King Zuuga

HoloGnome's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 178 posts (295 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 31 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Thanks - I appreciate. When is the future update? If it's still months away, it would be great if you could release the session fixes now (probably fairly limited in scope), since neither of the sessions listings implementations is working correctly and it's something on which we all rely.

Grand Lodge

It looks like various problems still persist in this basic OP functionality. Below is some additional info that may help resolve the problems more quickly.

Bug List:
1. The sessions shown by the sessions link on the Summary tab are still not in chronological order.
2. The sessions shown by the Sessions tab are showing sessions in the list for the PC that aren't actually assigned to that PC.
3. The code that is associated with the session delete button is not properly deleting a session and/or cleaning up after itself.

Additional Data:
*Please refer to my event #55946. There are 2 sessions. The first one is assigned to my -1 character and the 2nd one is unassigned. However, both show in the history for my -1 character when I look at the session list on the Sessions tab.

*Please refer to my event #55626. There are 3 sessions (sort of). This game was also showing up twice in my -1 PC history, and when I looked, the original session only had 5 players instead of 6 and the 6th player was in a session by itself (I didn't do that - so what code split off that 6th player and created a new session?). I put the 6th player back in the original session and tried to delete the strange session #2. But, it won't delete, and after trying to delete it, the edit button is now gone, leaving a vestigial entry in the session list for this event. Also, both session #1 and session #3 are showing up in the history for my -1 character, even though only session #1 is assigned to that PC.

This duplication only happens on the "Sessions" tab. It does not happen when clicking on the sessions link from the "Summary" tab (but those lists are not sorted properly in chronological order, as I have previously reported above). Perhaps there is an off-by-1 loop iteration bug that is manifesting when an event has more than 1 session listed? I suggest you compare the implementation between the 2 tabs, since the Summary/session link version doesn't show this problem.

Grand Lodge

Robert Brandenburg wrote:
We are planning to add sorting options to the sessions list in a future update, along with various other fixes and improvements.

Thx for responding. Just to clarify, my comments above refer to the sessions link on the Summary page. It does not sort properly and tries to show/hide in the same window with full refresh instead of just pulling up the specific PC list quickly and simply in a new target window that shows me just the information I want. Also, trying to click on the link and use "Open link in new window" results in other incorrect targeting, wrong pages, etc.

Per TriOmega's comment, the Sessions tab does show all the adventures in newest-to-oldest order. I hadn't looked there (since it was previously omitting all the GM sessions). Unfortunately, it is also double-listing GM sessions and the load-time was on the slow side at about 20s.

Glad to see that the Sessions tab is a little better, and I hope things continue to improve. The best option for me at this point looks like copying and pasting into Excel. I probably have to do that anyway, since I want to include a printed audit sheet.

Grand Lodge

Please add this issue to the CRB FAQ. It came up in our game last night and the poor wording relating to the skill penalty at full movement rate w/o fast stealth has still not been formally corrected (@6+ years). Also, there is no indication for what happens beyond the max normal movement rate, such as with haste.

The ARG has better wording for the Shadowy Dash feat.

ARG wrote:
Normal: When moving at more than half your speed and up to your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty on Stealth checks.

Grand Lodge

IMO, the order should follow chronicle order, oldest to newest, or ascending by date. There's no reason why we should have to reverse map while we're going through our chronicles (that are ordered and numbered from oldest to newest). The newest adventures should be at the end of the list.

But, whatever the decision, ascending or descending, it's still broken. If you're doing 2 queries, then you need a union followed by an order statement (as one possible solution). It's a simple change and not more than a few lines of code.

What's the ETA to fix this issue?

For example, I'm trying to audit a PC approaching seeker with 40 chronicles, where the non-GM chronicles are all jumbled in the list. I guess I just have to start using Excel to track and sort everything manually. But, I would prefer to rely on the OP web functionality.

Grand Lodge

Again, I am very glad that the session link is back. Is it possible to take a moment to complete the restoration of the sessions functionality to sort the data chronologically so that it is easily usable?

Currently, it looks like you are showing the GM sessions first, sorted chronologically, followed by other unsorted player sessions.

It should be simple to modify the query so that it pulls or merges all of the sessions as one set, if it doesn't already, then add something like:

SELECT * FROM pc_session_data ORDER BY reporting_date ASC; (or whatever is appropriate for your environment)

Hopefully, it's not more than a few minutes of work at the easiest level of difficulty for someone who knows the code.

Grand Lodge

It looks like the 2 2018 tables are still missing (or maybe entered incorrectly/misattributed). So, I guess I will send in the images of the sign-in sheets. I am also missing at least 1 table from GENCON 2017 and the 2017 Starfinder Slot 0.

On the 2 tables for this year, I submitted my sheets well in advance of the close (if this issue happens to relate to what happened to the sheets on the last day or other end-of-CON HQ handling issue).

