They're right about bumping old threads confusing things. The proposal in this thread has changed over its course, and even that was difficult. New posters kept replying to the op instead of the new(er) version.
That this has been discussed before is not a show stopper. Never settle for a solution that sounds like 'we don't know the answer, so let's just all be quiet about it.' That's what congress does; don't be like congress.
What this effort needs is a few brave champions who are more known to the community than this dried up old lich. I know there are a few of you who are quietly agreeing that this is an issue, and that something can be done to improve things. Help us book buyers, and so help to put this issue to rest, truly, so that it never need be raised again.
I do appreciate being heard out to the extent that I have. Thank you.
I disagree - just on the old adage of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Silence is rarely good for positive progress; dissension works much better overall.
I did, to illustrate the reason why it doesn't work in general.
You did not. You illustrated an exceptional case in which a player may have to copy more than one page of the source material. This is not the same as showing that it does not work "in general".
A photocopy of the page involved would be sufficient for the vast majority of GMs, the vast majority of the time. There would be exceptions. That is why the rule should be drafted so as to allow GMs to make that call at the table.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
but the rules are there for a reason that outweighs any version of "my arms get tired".
If you reread trollbill's post a page ago, he pointed out that the cost of flying around with books when he attends convention causes him financial distress, among other things. That is significant. And sincerely, with all respect, I have to say that flippantly dismissing the concern of having to carry so much weight does not benefit your argument.
I strongly believe it is ridiculous to force the healthy among us to carry so much raw weight just to prove that we are honest. But there are even more galling causes than that. There is an individual on the Facebook forums who is physically disabled, who buys the books, and recently complained there about this problem. Is anyone really going to say "the physically disabled should stick with PDFs, since they might have trouble carrying 80 pounds of books"? What a terrible notion.
Book buyers are not pariahs. We should have a system in place so that we can verify we are honest supporters of Paizo, and structured so as to not literally overburden us.
There is a reason this issue comes up over and over - that is because it is broken. For those of you who have gasped in exasperation that someone dare bring this problem up 'yet again', know this - this problem isn't going away. You have an opportunity to join the discussion here, positively, and come up with a new process that can solve it and make it better, for once and for all. Don't tolerate problems - fix them! Help us, here. Don't dismiss this issue. You won't regret doing so.
1. PFS is a marketing effort for Paizo. (Hence the "you have to own it" part of the issue.)
This is exceedingly understood; thus my often made point that the current system does not represent Paizo's interests very well.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
2. PFS depends on volunteer GMs. This is the key issue for this proposal, so allow me to repeat: PFS depends on volunteer GMs.
Volunteer GMs who already fill out chronicle sheets as part of their volunteer effort. Being empowered to also fill out Product Confirmation boons doesn't really conflict with this volunteer status.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Alas, the proposal does not adequately address this.
Yes, it does. A player should provide a legible version of the mechanic involved to the GM, to the satisfaction of the GM. If the mechanic directly references a sub-mechanic, then the player would be wise to also bring a copy of that workable material (now a whole shattering two pages of paper).
As stated, copies of this mechanic should be "...to the satisfaction of the GM", meaning, a GM would be empowered to say "no...this doesn't quite describe the spell for me..." if they feel this is true. This doesn't mean the rule doesn't work - instead, it means the rule works perfectly!
The current system is broken. Keeping it means accepting a broken system. Personally, I don't think this is acceptable. Broken things should be fixed.
claudekennilol wrote:
Richard's idea won't work. My wife and I have the same books. If she shows up one weekend and gets it stamped (or signed or whatever),
I think you (and others) raised a good counterpoint - buying used books is valid. A stamp won't work.
If concern over people being validated and then selling their books is strong, then perhaps Product Verification boons could be good for one year only. Meaning - you lug your books in once a year to a friendly GM who will fill one out for you. This is still 'more than once' - but it is a lot better than the current process.
And what if you later buy a book that a GM had crossed out on that first signing?
I would suggest filling out a second Product Confirmation boon sheet with the new product, and just paper clip/bind them together. Carrying two - or even twenty - paper boons around is still much, much preferable to the vast weight of books.
If the second GM is kind, they could also re-confirm all items for the new sheet, but I would think that would be up to GM discretion and time availability. Also, for the record, I think transposing data from one sheet to a new one should be a no-go; I would tend to think any GM should only sign off on items that they have personally verified.
Richard Dowdy wrote:
Then he takes a rubber stamp and physically stamps a Pathfinder Society logo on the title page of each book.
