide you with anyway, can't just quote WBL and expect to get it.

Umm...contingency spell?!? Seriously, what wizard with the intelligence of a super genius at least does not have a contingency up to teleport him right before he dies to his clone?

Sorry, just because your bad at the let's be an uber wizard does not mean other are as well.

And failing that...who says your clone does not know where your body is? Divination spells should make short work of that even if you don't know the exact location of where you died (generally speaking this shouldn't even be an issue since how the heck do you NOT KNOW WHERE YOU DIED?!?).

Not saying that a wizard can ALWAY do EVERYTHING...but they aren't as limited as some people seem to think. They are extremely limited in use for YOU is not the same as they are extremely limited.

In my opinion there are a few things that need to be address to correct the issues with challenge.
1) - Local pathfinders organizations need to direct the GMs to attempt to kill players when at all possible (using the monsters abilities, coordinate attacks when possible, prebuffing before combat, learn the combat rules to allow them to fight intelligently.
2) Zero tolerance with meta gaming - ("Heal me, I'm -10hp", "that monster can only be hurt by cold iron" even though they all failed the knowledge check, the fighter telling the wizard what spells to cast) Table talk and meta gaming = cheating
3) Playing down means those players do not get any experience for the mission
4) With 4 players you can get the max 3 prestige, 5 players you can only get 2 and with 6 players you can only get one.
5) If the players do not make stealth checks, or are using bombs and gunfire then monsters within hearing distance can start preparing or working together....thus overriding the parameters as listed in the scenario (there were 3 wizards in a room, the players were just outside it throwing bombs and using gunfire, they made no attempt to be quiet, but in the mission it indicated the wizards are surprised)

1) Just NO. Seriously...just no. There are plenty of DM who already do this and it is VERY much frowned upon to go out of your way to kill characters and it should stay that way. In fact I would report you to the VC if I saw it happen at any event I was at. Killing because you went in alone and got caught and there was nobody else...yes. Killing while drawing 4 AoO just to do a CDG...yeah no.

2) Table talk is table talk. If you want to eliminate that...well too bad. This game is for a wide range of player base...NOT JUST WHAT YOU LIKE. Your just gonna have to deal with it. The ONLY thing I would say in the case where the player meta a monsters weakness, the GM should have leeway to change said weakness on the fly.

3) So you don't like your local coordinators then? HELL NO.

4) See above. You obviously have no idea how to organize an organized event else you would not even have suggest these two.

5) Maybe there are things in the scenario your not accounting for? Like the wizards are in a sound proof room to do their ritual? That said, the scenario is written that way for power balance...and your SUPPOSE TO RUN IT THAT WAY. If you have an issue with this, then don't play organized play where things are SUPPOSE to be standardized as much as possible. You seriously seem to be unfamiliar with what organized play is suppose to be...this is not your home games.

Illeist wrote:

A quick note: there is, in fact, some Dev commentary on this spell.

Despite the number of rules questions he answers, James Jacobs is not a developer. He's a great source of Golarion info and GMing advice, but he is not a rules guy, and he says it himself.

That said...so what is the order of precedence then?

RAW obviously trumps anything else...even DEV input unless it gets officially errata.

FAQ material

Dev input

JJ and other paizo staff

Individual GM calls when NOTHING else exists.

That is the order for me in PFS in anycase. For home games, reverse the order ;) .

I'm also of the big warning sign crowd. Sorry, but when a GM picks your class...that is bad news. Like nothing good will come of it bad news. The whole you can make a character using these rules and then doing veto after the fact is just gravy of bad news.

Honestly, the only real issue I have is with GM skill level. Even with the faction mission stated out directly, I have seem GM screw things up royal. Like forgetting to tell a faction where one of the item they need is...or forgetting an NPC that is faction vital as just some guy over there. I shutter to think what would happen when the optional goal is even MORE vague. I'm okay with the whole table works on one extra side quest deal as it makes things a whole lot easier...but I think the players really should know ahead of time what the extra side quest actually is and not some vague do something over there somewhere.

Cold Napalm wrote:

Robert Matthews 166 wrote:

Merkatz wrote:

Tristan, I am comparing the proposal to the podcast change.

You say "extra reward," but that's an illusion. If I have to pay for a res, I am still out that cost. Delayed Credit just means I lose that money at 7th lvl instead of 4th... All because I took extra risk for the team, and I got no advantage for my troubles.

You shouldnt get an advantage for getting carried though. There shouldnt be an incentive for playing up other than to help make a legal table when there are no better options (such as not wanting to play a pregen). This solution addresses that perfectly while still allowing people to use the gold gained during the scenario to buy off conditions before saving the sheet for later.

Why do you assume you get carried for playing up? I sure as hell don't. My last play up session at level 4 cost me 2k of expendables to do. Was a lot less bad level 5...but your suppose to have the choice to play 6-7 at that level. If I don't get a way to make up for things like that, why the hell would I EVER play up?

To make a legal table if you don't have another character and don't want to play a pregen. That should be the only reason. There shouldn't be any reason other than this.

So if they don't happen to run my sub tier I should either play a pregen or walk? WTF? SERIOUSLY?!? I thought the main motto of PFS was PLAY...not play in tier or go home.

Merkatz wrote:

I don't understand the support for the "Delayed Reward" proposal...