Grand Lodge

Chris - Just checked in on my characters and noticed that the sessions link on the character page is back! Great use of a feather token! Thanks to you and team for fixing this issue! I appreciate it, as I'm sure others do.

In addition, I have a couple of other minor requests:
1. Please sort the session query data chronologically. Right now, it is being displayed out of order.
2. Please show the game type field in the session info (PFC1, PFC2, RPG1, RPG2, PT, etc.) Logically, we need to be able to see the game type to audit our PCs and also look for misreported games.

Thanks again for rescuing us from the Hao Jin Session Cataclysm! ;-)

Grand Lodge

Chris -

Thanks for the explanation of improvements that are on the To-Do List. That info is helpful, as alaways.

However, another 2 weeks have passed (we're up to about a month now, I think) and the issue with not being able to see assigned GM sessions for our PCs still exists. I am concerned that this issue is going to stretch into months again as it did last year. I hope that's not the case. It's really inconvenient for all GM users.

Also, I agree with Ferious Thune that the current session search interface is very cumbersome/slow. I am not looking forward to a change that requires me to grind through options on that page in order to see the play session histories for my characters. I think the typical wait for me to do anything via that interface is something like 1.5 mins per set of queries (disable one, enable another, etc.). If the session tab is destined to become the primary interface, then it would benefit from some human factors treatment and code/query profiling.

From a development process standpoint, I keep hoping that Paizo will change from the "break first-fix later" development model to something more worthy of its enterprise status. For example, whether or not Paizo has the perfect enterprise development server architecture, it should still be possible to implement good engineering process that doesn't cripple user access to their data and that puts a high priority on continuous user access and uptime. There's always room for continuous engineering improvement, no matter what the issue may be.

At the moment, from the user perspective, when things are broken and we can't access basic/necessary functionality, it doesn't seem like there is high urgency to restore access, especially given that the fixes seem relatively easy. So, there's certainly room for improvement with respect to timely releases and overall process. If it's really necessary to shut off user data access, then prioritize the quick-turn fix to restore critical access as an ASAP turn.

In this case, as above, the change to filter/certify the privacy of the previous session link by login token on the PC summary page is likely an extremely minimal php code change in the character display iterator to ensure that the logged in user = account owner (blocking non-owner, outside access per the GDPR or other privacy requirements). Not the page owner? You won't see the link.

It would be great if Paizo could restore the session link functionality on the Player tab (with simple filtering) until there is a working solution to replace it, whether or not it includes the other planned changes. Quick turns with limited scope have much higher utility when dealing with critical web data access.

Finally, to avoid any faceless misinterpretation, my comments above represent abstract engineering and process feedback and are intended as supportive and positive with respect to this issue and Paizo's web development process, in general. If you agree, great. If you don't, great. Take the feedback and use it as you see fit, or ignore it if you don't think it is useful.

Whatever the case, I hope this problem can be resolved quickly.

-------------

TOZ: I have led enterprise web development teams. The fact that we (again) can't see our GM session data leaves me wondering why. From a QoS standpoint, continuous user access to data associated with required site/campaign functionality should always be the highest priority. As an IT guy (and based on your stated interpretation), you seem to have a good understanding, and I'm sure we must share a similar mindset on many of these issues. Thanks for your comment above.

Grand Lodge

Thanks, Tonya. I am missing 2 tables of regular RPG PFS games (non-ACG, non-playtest) and can submit photos, if necessary. I will check again in a couple of weeks and/or send the sign-in data, if needed.

Grand Lodge

Interesting...I guess it doesn't matter if PFC PCs want to "play up" into RPG without converting, but it probably requires additional back-end support on reporting (which needs to change anyway). It shouldn't be an issue for the RPG GM, and is unrelated to 1 play each in PFC/RPG.

I would be in favor of that kind of change, since it would also facilitate player mobility and help games fire off at the game store without PFC players being forced to use a pregen or convert if they didn't want to.

And, as you say, it would fix the forced reporting PFC->RPG conversion.

Grand Lodge

TOZ wrote:
Davlin Lotze wrote:
And if you want follow new GPRD Rules (EU Privacy) you must also have approvment of your customer to share information with other person external to your company what is the case of VC, etc.. and a player can surely refuse that.
You have just explained exactly why they disabled the feature. Until the access can be granted individually and individual players can opt out, they had to remove it to be in compliance.

Respectfully, it's difficult to accept that this issue required completely disabling the session link or crippling access for thousands of users. It is usually easy (and quick) to resolve access/privacy issues via basic ACL or other simple cookie parsing to disable the outside access (rather than the primary user's access). They could also theoretically add a one-time pop-up dialog on next login (+ supporting preference fields) to ask/save the user profile preference for outside OP Foundation volunteer/VC access, where a dialog is not immediately essential to fix owner access.

If (user_owner_token || op_access_approved)
build_sessions_link(op_id,pc_id);

Why was it necessary to remove the link instead of just filtering the access with login data (typically easy)?