Not a bad idea; but maybe instead of a stamp (issuing such stamps would be a pain for Paizo), perhaps make it a requirement that any player having their physical book confirmed must write their name in small print in the upper right hand corner of the inside cover (or, some other reasonable and very visible spot). By marking it as theirs, they effectively prohibit it from being usable for anyone else looking to confirm ownership. This does away with the 'what if people pass around a book?' concern. Nice!
Again, I don't have a problem with being legal. Hell, I want to be legal. Paizo, please make it easier for me to prove it.
We are totally on the same page. My desire to be legal - and to confirm my legality - is principle in my effort to promote change. I love buying Paizo books and giving them money - I want to find a reasonable way for this to be confirmed.
So folks, here is the current proposal for Product Confirmation boons, after bantering for two pages.
* A Product Confirmation boon may be filled out by any GM (other than the individual it is assigned to - can't fill out your own!). If we trust GM's to fill out chronicle sheets - which are the backbone of PFS - then we should trust them to properly handle Product Confirmation boons.
* An individual would then be required to furnish one item from each of the two following bullet points:
** A player must provide evidence of ownership of any source material outside of the core assumption, and this evidence can take the form of either a PDF with a proper watermark, a physical copy of the source material, or a properly filled out Product Confirmation boon referencing the source material
** A player must also, in addition to providing evidence as stated above, provide means to the GM to read the mechanics of the ability involved. In the case of a Product Confirmation boon, this may be a copy of the source material page involved, or other means as deemed reasonable by the GM.
Implement this, and then - six months or so later - promote a crunch in audits. Audits will be much easier once Product Confirmation boons are available. It's just a matter of carrying a piece of paper around with you.
If you hate, hate, hate this idea, then suggest an adaptation or a totally new idea. The current system is broken for those of us who love physical books (like proper lich do). Help us to make things right.
Walter said not to get sidetracked by a paranoid anti VO rant
I'm all for not getting sidetracked; though Walter didn't mention anything about a 'rant', nor did he use language such as 'paranoid' or 'anti'. Let's please drop such rhetorical techniques. We can talk about this without sniping one another. I am honestly trying to offer helpful solutions here and truly offending anyone is the last thing I want to do.
Victor Zajic wrote:
Asking people to bring hardcover books or legalally purchased PDFs with them is not unjust.
PDFs? - no. They're quite fine. I've never spoke against them. Hardcover books are an obvious problem. I don't know where ones head may lay that they'd think that it is acceptable to require people to carry around so many pounds of books. It's simply not acceptable. 'Unjust' might not be the right adjective though; I prefer 'absurd', 'ridiculous', and/or 'unenforceable'; this last one because no one does audits.
Being that we are all smart people - and we are - we should be able to come up with a process that is both appreciative to the interests of Paizo while also being reasonable for those who must follow it.
Your post implies the players did not realize that they needed to own the products. I think this is surprisingly common. If rank-and-file GM's started an effort to make sure their attendee's knew to read the Guide to Organized Play and the requirements for use of Additional Resources, then this alone would educate the players that such a thing is needed. People would talk and learn. This is a good thing.
Changed it slightly...
Lol. Very smooth. :)
'Go read this thing' sounds great in an academic sense; in practice it will usually be ignored. I doubt the majority of new players get around to reading the guide until several levels into their first character - and, sadly, maybe not even then.
Filling out a Product Verification boon sheet is an activity and drives the point home. If players see GM's filling out a Product Verification boon for others, they will realize that this is something they can also do. It also drives home the point that this is a rule that needs to be considered and thus will spark conversation.
High visibility will beat 'go read this thing - it has rules in it' any day of the week.
Yes, it is possible to cheat and edit such documents.
It would be extremely difficult to stop dedicated cheaters, within the current system as well as in this proposal.
There is nothing stopping me from printing out various chronicles from various scenarios, scribbling in different Paizo member numbers and signing forged signatures, and then trotting off to my local convention with a 'fake' level ?? character. No one would question it.
That said, doing such a thing would be just lame. Lame, lame, lame. I think the standard assumption is that the vast majority of players are better than that; I believe this assumption is correct.
Mark Stratton wrote:
At that point, I explained to him that, by the rules, I shouldn't let any of those characters play (or, at the least, disallow anything that was not in the CRB.)
I just realized another positive advantage of implementing this Product Confirmation boon effort - it would start conversation.
