CommanderG's page

I had question about that last fight in this scenario. From the descriptive text within the scenario it seemed liked the main goal of the enemies was to rob the pathfinder on their return trip. Emphasize on rob not kill.

If the opponents had overcome the players would it be permissible in PFS if I had ruled that they just robed them and left the party alive but unconscious ?

If so what would have been the ramifications to the players - no gold from the adventure or something worse?

OK, I have been reading thread postings on this site for a bit, heck even posted a few which is very unusual for me. I got to say my initial reaction to this forum was one of general hostility toward GMs which I find confusing since without GMs you have no players. Please note this initial reaction was generated before I posted my first post. The thread on min/max was kind of a test post.

The first response I got on that thread was exactly as expected instant hostility towards a potential GM asking a question, but the followup posts were much more modulated even the ones that disagreed with the subject. Overall I found the thread an interesting read and hopefully others did as well.

Personally I think the focus on the “run as written” that keeps getting quoted all over this forum should be toned down. Generally, most GMs especially ones that mainly run home games are not used to someone telling them what they can or can not do.

Instead I think trying to emphasize the positives would be a better tract, after all people respond better to carrots than sticks. Positives as I see it:

It should be pointed out that the PFS has a range of scenarios and modules available that seem to range the gambit between more easier or harder combat. This would allow a GM that only likes nail biting fights to just run those modules. It also allows players to pick scenarios or modules that may or may not be combat heavy. After all not everyone wants really tough fights, some people gasp just want to role-play and have casual fun.

I see this as no different then in a home game were you do not want every fight or adventure path you take the party on to be super hard or deadly. All hard fights get boring, all easy fights are the same way.

I will say that I find it very odd that modules/scenarios don't have at least simple adjustments built into them to handle number of players. As I see it that is about the only real adjustment that would be a nice to have as number of players really affects difficulty level.

But I digress, not having to worry about adjusting the modules difficulty lets you focus on the game and the players actions more. This should allow the development of the NPC better and heck even focus more on making the combat more descriptively interesting vs worrying about some adjustment you made that may or may not be working out.

It also provides a more consistent game play which is nice, of course this it is a little hampered with the massive amount of rules Pathfinder has. No one person can be expected to know each and every rule and how it interacts. Not to mention it is easy to miss something in a scenario you have prepared or forget something, but in general should be closer to a hopefully a good logical story.

Anyone else have any positives they would like to add?

Question on Combat Scenarios – what if anything is the ruling on leaving the defined battle area in PFS? Just to be clear, Defined battle area is the map provided in the scenario for the combat.

Since nothing is written in the scenario on this and the scenario is to be ran “as written”, is this:

1. Not allowed
2. Considered a fail for that encounter
3. Acts - like asteroids and they warp to the other side

Doesn't seem that the GM has the right to simply extend the battle map - cause that would be or could be a serious modification to the combat.

One of the responsibilities of the GM according the society play is validating that the player has all the sources for his character – either hard copies or water marked PDFs. I'm going to assume that we don't have to validate that a water marked PDF is actually that player – cause someone's email can be gobo@gmail.com and his actual name is Paul.

How long does this normally take and do you require them to have a handy sheet that has feat, spell, trait, item, etc and its source and page # for validation or do you normally just glance at it and say – OK looks good? Given the number of feats, items, traits, etc in this game I'm doubtful that anyone could know them all – maybe that would make a good trivial game?

I'm assuming the GM is not required to keep track of the exact number of charges a character uses from say a wand of cure light wounds, basically we go on the honor system for players or is this a mistake and I should track every arrow expanded and charge used?

One last question about item tracking – say I'm an archer firing silver arrows. I shoot 10 silver arrows then later during the adventure we find a catch of 20 silver arrows. Can I replace the 10 silver arrows I used with the found arrows or do I mark down at the end of the game that I used 10 silver arrows?

Situation: You schedule a scenario and no one brings anyone who has any healing ability.

Five players, running a 1st level scenario with brand new characters.

I know there are rules for a GM to run a pre-generated character but I seem to recall that was only for if the party size was three since four is minimal legal. This is correct, right? I know in a home game this is what I have done in the past, a healer henchman, usually used as comic relief.

Assuming this is not legal, do I bully someone into playing a cleric or other healer? Seems like bad mojo to me

Or just run the scenario “as is” and proceed to kill them all? This does not seem like a fun option to me.

Just wondering if anyone else has encountered this in Pathfinder Society and how they went about fixing.

Seems from what I read the standard way of dealing with this is for everyone to acquire a wand of cure light wounds on the good chance someone in the party can use such an item, but this is not possible given 1st level with brand new characters.

LN Cleric of Dispater with Negative Channel (Variant) – Rulership

Sources:
Ultimate Magic – Variant Channel – Rulership allowing for (Harm) to cause Daze
Inner Sea – Dispater God (LE w/Rulership)

Makes it trivial to build a cleric with at least a DC 17 repeatable daze affect usable enough times a day to basically just lock low level fights down. This includes Selective Channel to avoid hitting party members.

Seems like in your typical low level Kobold or Goblin encounter – might as well just not bother running it as a Will Save of +0 is not going to mean they are doing a lot.

On the other hand running a Scenario/Module heavy in undead makes the character concept worthless, at least at low levels until they acquire control undead.

I'm just wondering if any GMs have dealt with this and what if anything they did about it?