Also, doesn't Paizo have a responsibility to provide regulatory transparency and to email their userbase about this issue to help ensure good communication about compliance- and privacy-related matters? Has the userbase been notified (GPDR or otherwise) regarding any compliance or privacy issues? I don't recall seeing anything other than Playtest announcements, but have been busy and may have missed it. The GPDR deadline was last May.

Ultimately, it is probably in the user's best interest to allow VC access, since it gives users the option to ask for help from their local VCs (off-loading part of the support burden). If the VCs can't see the sessions or other necessary user data, then they may not be able to help resolve certain types of issues without the user having to go through customer service (where response times may be slower).

I support Paizo, realize there is a lot going on, but hope this issue can be resolved soon with a better fix that doesn't remove the functionality we need to access our character session data.

Grand Lodge

What is the expected ETA to complete OP reporting for GENCON 2018?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Ferious Thune. The change to remove the session links from the PC tab of the private OP pages is a significant inconvenience to all users. Also, the UI and functional implementation of the OP GM/Player session search tabs is somewhat cumbersome, as others have pointed out.

If the issue is really one of privacy, then why not make the player tab of the "My Organized Play" section private (or do in-page ACL filtering to show the session links to the page owners only)? You have the login cookie info for the ACL, right?

Please don't inconvenience thousands of users for a handful of VCs or other individual regulatory issues that are easily managed with implmentation of basic user privileges...or even a new private PC tab (if one is really needed).

Ultimately, couldn't this issue be resolved through a simple, back-end DB query (with ACL filtering, as needed)? Or, if you had to make a new, private tab in the "My Organized Play" section to protect user data without compromising functionality as a short-term measure, don't you already have all the tab code with the session functionality built in?

From the user perspective, it's hard for me to understand why the best product quality and user satisfaction choice was to cripple thousands of existing users without making sure there was other equivalent functionality in place. Too many people depend on your online services and need them to support their gaming.

I hope that you can fix this problem very soon so that we have restored access to our combined GM/Player session data. GMs cannot properly manage their OP characters without this access. I was trying to do a build and update characters and am stuck without having to laboriously go through all my individual player and GM sessions and manually assemble everything.

Grand Lodge

This scenario is clearly an homage to "The Adventures of Pluto Nash." All it needs is 2 Eddie Murphies, robot sex and a frozen chihuahua.

Grand Lodge

Gotcha. Appreciate it.

If you could ping the responsible party, that would be great. I would like to restore my character to PFC as soon as it is convenient so that he is correct in the event that I play any upcoming CORE games. I also cc'd customer service.

It would be nice to know the expected ballpark turn-around time for this type of request/correction so that I can advise others who have the same problem.

Thanks!

Grand Lodge

Chris - what is the approximate turn-around time for requests to flip individual PCs back to PFC mode? Just curious. I sent in my request last week to pfsreportingerrors@paizo.com. Thanks!

Grand Lodge

Gallows of Madness is definitely replayable, and you can find the related info in the downloadable rules: http://paizo.com/include/PZO9552-Rules.zip

I still think it would be great if Dragon's Demand, Part 1 were replayable. Like Gallows of Madness, it is a 1-3.

Paizo - is there any major impediment to making Dragon's Demand, Part 1 replayable given the maturity of the campaign and burgeoning 2.0 release?

Grand Lodge

Thanks for the reply, Chris! Yes - GENCON is looming! Good luck with all the crazy prep!

Here is additional clarification - there are several distinct problems:
1. Unwanted, forced conversion from PFC to RPG from games misreported as RPG and no auto-correct/undo after correcting the session reporting (back to PFC).
2. Not being able to see where things went wrong with a PC that should be PFC but isn't. (An audit function)
3. PCs initially created as RPG because new PFS players don't necessarily understand how things work and are using that PC for PFC games.
4. Not being able to easily self-correct any of these issues at the user level once other reporting problems are resolved. (Hence, the button for users to manually invoke self-audit and conversion back to PFC, assuming the sessions are OK and regardless of whether the character was created as RPG or PFC. It would just work like magic!)

Grand Lodge

Hi,

Recently, both of our local game store events have inadvertently reported PFC sessions as RPG, resulting in an (unwanted) permanent switch of all PCs at the table from PFC mode to RPG mode. It's a bit of a headache to address, generates errors for all future reporting, and there's no easy way to fix the resulting impact without posting help requests to pfsreportingerrors@paizo.com.

The following change should help address this issue:
1. Add a button or mini-form to the OP Player tab labeled "Core PC Checker" or "PFC Audit" - something like that.
2. Upon hitting the button (or using the mini-form), the player would enter the ID of the PC they want to check, hit "Audit" or "Go," etc.
3. The code would check to make sure that all reported sessions for that PC ID were reported as CORE, and, if so, permanently set the designation of that PC to PFC (and undo any unwanted conversion or RPG contamination).
4. Alternately, if it finds sessions that have not been reported as PFC, it can give the player an audit list so that they can correct the problem(s) locally or otherwise.
5. Once they correct the problem(s) with coordinators, they can re-run the check and fix their PC.