Your post implies the players did not realize that they needed to own the products. I think this is surprisingly common. If rank-and-file GM's started an effort to fill out Product Confirmation boons for their attendee's, then this alone would educate the players that such a thing is needed. People would talk and learn. This is a good thing.
but I didn't see where you had changed your formal proposal to do that.
It was intended in the following quote - I should have made it 'louder'. :)
It is very clear that VO's are not comfortable with this additional task, and so I think evolving the proposal to being open to all GM's is natural. I am not a VO, however I would be more than happy to help fill out such paperwork for my fellow players at my LFHS.
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
I'd like to re-emphasize this particular idea to help the discussion get back on track. I apologize for my own side-tracking.
What if we created a Product Confirmation boon as described, but *any* PFS GM could fill it out? If we trust rank-and-file GM's to fill out chronicle sheets, which are the very backbone of PFS integrity, then why shouldn't we trust them with a Product Confirmation boon?
Allowing this to occur - with any GM being allowed to fill one out - should alleviate concerns of already overburdened VO having more work to do, and would also considerably improve the state of product validation.
This is, somewhat, missing the point. I am not asking if Paizo should institute a potentially cumbersome procedure to circumvent the potential harm to FLGSs' their policy incurs. I am asking if the potential harm to FLGSs' their policy incurs outweighs the potential harm of having a different policy.
I want to repeat that I think your point is valid. I don't think denying FLGS any sales was intended by Paizo (nor do I think you're suggesting that), but I do see that it can happen as a side effect of this PDF preference.
This proposed solution, in my view, actually encumbers a VO in that process. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should let VOs make the call at the table and move on.
This is no longer an issue - giving the sole responsibility to VO's has already been dismissed. We are now discussing the possibility that any GM may issue a Product Confirmation boon. If we can trust any GM to sign off on a chronicle - which is the very backbone of PFS play - then we should be able to trust them to fill out a Product Confirmation boon.
This is a common thread problem; people read the first post, and then respond without reading the conversation that follows. I realize your post was heartfelt and sincere and that is appreciated.
The post about monks is pretty much my line of thinking; flurry of blows with long arm sounds like that Hindu character from The Master of the Flying Guillotine. Awesome.
Some time ago I was chewing on the idea of suggesting a product registration tool so you can register your book purchase on paizo's website regardless of where you purchased it, but that requires web development, and punishes people who buy used. =\
This was actually my original idea, that I had expressed to Brian Darnell some time ago. It would be a site where GM's could look players up by member number, and then toggle items verified to be owned, which then future GM's could see and refer to for product verification.
I do understand web development and I could make such a thing - probably a couple weeks time in off hours.
That said, I ditched the idea when I thought of Product Confirmation boons as such as boon would use the already existing infrastructure, and so would be much easier to implement and would not require maintenance (web applications would always require maintenance).
I'd like to re-emphasize this particular idea to help the discussion get back on track. I apologize for my own side-tracking.
What if we created a Product Confirmation boon as described, but *any* PFS GM could fill it out? If we trust rank-and-file GM's to fill out chronicle sheets, which are the very backbone of PFS integrity, then why shouldn't we trust them with a Product Confirmation boon?
Allowing this to occur - with any GM being allowed to fill one out - should alleviate concerns of already overburdened VO having more work to do, and would also considerably improve the state of product validation.
So instead of buying my books from my FLGS who supports our local game group, I find myself purchasing PDFs straight from Paizo.
This is a valid concern and point.
Paizo likely makes far more money from a PDF sale than when selling a physical book. The process to generate a single PDF are essentially free; it is an abstract computer file. Selling a new one consists of making a copy of a file, running an algorithm to stick the water mark in into it, and - that's it. In contrast, a physical book must be made, and this making costs Paizo money. Therefore, their profit potential for PDFs greatly exceeds physical product. The profit from a PDF is probably close to 100%; the profit from selling a book, far less than that.
It is not impossible that one of the motives behind this rule is to not-so-gently encourage players to purchase PDF products instead of the more traditional hard back book.
I have been keenly following your perspective through this thread and I think you do your legitimate points a disservice by getting sidetracked by rallying against a VO polycracy that doesn't exist.
Most fair and well said; I do see that VO's may have access to NDA information which does give them an advantage on raw information accessible. My grump is that they are not superior in avenues of reason and that a non-VO may certainly come up with a good suggestion, worthy of consideration, just as well as someone with formal rank.