Merkatz, I understand your concerns. Unfortunately, campaign staff feels that a change must be made to the rules in order to stop character wealth from getting too high due to repeated playing up. Because of this, they proposed forcing low-tier characters to always take low-tier gold, no matter what tier they played at.

The "Delayed Reward" system is an attempt to find a compromise between the campaign staff solution and a solution that allows players to play their own characters and receive the high-tier rewards. Under this proposal, a player would always be free to take low-tier rewards if they played up (which is what was chosen as the only option by the podcast). Alternatively, a player could hold credit from the adventure until they reached the correct level. The Delayed Reward system allows players to not lose out on any rewards they feel they earned by playing up.

If I understand what we were suggesting correctly, conditions gained/consumables used/etc would be taken care of once the delayed chronicle was applied, and not beforehand. Basically, if you used a Potion of Darkvision in a scenario in which you played up and wanted to replenish it, you would do so on the Delayed Credit chronicle itself. This would make the delayed credit not unbalanced for low-tier players playing up.

The specifics are of course up to campaign staff; I was simply hoping that we could find a compromise that meets campaign staff goals without punishing players or organizers.

Seriously, the benchmark should not be the horrible thing that was proposed. Coming up with something better then utter crapola does not mean it is actually GOOD. If we can't come up with anything better then what we have now, we should just support keeping what we have now.

Okay, just an FYI...the proposed system will NOT fix the WBL issue. You will play in level 1-2 at level 1-2 for 500ish a pop. At level 3, you play in 3 4-5 games that gives you 1750ish a pop. And 4 you play 3-4 for ~1500 a pop. At 5 you play 6-7 for ~3k a pop. At 6, you play 5-6 for ~3k a pop. At 7 you play 8-9 for etc etc.

At end of level 2, you have 3k gold...or WBL. At the end of level 3, your at 8250...or about 2250 more then you should. At the end of 4, you at 12750...which is still only about 2 grand out of step. At the end of level 5 however, your at ~25 grand...which is 9 grand outside of WBL.

Now lets see what happens when you play DOWN. At the end of level 2, you still at 3k. At the end of 3 you at 4500...or just a bit above HALF the other fellow and quite below WBL. At the end of 4, you at 9 grand...okay ~4 grand less isn't hurting so badly. At the end of 5 however, your gonna be at HALF the other guy.

So what the does the proposed change actually do then? Well it makes it so you can't play up every single session and have 3-4x your wealth by level...but that is a fringe case and you all know it. So we screw over people who are playing this game in not the ideal situation to deal with a few fringe cases? Seriously? It WILL make the discussion of playing up or down even more heated and bullied then it is now. I am okay with playing up right now because I get greater rewards but if I did not, I would in absolutely no short term EVER play up. When I played up at level 3-4 a few times, I spent 1-2 grand in consumables. If I get the standard 3-4 treasure, I either make 500 gold to LOSE 500 gold after all is said and done...with ASOLUTELY no way to make that up. Yeah crippling my character for future games so I can play in one now ain't gonna happen. And anyone who can do some quick math will come to the same conclusion and so you will get a lot more play this tier or I walk.

So what exactly is the goal of the change? To better balance WBL? Well this ain't gonna do it. One guy gets half the other guy depending on dead level play. To reduce player bullying? Well nope, that gets actually worse under this system.

So if you want to actually balance WBL, you have two options.

Get rid of sub tiers and dead levels. All session are either 1-2, 3-4. 5-6. 7-8, 9-10, 11-12. None of the old stuff can be used and only new materials maybe used if you choose to go this route as there is no way you can rewrite all the PFS scenarios to fit this. On the plus side, we will see a lot less silly things down in sub tiers under this model. On the downside...we basically have to start over.

The other option is what Yiroep first suggested (sorta as the penalty and bonus needs to go away). That is you get a fixed amount of gold dependent on your level.

Barring either of these two options, your not actually gonna fix the WBL disparity issue as playing up in dead levels vs not builds up to rather huge chunks of money already anyways.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

First, we have to make a convincing case for why the double XP idea is a solid way to prevent the too-much-gold characters from existing without making playing up a 100% nonstarter possibility for all but the risktakers.

One way to do that is to propose something which appears to have actual drawbacks over playing in an appropriate level game. If the proposal simply allows power-gamers to get to 12 in 21 games, rather than 33, without any drawbacks, that gives you less negotiating power.

You may want to clearly state the goals you are hoping to accomplish with this proposal. Having them clearly framed will help folks ensure they are all on the same page -- including Mike, John, and Mark.

I'd think the following would apply, but you may have others:

• Create an avenue for ending level disparity within regular (isolated) gaming groups.
• Not create a new method for players to "game the system".
• Avoid allowing characters to accumulate far more wealth than normal.

Why the interest punishing ANYONE? Why do you have to punish anyone to play up? They are taking more risk. They use up more consumable. So why do you want them to end up being CRIPPLED at higher levels for taking more risks?

Neither the proposed system or the double XP system is perfect, however, I think the proposed system does a better job of incentivizing people to play in tier than the double XP plan does.

Is the goal to try and get people to play in tier? I thought it was to try to deal with the perceived imbalance of having extra gold (which honestly this really doesn't fix as you can still play up in the dead levels to make up extra gold). Okay I will admit that if you play up EVERY game, you can end up with game breaking gold...if you survive. Seriously if you want to have people play in tier that badly, just get rid of the sub tier and just say you can't play up or down. To cripple players to try and get them to play in tier is just silly passive aggressive way of doing things.