Benefit:
1. No more customer service overhead to fix incorrectly converted OP PCs (a very common problem).
2. Does not affect PFC characters that intentionally play RPG or receive RPG GM credit to undergo one-time RPG conversion.
3. Users can audit their own PCs and correct problems quickly and easily.

Everyone wins, and it should be a very simple thing to add, requiring minimal code, most of which already exists, since it is used to pull and display the session list for individual PCs.

On that note, there are 2 issues with the session list:
1. It doesn't show whether the game was reported as PFC or RPG.
2. The ID column doesn't show the PC ID suffix (-X) for GM credits.

Thanks - I hope these suggestions are useful.

Grand Lodge *****

Regarding the discussion above of the Flask of Reconcoction on the chronicle in this scenario:

If your players ask you if it's worth it to buy it or not, you can explain to them that it is similarly-priced to an equivalent Pearl of Power or Boro Bead, except that anyone can use it and put in any potion.

Pearl of Power/Boro Bead: 9000gp to recall a 3rd-level spell you previously learned once/day (limited to any spell known and class lists, etc.)

14th Level Bauble Price (max capability of the FoC): 9250gp to use any 3rd level potion once/day (usable by anyone, but only for potions)

It pays for itself after 12-13 uses at it's maximum price. And, because it scales in price and capability, it's useful at lower levels. For example, it's a daily 2nd level potion at 10th for 3100gp @ 300gp/potion (cost recovery in 11-12 uses, adding in the potion cost).

If you're an upper-level alchemist, you might get the most utility out of a Boro Bead because you already have Alchemical Allocation to reuse any 3rd-level potions, for example (@750gp/2PP). But, to gain out-of-class access, or for non-spell classes, it could be a great item offering the unobtainable - like a fighter who wants daily Heroism, Fly or Cure Serious Wounds; or a rogue or cleric who wants Displacement or Burrow to move around the battlefield more stealthily or safely; or for a reusable Barkskin at 8th-10th (~3.4K for the FoC 30-minute version and a free neck slot vs. 8K for an always-on +2 Amulet of Natural Armor)...or maybe even to get a Gaseous Form to sneak into the Decemvirate's hidden cranberry farm deep within the heart of the River Kingdoms.

Anyway, if your players ask, maybe the above will help. It definitely has some cool and cost-effective uses to get something a PC might not ordinarily have or to otherwise help with certain types of resource management.

Grand Lodge

Hi Erik -

It's been about 2.5 months since the above discussion. Can you provide any further, updated insight/guidance on when the problem with assigned PFS GM credits not appearing in character play histories will be fixed?

It is impossible for GMs to use the PFS/OP web interface to track their PFS characters.

Thanks - I hope that there can be a quick turn to resolve this issue!

Grand Lodge *****

John Compton explained the ambiguous wording of module bonus chronicles back in 2015 - see this post:

Stop the Plunder and Peril Bloodshed!

:-)

To summarize:
Method 1: Full/normal module rewards + boons and items, as applicable. Let's you hyper-level a single PC. w00t!

Method 2: 2PP only + boons and items, as applicable -- helps improve the prestige awarded by the module track without forcing you to level, as others have stated (but does not deprive you of boons/items)

Grand Lodge

My comments above represent abstract bug reports spanning months. Fix ASAP comments are an indication that the bug (session lists in this case) should be considered higher/immediate priority (failure to perform a basic or necessary function, but with an indication as to the source of the problem) and, from a quality perspective, do not carry any other implication.

For example, having been at GENCON, I assume that we all have the same post-GENCON recovery period. I, for one, am still a bit jet-lagged.

I also assume that Paizo fixes things whenever they can. The response time is often long, as shown above, but, again, that is an addressable and ongoing quality/resource issue that is not tied to any particular external event or point in time.

Grand Lodge

I would appreciate it if someone could address the issue with missing player sessions ASAP. It is difficult to review PC play histories when none of the GM credits appear in the list.

Grand Lodge

I can confirm that the sessions do not show up in the PC session list for assigned GM credit.

Also, I was unable to change the name of my Starfinder character unless I selected a faction. A faction should not be required for a name change. Not sure if this issue also affects PFS or not.

Grand Lodge

Beyond the posts above from 1 and 2 months ago, I have noticed that the scenarios that show up in the play lists for individual PFS characters are now missing multiple entries, even though they show up as assigned on the GM side. Maybe it's that the UI is failing to pull GM sessions assigned to PCs? Not sure.

Is there an ETA for a next major release that will hopefully fix the above PFS reporting issues and also address the incorrectly-diplayed/missing PFS character session entries?

Grand Lodge *****

This morning, I made a battle map and schematic from scratch for the final encounter to accompany (or replace) the paizo map. So, they should be OK to post. I hope you guys find them useful. If you think there should be any changes/additions, let me know.