*But* - let's not pursue that point. Please, even. As you said, getting sidetracked into a mire is not productive. The originating main point, and the point of the thread, is that there is a sincere issue with how products are confirmed to be owned, and my real goal is to help offer suggestions - or at least start the conversation towards - real change which can help to alleviate the problem.
You should contact a Venture-Officer anyway. A character without Chronicles at the table is not technically legal for play, so your best bet is to get a GM or V-O to look at your online record, issue you Chronicle sheets based on your record, and then sign off on the character after you rebuild it. That will give you some paperwork to show your next GM when you just show up with a 4-level PC and no Chronicles.
This sounds fair and about right with the spirit of the game. As said, it doesn't have to be VO - just your local GM.
Also, just to be sure you're aware - you can also view your gaming history, as long as the games were reported (sadly, not all GM's get around to doing this). To view your history, click on the "Pathfinder Society" logo on the left of the screen. Then, look for 'My Pathfinder Society' in the newly displayed secondary menu (a page text search will find it). Then click on the 'Sessions' tab, and then the 'Player Sessions', and your history should be there (if reported!).
No one suggested that photocopies of pages be any such thing. We are talking about the possibility of a new boon type as a product verification system. Reread the OP.
Odd - I could have sworn that this is precisely what you were espousing here:
Hollister Gorgonton the Lich wrote:
The current rather broken rules do state that you *MUST* bring the book. But, I do agree with you - if ownership is established as proven, a photocopy should be just fine.
If I wasn't clear, then I apologize - that isn't what I intended to express at all. I never meant to suggest that a photocopy of a page was adequate for proof. What I said was, that if ownership of a source has already been proven through other means, and is therefore known to be true, then a copy of a page should be adequate to demonstrate the mechanics of the ability involved. This is not to say the photocopy is proof of ownership in and of itself. The proof must come from other means (such as a Product Confirmation boon!).
Victor Zajic wrote:
Personally, I consider someone resenting a GM because they are enforcing the rules of the game the jerk move.
If rules are perceived as unreasonable and unfair, then anyone who enforces them will also be perceived as unreasonable and unfair. This is an established dynamic throughout our culture. Consider an unjust law, and then consider how the population might perceive a policeman who enforces that unjust law. It is true the policeman is just 'doing their job'; but people are not going to think very well of them for doing it.
Victor Zajic wrote:
I think you should be listening to the VO's who took the time to post on this thread, instead of assuming you know more about what they do than they do.
What a lovely appeal to authority. I have not assumed I know more than they; instead, I have assumed that I know exactly as much as they do. This is because we are equals.
The VO's within Pathfinder Society are our peers; not our ruling class. Please don't get me wrong - I appreciate anyone - VO or not - who spends time making our little gaming community a better place. It's great that people do that. However, that does not place them in a position of superior judgement or rule over everyone else. A VO is not a better person than a non-VO, and is never 'more right' than a non-VO by nature of their rank alone.
This community's strange unspoken assertion that VO's are somehow the Patricians to our Plebs is mildly disturbing. There is no real rank here, and any perception of such is an illusion. I just made my Will save.
...photocopies of pages from hard-cover books will not be accepted as a legal player source.
No one suggested that photocopies of pages be any such thing. We are talking about the possibility of a new boon type as a product verification system. Reread the OP.
Even if, a year old quote doesn't really mean something is never meant to be discussed again. PFS is not a religion; we don't have to hold onto one-off commandments made back in time as some sort of dogma. Things can always be made better.
Have to agree with Aelryinth on this one. My bard would love to be able to pew pew robots with her Golembane Scarab. Sadly, it's golems only, and golems are a very specific creature.
Suggestion: make the boon only include the hardcover books (Core, Ultimates, Advanceds). Should keep the filling out of chronicles to less than 3 minutes per person. If people want to use the splatbooks, they can carry them (they aren't exactly heavy).
Honestly, I'd have been sunk at Gen Con if someone decided to check if I had my books. I own all of the hardcovers, but wouldn't have been able to prove it as I didn't want to carry my books along with my 5" thick character binder (NOT exaggerating) and purchases.
That's actually not a bad idea. I agree that carrying the far more slight books isn't that bad (e.g., Seekers of Secrets, Alchemy Manual, etc.). It's the big-un's that are the trouble makers.
Here's another idea; the biggest complaint I've heard about this suggestion is the additional strain it would put on VO's. What if we had a Product Verification Boon - but it could be filled out by *any* GM?
