Search Posts
Ran this recently at GADCon. Had a great time, but, yet again, had an influence encounter with a completely different experience than before. IIRC, 6-03 had one that created one set of expectations different from before. Not all bad, but it left a bad taste in my mouth. This one was...incredibly easy. They had it beaten before the second round, and they had achieved the extra round. I read the rest of the rounds to the players anyway so that they could experience it. The mechanics were really interesting, and I felt they were clear although the text indicated to use the rules from the GM Core and weren't reiterated as they had been in previous scenarios. It seems like the influence encounters are either crazy difficult or very easy. It'd be nice to get it in the middle somehow.
Why am I finding the PFS scenario errata under the digital products for Foundry? I'm grateful that it's linked from the Lorespire page, but why is this not in the PFS Forum? For example:
indicates "scaling has been fixed", but if I'm running from PDF, I have 0 idea how it's been fixed. I guess I simply don't understand why these things are found here, and the fixes aren't revealed.
When my son was young, we'd grab some minis, I'd draw some rooms on a Paizo flip-mat, and we'd just have them go at it. I'm pretty sure Optimus Prime made an appearance at one point. The Astral Giant was his favorite mini. I don't remember much about it, but I do remember just spending time with him in my lap, in our guestroom, at the corner desk, rolling dice, making up rules. Now he sends me the most ridiculous memes through discord, and he wants to play a mind flayer of some kind in our game with my brother and my brother's daughter. I'm so grateful.
I know that the "GMs purchasing boons" bug is a known thing, but is it possible to essentially act as though it's working? As in, keeping record of it and purchasing the boon when it gets fixed? I have finished running book 1 of EC, and would love to put my Shoony into play. Alternatively, is there an ETA on the fix?
I would say the language is unclear enough that I now do not how to move forward with one of my characters. He's a GM baby, so I can wait, but the point is, I'm not sure what to do. Class: Wizard with familiar thesis Archetype: MC Witch The idea for the character is a Miskatonic Professor who just MAY have spent a little too much time letting the abyss look back at him, so now, rather than having access to only arcane spells, there's some occult goodness, too. But--if I can only have one minion/AC/whatever, I don't even know if this is actually playable. I also don't have a problem with players have only one extra thing in the combat--I GM enough to be moderately irritated when one player's turn takes 20 minutes while everyone else's takes 5. With the above character, I'd never bother using the MC witch familiar do anything--but I need it in game so I have access to my spells. tl;dr I hope the language about allies, minions, etc gets cleared up. I think there's been a lot of good editing in the online guide so far, and I'm optimistic.
I love PFS 2. The scenarios have been so engaging. Not gonna lie--you had me as a complete convert at The Mosquito Witch (my favorite adventure in at least the past 10 Years). I'm not surprised to see changes in Organized Play, as the system is still new, kinks and bus are being worked out, etc. There are, ah, other systems that have had MUCH more radical changes made, for sure. I do echo some of the frustration about, well, dropping the change to fame on the player base. It's a bit unclear as to why I should be no longer awarding fame--what exactly is replacing it? I'm not privy to all the VO discussions, so I don't really know what's going on, and I can't tell my players anything. I realize that this is going to sound like a criticism, and I suppose it is, but-- Paizo isn't exactly known for its website capability. I don't understand why we'd want the website to handle more complexity, when it historically hasn't been able to handle its current level of complexity. Who cares what I think? It really doesn't matter. But Paizo hasn't demonstrated the credibility that gives the player base confidence in its website being the final arbiter of Organized Play. I hope that, moving forward, it can.
Nefreet, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that a weekly game ever qualified for any special bonus for running games. It never did for PFS1, and so far hasn't for PFS2. I have NO experience with Starfinder, so I can't speak to that. My understanding (limited though it may be) is that running a game at a 'regular' event would give typical AcP. Running at a local con or special event would be the next tier. Running at GenCon, PaizoCon, PaizoConUK, and maybe Origins, would be the top tier. I understand that second tier could be spelled out better. I would be surprised if any RVC would consider a consistent weekly recurring game in a store a 'special event'. I don't think that was ever implied, nor intended.
I cannot find anything else about this. I wanted to craft some alchemical items at the end of the last scenario I played. However, I didn't have enough cash to pay for the half of the items. If at the end of the adventure I receive my share of money (I.E. treasure bundles), I would have had enough money. So my question is about the timing of events. Do I receive my money, and then make my downtime rolls (either dayjob or crafting). Narratively, it makes sense to receive your money and THEN be able to do your crafting. However, I also understand that everything has to be done before you receive your chronicle sheet. Is there an actual ruling about this, written down somewhere? It's not really that serious--I'll just start crafting them on my next scenario--but I would like to know if there is some order to these things. Thanks!
I'm fairly certain there are wind environment effects, but the scenario doesn't make it entirely clear if it's just for the one effect in the last combat, or through the entire last combat. I read it as describing the one, localized effect. That made archers feel less useless. Also, telekinetic projectile is hilarious.
Mr. Compton, I really think you guys have been hitting it out of the park with PFS2 scenarios. I've never (well, I don't think I have...I'm getting older, and, well....) written a review before. I didn't go into all the details, but this scenario is incredibly good. I really am looking to run it more often. I feel like these scenarios have been doing a great job of combining the new mechanics with really good stories, and stories are why I personally play RPGs. Yeah, yeah, I know there are some proof-reading mistakes that probably make it through, but whatever. Maybe this sounds weird (and maybe I've had too much bourbon tonight [is that even possible?]), but I'm really proud of the PF2 folks at Paizo. I freakin' love it. I've run all of the high level PFS scenarios, several times, and I got really burnt out. I'm really enjoying what's been done so far for PF2, and PF2s, and I'm looking forward to all the great things to come. OK, time to finish my coke and bourbon. Sigh....it's Beam, not Maker's, but it'll do, pig, it'll do.
And I completely disagree with the assessment that replay killed 4E. I loved 4E, but I was (am) in the minority. LFR was killed because way too many people hated 4E--not because of replay. Also, and this is EXTREMELY significant--there were NO rewards for DMing in 4E. NONE. OK, I've changed my mind. The complete lack of rewards for DMing in 4E was what killed OP. Also, people hated it.
My problem with people hating on option four is as follows-- 1E will effectively be a "dead" campaign. As an organized play format, it will NEVER grow, no matter replay or not. Would replay truly make GMs quite 1E? Wouldn't they likely already quit to move on to SFS and 2E? As a collaboration, what if we keep the current replay model, then, after season 1 of 2E comes to a close, unlimited replay opens up?
|