Here is the link:
See the final post in this thread

Grand Lodge *****

Actually - not posting the maps as above - need to double-check with paizo first. I think I have to create my own versions.

Grand Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Result:
My run was 4 hrs. and was a fun time. The party chose to max out bluff and disguise with some very amusing bluffs. Extra time at the start ended up being offset, of course, by rapid encounter resolution with unbeatable bluff/disguise mechanics.

Advice: The introduction and multiple knowledge checks and Q/A make for a longer intro, regardless of party tactics. So, try to be as efficient as possible in the delivery and don't let the starting RP take too long, or you can easily hit 5 hrs.

For my run, I created modified maps with elevations printed at each step and also made a modified side view without the elevator and relocated throne glyph. I had no problems with the mechanics of the final encounter. The party leader opened with a bluff as a would-be invisible stalker, while Grasping gruffly commanded them to present themselves for its scrutiny (based on certain irregularities). Then, as the party began to comply, the out-of-tier rogue stealthed in and surprised with the horn (since 1 person in the party has played ToW) and blasted. Boss failed save, but got in some good hits, battle over in 3 rounds, slyphs surrendered, 1d4 electric damage was inconsequential, party disabled sigil, Silver Crusade redeemed the minions. Yada, yada, yada victory.

Having run it at 5-6 with an APL 5.3 party with 2 8th levels (and all flying), the final CR was not an issue for my game, and it was a short battle. YMMV for a pure 5-6 group with a mix of non-flyers, especially if people get air-blated against the wall and fail their wind saves.

Modified images linked below if anyone wants them:
Modified Maps for 200' Hall of Hurricane

Grand Lodge *****

Also - one thing I forgot above besides the briefing - disguise as in the Bozhithar encounter.

Grand Lodge *****

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

The height descriptions in here are wonky, sorry. Let's go with this:

The position of the elevator in the vertical map is its position when it first enters the lower chamber. It then descends to the throne, which is 100 feet below the room's ceiling. So far, the vertical map view works. Where it breaks down is in the lower portion. To make the map fit, let's make the room 200 feet tall: 100 above the throne and 100 below it. That maintains the distance between the platforms nicely, with at 40 foot drop from platform I to the floor below.

Thx for the extra description. But...still seems to need some additional detail (at least for me). Where does the elevator stop, exactly? The scenario and your text say it lands on a solid surface at the throne level. If it stops opposite D/E as on the map, there is nowhere for PCs to stand who can't fly (or who have used up their flying), except to jump down and start climbing by making subjective gravity checks or trying to run along the outer cylinder wall. If it stopped at the top, they could use the cylinder terrain as on the printed map to "climb" down.

So, I guess that means treating the terrain around the elevator as 5' so that PCs can at least use subjective gravity to use the cylinder wall as a movement surface, but having to make the fly check or use a standard to fight the hurricane (once and done, I guess - once/round seems unfair).

Trying to plan mechanics:
Given that the elevator stops at the throne level, it's probably more like a CR10 encounter at 5-6, since the sylphs count as CR7 (2x CR5) + CR7 grasping = CR9 + 1 for environment and terrain = CR10 minimally (perhaps on the high side for a party of 5th levels).

Anyway, trying to use your text...and running out of time until I have to run this...
-------------------------------------------------------
Elevator: Top/+200 -- Elevator enters here at the top of the cylinder and descends to its only programmed stop (the throne level) at 12:00 along the "north/top" wall of the map, avoiding other helical cylinder terrain - sylphs can see it approaching at least 2 rounds away. Maybe there should be a mechanic to allow clever PCs to disable device on the elevator so that they can alter the pre-programmed stop and stop at the top vs. 100' down, since it can obviously go to multiple destinations per the scenario text (and use it to return to the ship). Or, maybe it can also stop at the sigil level at the very bottom. (How does it go to different places? Unqualified mention of "magic" on p19. Needs more.)

A: +180
B: +160 -- I am putting the sylphs here as sentries to be on the lookout for the elevator to announce visitors (or get ready to buff if they expect a fight) and because they auto feather-fall as sky druids and can just drop into battle.
C: +140
D: +120
-- Per the scenario map, the throne is here on one side of the cylinder
-- therefore, the elevator stops on the other side ("north")
E: +100
F: +80
G: +60
H: +40
I: +20
Base: +0 -- Glyph is here in the floor in the eye

Also, I plan to adjudicate the center of the cylinder as the "eye" and tranquil territory for 15' diameter (area around the sigil). For example, a rogue could hail mary jump and feather fall down there (maybe chased by sylphs). This distinction is also critical to help the sylphs use their Cloud Gazer ability and obscuring mist to maximum effect to hide while using call lightning (which would otherwise be quickly or instantly blown away by the wind effects). If within 5' of the wall is hurricane, then within 10' should probably be severe, within 15' = moderate and the middle is the eye, hypothetically (and consistent with Control Winds). Also, the eye facilitates unimpeded perceptions of the sigil, where the storm might otherwise interfere.