This might sound loose at first - but consider that the entire backbone of the Pathfinder Society is set upon Chronicles, and Chronicles can be filled out by *any* GM. If you don't trust GM's to fill out these Chronicles, then so much for the integrity of the entire product!
Since we do have faith in our GM's, and their ability to appropriately fill out Chronicles - then how about any GM could also fill out and sign off on a Product Verification boon? We could have an obvious rule that GM's may not sign off on their *own* boon.
Or, as variation #121: instead of using VO rank, what if only GM's of, say, two stars or greater could sign off on the Product Verification boons?
Either one of these ideas would take the pressure off of VO's, while still moving forward to improve the existing process.
That's a strange thing to say. Of course you're allowed to photo copy the page of a book. It's the point of whether that's acceptable to demonstrate the mechanic involved that is the question.
At the games I attend, anything that needs be looked up is generally done by the GM using their Android (or similar mobile device). If they do not have one, typically a player provides one.
Acedio wrote:
I thought the only reason you couldn't photocopy books is because it doesn't prove ownership of the book. If you can prove that you own a copy of the book, isn't it a non-issue?
The current rather broken rules do state that you *MUST* bring the book. But, I do agree with you - if ownership is established as proven, a photocopy should be just fine.
Prethen wrote:
[For the record, is this the first time a Paladin has been grateful to a Lich?]
If I could just get you to put these four little letters in front of your class name, then I might just be able to make you the General of my army in the upcoming coup. [a...n...t...i...]
It literally has nothing to do with whether people have books with them or not.
For you - for myself, and every other GM I've spoken to about it, it has a big 'to do' with it. Auditing players is considered a 'jerk' thing to do, and the biggest reason for that is the broken state of the system.
Filling out a Product Confirmation boon would likely take as long, or only trivially longer, than a standard chronicle sheet. It would not be that time consuming.
This Product Confirmation boon would work. What would also work is if Paizo included a free PDF to everyone who purchases the physical product. The former is more likely to occur, though.
The problem is that your system would prove ownership, but it fails at the second reason players are required to bring primary sources to the table: namely verification of the rules.
Certainly. Is there something wrong with proving ownership, then providing a scanned page of the physical book? Or then using an online source?
I think both ideas are fine. I would say it is up to the GM, as in "to the satisfaction of the GM involved". I think both of your ideas would be fine with the majority of GM's.
The problem is that establishing ownership is only half the reason. If you bust out some bizzare ability from Oozes I have known and loved the dm has to be able to see how it works.
The volume of my initial post perhaps hid the suggestion that players would still be required to bring some means to allow the GM to read the mechanics of the ability, to the satisfaction of the GM involved.
Can you explain to me in a step-by-step way, how this helps make sure audits happen more often?
If you lessen the negative stigma of audits by simplifying the process, then you will see an increase in their occurrence.
The current system requires individuals carry in their books. Rank and file GM's know this is absurd, and therefore do not do audits. No one wants to be a jerk. I have never - and I mean never - seen an audit at my friendly local hobby store, and I game there most Sundays. Nor even one at a convention! I've been to the last five (I believe) conventions near LAX in California, played nearly every day of all of those, and did not see a single audit.
However, if something like a Product Confirmation boon were available, this 'jerk' status would be removed. Suddenly, there is an alternative to carrying in your books. It is reasonable to carry a piece of paper, therefore it is reasonable for someone to ask to see it. The stigma of an audit is less, and therefore GM's will feel more inclined to do them.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I wouldn't have accepted promotion to VC in July if I didn't have the time or didn't want to do it.
A VO is an individual who spends time to make the Pathfinder Society better (you do not need to be a VO to do this, but that's a side topic). Given this formal declaration of offering their time to improve the game, they should be willing to do so if an opportunity to make things better does arise. "I don't have time to do this thing that would make the Pathfinder Society better" is silly. Let's make time. Let's make this better. Let's be positive and constructive. The first step is to admit there is a problem.
And yes - while I kind of don't want to - I'd be willing to be a VL *just so* I could fill out the sheets for my friends at my FLHS. Or - why is the lowest rank a VL? Can't we make a 'Venture Sergeant'? Delegate the responsibility down the line if you must.
Acedio wrote:
The core of this suggestion is creating an alternate, easier mechanism to provide proof of purchase. I would like to think there's a good way to do this.
Exactly! The current mechanism can be improved. I am surprised that some think things are truly fine as they are.
As a VO, I frankly wouldn't be doing my job if I chose to not give myself time to do this.
You don't sound like you want to be a VO, Andrew. Your primary complaint is that you don't have the time for it.
Andrew Christian wrote:
How is it insulting?
Because it is smug, arrogant, and dismissive of the actual problem. If you want to dismiss the problem, fine; but don't act surprised that no one does audits and Paizo's interests continue to not be upheld.
I to believe something along these lines can work, but the first (and most difficult from what I have witnessed) hurdle is to convince our leadership and VO's to even entertain the possibility of something along these things.
Traditionally, people hate change. 'The rules are good enough for me; they should be good enough for you uppity kids!' seems to rule.
Personally, I think perfection comes from iterative improvements. This process can seriously be improved. As it is, it is a failure - audits are extremely rare and Paizo's interests are not being upheld. Sure - your lawful good VC type might do audits, but rank and file GM's never do, and the reason they do not is because they are currently unreasonable. This can be improved.
I am not a fan of creating something like this that will essentially require me to spend extra hours.
Optional. I said optional. Not required - optional. If you don't want to do it, then don't. I do not know how I can be clearer than 'optional'.
Andrew Christian wrote:
The solution is quite simple. If you don't want to go digital, and you don't want to lug lots of books around, then don't make a character using lots of books.
This is a terrible - even insulting - suggestion. If people paid for the books, then they have a right to use them. An even better 'simple' suggestion than yours is to not play games with GM's who are jerks.
How about you just take photos of all your books on your mobile device. Boom—proof.
I would agree with you - however, the powers above do not. They insist on players carrying weighty books around with them - for every single game. It doesn't matter if you were verified to own last week - you may have to verify again, and so you must lug those books around every single game you play.
This is silly, and it is why audits are rarely ever done. No GM wants to be a jerk. Simplify, improve the system, make it something that is reasonable - and you will improve the auditing system and thus increase the integrity of the society.
You are assuming a lot in that VOs just automatically have an extra hour to sign said boons.
What I am suggesting may take some time on the front end, but is a significant time saver for the remainder; plus, it encourages audits by simplifying the verification process. *No one* should grumble about producing a Product Verification boon - it is just a piece of paper. Given that grumbling is absurd over a piece of paper, *no one* should have a problem auditing their players either.
It is also optional for VO's - they do not have to do this. VO's are - by definition - a volunteer force. They may volunteer their time to sign off on Product Verification boons as they desire and in order to help their player base. Doing so is good for Paizo, and good for the players.
I bet a million billion dollars belonging to someone else that 'this does not stack'. I'm reading the two abilities as being intended to be two sides of the same coin (and you can only spend that coin once!).
How will the VO in question know that those books are actually owned by that player and that he won't sell them after the sheet is signed?
They don't; but who would do that? This would have to be an exceptionally dedicated little worm of a player (they make good minions).
Even with this point, balance that with the idea that this would make audits easier, and therefore audits could become more common and expected. The increase in audits based upon this plan would likely force many into groveling submission compliance.
Even with those strange oddballs who 'temporarily' purchase books just for an audit, this increase in audits would achieve an increase in overall compliance.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
That would depend. Let's consider the most degenerate case: All 25 regulars at a local gamestore chip in and buy a copy of the book together. They each get their VO to sign off on the sheet in turn, trading the book around behind the VO's back. Then, they generate their own (inaccurate) version of the rules text that favors them.
My ancient brain has decided you left out the part where they could also cut off the hand of their VO, and then use that hand to sign off on as many boons as they wish, thus achieving ultimate power.
I think there may be a line across where suspected foul play should no longer be speculated. There will always be outliers. There are outliers right now. The current rules are not for the outliers; they are for respectable, 'normal' players, of which make up the great volume of the PFS playerbase.
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hello. I am Hollister Gorgonton the Lich.
"Ahhh!" you might say, "It's a lich!". Well, stop that. I am not here to use my vast and timeless command of Necromancy to force you and your loved ones to grovel before my whimsical will, no! At least, not right now. Later. I'll let you know when. It'll be a surprise. There will be balloons and cake to go with the tears of the oppressed. Chocolate cake. Muahahaha!
Anyhoo, at the moment, I wish to tackle a more nefarious issue than merely conquering a ragtag group of mortals; and that issue is, the problem with buying hardback Pathfinder books and then the necessity of having to lug those books to games to prove that I own them, so that I might use their arcane power to better subjugate my opponents and command their very realities.