In terms of the movement checks, the pre-check Fort Save DC is missing, but looks like a CL11 (+3 wind increments) cast of Control Winds (druid 5), so 10+level 5+stat 2 = DC17.

And, finally, the scenario text says that grasping "immediately knows what's going on," but the PCs are told at the start that the expected mercenaries are elementals. If they bypass the middle encounter and make use of this briefing info and disguise all of themselves as elementals to try and sneak in, then there won't be immediate combat and will be a chance for RP or ambush, presuming grasping fails the perception.

This encounter may warrant a scenario revision. It appears to lack a certain amount of necessary detail and clarity, and the options in the opening encounter could probably be stream-lined a little. The extra comments help, but I still think it would benefit from additional treatment. But...looks like fun! After this exercise, I think I know how I will run it and what options I can offer creative players.

Grand Lodge

Is there any time estimate to fix the above problems?

Also, to the above list, you can add:

#4: The new search and filter interface for GM and Player sessions doesn't correctly handle basic search for scenario names. With no filters selected and everything displayed (default view condition), I should be able to enter a part of a scenario name, hit search and see the result, if present. Currently, the search returns nothing for valid name search strings.

For example, if I know that "Sewer Dragons of Absalom" is in my GM history and I type in "Sewer" and hit the Search button, the search finds nothing instead of finding the scenario.

This functionality needs to work, especially since the recent changes force the scenario listings on to multiple pages. It is now impossible to quickly find if I have run a scenario. When everything was listed on the same page, I could at least use the browser find to locate things quickly. Thx.

Grand Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My advice to GMs for this one would be to include some minimal information or a warning about a tyrannical beast in the opening encounter from the ratfolk if the PCs succeed in negotiating with the ratfolk guards. It's still not a guarantee that the PCs will defeat the dragon, but it is, at least, a necessary clue to choose combat over diplomacy vs. auto-failing the manufactured secondary success condition. The scenario offers no other clues to the supposed hundreds of years of tyranny over the ratfolk and need to kill the dragon. That info really sounds like something the ratfolk would offer to their new friends as a warning (or request for aid).

Grand Lodge

Joe Schmoe wrote:
We haven't had much gold or loot...

I realize you aren't playing PFS, but, for comparison, by the start of 12th level, a typical PFS character has earned around 100K-125K gold (depending). If you are L13 and you aren't finding much gold or loot, you may want to discuss Tables 12-4 & 12-5 on p. 399 of the CRB with your GM to see where things stand relative to your campaign. If you are not receiving commensurate rewards for encounters & PC level, at some point, it is going to be difficult to keep up with the power curve of high CR encounters (if they occur). Otherwise, you're going to be fighting a lot of low CR creatures to gain enough XP to keep leveling.

Maybe there's something unique about your campaign where gold & loot are less important and the balance is more task-based with lesser emphasis on monster CRs. But if not, better hope for a gold bonanza and a trip to the shopping mall sometime soon. ;-)

Grand Lodge

Also, if your fighter is L13, you should consider upgrading that cloak. Your will save is not so great. ;-)

Grand Lodge

No. The damage is prescribed by the spell and you get neither bonuses nor penalties associated with strength. You only add strength to damage, as follows:

Combat PRD wrote:
When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow."

So...strength applies to melee weapon, thrown weapon, bow (penalty only), and composite bow (bonus up to the max rating...or penalty), but not spell (or ranged machine weapon, like crossbow).

Here is the link:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html

Grand Lodge

Is the omission of Bestiary 6 intentional or an oversight? It would be nice if new GMs could pick up the whole set on sale.

Grand Lodge

Appears to be fixed! Great, web team! Thx!

Grand Lodge *****

Pregens are great. They bring players to the table, facilitate PFS by helping games go forward that would otherwise fail, offer templates and easy entry to new players, form the casts of unusual/special scenarios and quests, allow you to try out new classes and randomly sit down at tables when you didn't expect to play, are very playable (excellent, in some cases) and lots of fun to RP.

They're allowed day jobs if they can reasonably perform the skill, and now also get faction goals (as Lau says). And, pregen/7 PCs are self-sufficient for recovery, even if they die in-game.

So, what's not to love? OK, maybe they're not perfect (and some are better than others), but they are an extremely functional, diverse and essential part of the Pathfinder ecosystem.

At PaizoCon, our table of core pregen/4's (Valeros, Merisiel, Ezren and Kyra) killed off 2 of Compton's winged, demonic minotaurs in a murderously high CR delve and actually lived to tell the tale (just barely).

And personally, I don't worry about who uses Kyra's wand (or Seelah's for that matter). It's not game-breaking and is all in the name of fun. I have never died while playing a pregen and have played lots of them.