This effort really isn't for me. This is for my minions. "GAH!" says my minion, "Why do you have to base your character on twenty different books, and then only buy hardback, forcing me to lug 100 pounds of paper pulp to every single game?" At this point, I typically disintegrate my minion for being a complainer. Minions should know better. As I said, fixing this problem is really for my minion, so that I have one less reason to cast disintegrate upon them. My heart is in the right place.
As the issue is currently understood, there are two competing forces. First, there is the desire of Paizo to want to confirm ownership of their product in order for it to be used within their organized gaming system. The opposing force are those mortals who prefer the purchasing of such products through actual paper, and this paper has a weight and mass that is objectionable to carry. We realize that buying a PDF makes things easier, but many of us love a physical book and find that to be preferable. All good Lich prefer actual books, rather than digital. When was the last time you saw one of my kind look something up on a kindle? Part of that is our skeletal hands - touch screens misbehave with bony fingers.
But, there is a better way. BEHOLD my DARK and TWISTED POWER!
The current system can appease the interests of both sides, and it can do this using the existing infrastructure of the Pathfinder Society. The tool to resolve this problem is a simple concept that I call a "Product Confirmation Boon".
"WHAT IS THIS TERRIBLE MAGIC!" you might say, followed by "PLEASE GET THIS POISONOUS SNAKES OFF OF ME!" Sorry about that, but the snakes stay. Anyhoo. A Product Confirmation Boon is exactly what it sounds like - it is a boon, signed off by a GM of a minimum rank of 'Venture Lieutenant", which confirms that the player has proven owner ship of a list of products.
This boon sheet can have a similar structure to the current inventory/purchase tracking sheet. Just a list of boxes and rows, and a VL can write in (or, check off) the names of the products confirmed to be owned and then sign off on it. They can also draw a squiggly line following the names of products so that meddling mortals won't feel tempted to 'write in' additional items on the sly.
The workflow of this new device is similarly simple. VL's can just set an hour aside before or after games at your LFHS to confirm ownership for their players. Players will dutifully bring in their physical books (without complaining, or I will magic missile you) for their VL to sign off on.
The reason such a boon requires a minimum of VL is a nod toward Paizo; only those held particularly accountable, who have particularly noted loyalty to Paizo, should have this great and dark power of being able to issue such helpful boons.
The beauty of this is that ownership will be confirmed, which fulfills Paizo's interest - but the books need only be carried in ONCE. After that, the player needs to make sure to bring their Product Confirmation Boon which can be used for future GM's to confirm product ownership.
The existing rule structure would then become something like:
Players referencing mechanics outside of the Core Assumption must provide the following:
* A watermarked PDF of the originating source material, or a physical copy of the originating source material, or a copy of a Product Confirmation boon listing the originating source material, signed off by a VL (or higher).
* The player must also provide a clear and legible copy of the mechanic involved, so that the GM may read all rules involved for their understanding and adjudication.
Creating this Product Confirmation Boon can have some very positive results for the Pathfinder Society.
* It is fair to Paizo - using this method, they would have VL confirmation that their products are being purchased.
* It is fair to the players - I don't think players would have much complaint over having to bring in their physical books *once*.
* It will encourage audits - currently, there are a lot of softy GM's who do not really pursue the confirmation of ownership of source material, because we are all aware that it can be difficult to do. There is a definite population of GM's who are sympathetic to the owners of physical books, and are likely to gloss over product confirmation entirely because they don't want to 'be a jerk'. With Product Confirmation boons, however, this process becomes much easier - so much, that GMs will be encouraged to request evidence of product ownership.
So, that's it, really. I'm going to go back to my other task, which involves making some chocolate cake and filling up some balloons. There's a party next week! Invitations will be sent soon.
Ran this today (six players, tier 1-2, all players but one were level 1) and in general we had a positive time.
Two points that could use improvement:
Point one:
The secondary success requirement is to stop the spread of the fire in the garden before it hits 20 squares. The players slaughtered the bandits in three rounds, with one player attempting to put out one square during the second round; however, with a 50% chance of fire spreading to *any* adjacent square, it was already up to 16 squares ablaze after the top of the third round. There was nothing they could do to contain it from four more squares at that point.
I believe the only way this task could be accomplished is if the players focused entirely on the fire from the start, even ignoring attacks from the bad guys to do it.
What I suggest is, pick a random direction for each fire. Then, roll to see if the fire successfully spreads in that direction - and only that direction. This makes sense as fires in the open tend to blaze in the direction of the wind, and not in a perfect circle. This is how I would have liked to have ran it, but since this is a PFS scenario I was not comfortable modifying the rules to that extent. My players had to go without that extra prestige point.
Point two:
The twigjack is *way* out of control for a party of level 1's. Dealing 4d6 damage **three rounds in a row** is crazy TPK material. I was thankful that this was an 'optional' encounter so that I could happily strike it off of the list.
Beyond these two points - good times, we liked it.
I GM'd a game in the same convention and haven't seen mine entered yet either; so, being that there's both of us, perhaps they just haven't waded through them yet.
It's probably an easy one to fix, if someone digs in.
The fact that people are seeing varying amounts is a clue. Could be an unexpected null throwing an exception, and the null hits different users in different points of the tallying - thus the different count totals.
These are pretty much the types of answers I was hoping for.
I just can't imagine the developers would want the GM's to be mindless, text-following automatons. The rebel in me wants to follow what I think is 'correct', and not what the scenario says (okay, on a scale of being a 'rebel' - this a mighty petty one, but still).
A question came up today on the FB group regarding a typo within a particular PS scenario. The typo itself was rather innocuous - a scythe was listed in a stat block of having a crit range and multiplier of '19-20/x2', which is in conflict to the weapon's standard '20/x4'.
A conversation followed in which multiple parties stated (paraphrased): "never ever deviate from the text as written no matter what", with the instruction to use the unmodified typo. The implication is that we, as thinking people, are 'not allowed' to correct obvious mistakes when running scenarios.
While I do agree with the notion of 'run it as written', I tend to think this is a philosophy, and not a religion. What I saw 'written' in this case was a typo, and I do not feel I am wavering from the intent and challenge of the scenario by correcting this typo in game.
Are we really so hand bound that we are unable to correct even the most mundane of mistakes within Pathfinder Scenarios? I just can't imagine that we are. Am I alone on this? Thoughts?
Something else to think about...firearms are ranged touch (at least within their range increment), and damage reduction does not negate touch attacks.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Damage-Reductio n
Pg 136 of the Ultimate Combat: When firing an early/advanced firearm, the attack resoles against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first/first five (advanced) range increment(s), but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purpose of feats or abilities...
Quilted Cloth is neither a feat nor an ability.
I'm actually going to buy it. If this is true - then firearms bypass *all* DR, no matter what (within the range increment, of course). Doesn't that seem extreme?
Though - if that is actually the intent - I'd love to know for sure. My level 2 gunslinger would be very interested in that decision.
Since the spell makes no reference to any change, the hardness and the hit points of your weapon remain unchanged. Just as your own hit points don't change.
Lots of opinions on this one, but I think this is correct. The spell doesn't call it out, therefore interpreting a stat change feels dubious.
I've already seen two posts for Haunts, so I'll add a third - haunts!
That said, I don't really want to see them completely removed; just revisited. I like the philosophy but I am not sure if the mechanic is really working.
I GM'd this game at the War House in Long Beach last Sunday. I admit I was a bit hesitant about it, mainly because of the big dangerous thing near the end...
I shouldn't have worried so much:
Our party was made up of a level 11 wizard, a few level 9's, and a level 8. APL was something like 9.2, which put us in the middle. There were five players, so by season three rules, we played down.
They hit the dragon encounter and I gave them all the big scary description of the earth rumbling and shaking, and allowed them all a round robin of turns (two turns each) as required by the scenario. They all buffed up, and then the dragon popped up his fluffy head and demanded tribute. Such demands went poorly (I'm not giving up my stuff!, they said), and we rolled initiative.
The dragon rolled poorly, and was set to go last. The 11 level wizard rolled well, and went first. The wizard had the ability to change the elemental forces in his spells (admixture, I believe), and hit the dragon with a big nasty empowered intensified ball of acid. The wizard beat the SR of the dragon, and the dragon failed its saving throw. It ended up being something like 150 points of damage. With that, the dragon was already set to flee, being under 40 hp.
The wizard then cast a quickened fireball, this time opting for cold, which of course gets a 50% damage buff due to cold vulnerability. Again, he beat the dragon's SR, though the dragon made its save this go around. Still, something like 80 points of damage snuck through - thereby completely finishing the dragon off in a single round.
To have worried so much about a TPK, only to witness a one-hit-and-quit was, well, as Ron Burgundy once said, "I'm not even mad - that was amazing!"
While this was an utter anti-climax, I must say that overall I really enjoyed running this module and the players had fun as well. Good times!