Grand Lodge *****

I am certainly not aware of any players ever playing illegally dead characters or assigning pregens to dead PCs in our area, intentionally or otherwise. I do run across chronicle or reporting issues with some frequency, however, but most are common mistakes that are easy to fix/sign off on. The quick chronicle check at the start of the game sometimes really helps the players!

>The dead chronicle sheet is not discovered until later.

Ah! That PC must be an archaeologist that is now bard from playing. ^_^

On a related note, could someone post a picture of what a dead character looks like on the Player tab of PFS on paizo.com? Does it say "dead" next to it?

Grand Lodge *****

Interesting discussion, besides the fact that it seems like a corner case to me. 9 out of 10 times the cost will be taken care of at the table in real time, and most players have chronicles with them, can access them or maybe are regulars. If someone doesn't have their chronicles, Steven's method of giving them the benefit of the doubt by resolving the cost against their base character's gold using the ITS is very player-friendly and fair (and in line with the Guide).

They don't get 1 more game for free. They have to note the cost somewhere, and the next valid chronicle is the only place it can go. Gold had to come from the base RPG character, presumably where the prior chronicle has already been filled in. It counts as a "pre-session purchase" on the ITS for the next game ...and the player has to have the gold to pay for it at the start of the next session.

And, if GM's do the basic checks at the start of the game, it will come to light and most likely be resolved in a friendly and positive manner.

Grand Lodge *****

Wei Ji the Learner - Sorry to hear that digital chronicles are a significant barrier for you. Mostly, the GM just needs to see the latest chronicle. Hopefully, that's not too much of a burden.

I would also advise GMs to do a quick chronicle/assignment check at the start of the game so that you know where things stand, and to help make sure that players understand requirements of PFS -- filling out chronicles, having them present at games, etc. If we all collectively help players understand, there will be fewer problems for all concerned.

Grand Lodge *****

I agree with Stephen, I don't see any major problems here (except no gp for body recovery). Per earlier comments in the thread, some point out that it may not always be logistically practical to update the game after the fact, especially after a CON. Maybe so, but, in that case, you can go through a local VC to resolve certain types of reporting issues.

To address presence/absence of chronicles beyond what Stephen has said, I can offer the following points (and reminder):

►If the player has their chronicles with them (which should be true in many cases), everything is as per the Guide. No issue.

►If the player is new, has no other PCs, they're playing level 4 or 1, and the table does not wish to help cover the cost, then you would mark their -1 as dead. If they use a pregen/7, they can probably cover it even if the table doesn't help (but lack of help would be very rare). So, probably no major issue here.

►If the player has no chronicles and doesn't have them in digital form online or on a personal device or thumb drive, and it is not practical to update things later, then the raise cost may need to come from the session chronicle gold and/or other players, as needed. However, I agree with Stephen and suggest being as helpful and flexible as possible, including giving players (and regulars) the benefit of the doubt. But, if there are no records anywhere, we can only go so far as GMs. Also, I have also always noted that players at the table are very supportive and altruistic. So, there's probably no serious issue here, or, at worst, it's a corner case.

►Finally, if there is still a serious concern or issue at the table regarding pregen death, you can always escalate and ask for a VO to help resolve the problem, which they can potentially do out-of-session (as Stephen mentions). I wouldn't expect this kind of outcome to happen very often (hopefully an even rarer event than death itself).

I can offer a reminder: it's very smart (and easy) to keep copies of PC chronicles on a google drive, dropbox, thumb drive, or on your smartphone to support play anywhere. Currently, the requirement is to have paper chronicles, but hopefully, that will change in the future (we can all cross our fingers for Season 9).

Have fun!

Grand Lodge *****

To me, the context in the Guide seems clear and provides for the exception of using the base PC's resources to help resolve pregen conditions. The references are mutually exclusive. Since the player is using a pregen/x, any references to their Roleplaying Guild Character must mean the base (out-of-session context) PC (and not the in-session pregen).

Therefore, if your base PC has gold and prestige, use it, as needed. It is the allowed exception and the fair, legal and compassionate thing to do as a GM to help resolve all conditions at the table. Fun should be the 1st priority and intentionally killing off PCs is not in the interest of fun.

I understand and embrace the need for detail, but in this case, I think if you take a step back, you may see that the Guide is OK on this issue, except for a gp equivalent for body recovery.

OK In-Session Pregen resources to use to resolve conditions:
- chronicle gold
- personal gold and gear (providing you meet the stated minimum)

OK Out-Of-Session Roleplaying Guild PC resources to use to resolve conditions:
- gold (and anything with gp equivalent that you can sell)
- Prestige

OK Table resources to use to resolve conditions:
- anything players want to contribute, either to meet the minimum required before selling the pregen gear, or to help defray the cost of anything that remains after the sale of gear (especially level 4)

Grand Lodge *****

Sorry - I guess you've lost me. As far as I can see, it's written on page 6 in the Guide.

Pregen/4 dies, the player (or table) must come up with a minimum of 1000gp before the sale of pregen gear. Another ~2500gp+ comes from selling the pregen/4 gear. So...we're up to 3500 of 8010 (or 5450 if you ignore the cost of the negative levels).

Whatever remains comes from a table split (including the session gold from the chronicle of the pregen), and then, if necessary, comes from the player's Level 3 PC. The player can apply gold, prestige, sell gear, etc. which is all qualified by the statement: "the player can contribute the associated Roleplaying Guild character’s resources (gp and Prestige Points) to this end." Sale of personal gear is implied by "gp" for anything that has a gp value.

So, if there is still some other ambiguity, can you qualify what you mean with an example so that I can better understand your point that I appear to be missing? I would like to understand!

ps. ...and there is no gp equiv. for Recovery. If the PC is left behind (or TPK) and the Level 3 does not have at least 5PP, then the body cannot (currently) be recovered. Hopefully, that will change in the future.

Grand Lodge *****

Hey there, Nefreet. Thx for your other comments in this thread. I agree, but, taking my earlier post into consideration, I don't see any remaining open "How" issues for anything except body recovery (assuming there is something left to recover ^_^ "Bad Inverted Giant! Do NOT eat that Pathfinder!") with respect to a possible future gp equivalent.

Maybe 1500-1700gp would be reasonable? Objectively, there really should be a gold cost so that non-PFSers or those without PP can have a documented way to recover a fallen comrade.

Page 6 of the Season 8 Guide makes clear distinctions in terminology between A. The Pregenerated Character and B. The Roleplaying Guild Character (personal PC) and explains what crosses over between the contexts during the active session when playing a pregen:

"In addition, the player can contribute the associated Roleplaying Guild character’s resources (gp and Prestige Points) to this end." [...to resolve conditions, including death, which includes recovery.]

So, the (S8) Guide tells you exactly How and What can be contributed and the When is only while the session is active, as above.

Currently, as long as the RPG character has 5PP (very low onus in PFS, at least), or maybe a boon, etc., great! Otherwise, as above, it would be nice if there were a gold equivalent so that players could hire grizzled NPC grave robbers or mercenaries to go and fetch dead PCs (again, assuming there is something left to recover).

Am I misunderstanding your point, or do you see any other open issues besides the gp equivalent for recovery?

Grand Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seelah/7 died yesterday in the game I was running, and, while searching around, I came across this thread. The debate here is good, but, to me, it looks like some of it may be moot, at least with respect to upper-level pregens. But, that is not to say that the concerns aren't valid ones. Some of the issues, however, may be clarity-related, rather than Paizo's intent to kill underlying PCs or make players suffer. (At least that wouldn't be my first interpretation, since it would be self-limiting in terms of campaign support.) So, some additional commentary may help for others who end up here as I did.

7th-level pregens are surprisingly self-sufficient when they die in upper-level scenarios. The Season 8 Guide (p.6) is relatively clear on using resources associated with the adventure during the session. For example, if the player can sell the pregen's gear, then, intuitively, the player can (and should) use any of the rewards the pregen earned in the scenario (including gold), whether or not the rewards have been, or can be, "applied" to the underlying PC.

As long as the session is active (which lasts as long as everyone is still at the table), then things play out in that time-shifted context. When the scenario/session "ends," time shifts back to the underlying PC and the credit goes to held mode. It just means that there will be reduced gold in the future when the chronicle can be applied (at 18XP). It would be nice if the Guide were perfectly explicit on this point (which it isn't, exactly), but it's probably more clear than many of the other rules we have to adjudicate as GMs where perfect clarity is, aptly, "high fantasy." ^_^

For example: Tier 7-11 gold is usually at least 4K+ and Seelah/7 gear has a 1/2 sale value of 10K+. So, with a mandatory 2K personal cost for a pregen/7 (as per the S8 Guide p. 6) subtracted from the chronicle and 6K from the sale of gear, Seelah leaps back to life and gets rid of her negative levels (8010gp total, assuming the party carries their dead back to Absalom -- no body recovery needed). Other 7th-level pregens have similar resources available. The death is costly, but not unmanageable. And, as others point out, it would be grossly unfair to kill underlying PCs who can't possibly have the resources available, especially given that the availability of pregens is to foster participation rather than hinder it.

Arguably, at 1st level, pregen death isn't catastrophic, and at 4th level, recovery is harder, but benefits from player contributions and is manageable. In concrete terms, 4th level rewards are usually 1300-1800gp and Seelah/4 gear (as in this particular example) has a sale value of about 2700gp. So, that leaves an outstanding balance of ~4K (or less) that either has to come from ally altruism or the underlying PC. The stated minimum player gold recovery cost of 1000gp when using a 4th-level pregen doesn't really matter, since the recovery has a higher cost than the sale value of the pregen gear. It could be 0gp or 3000gp -- the player is still going to have to account for over 5K based on the gear/4.

To that end, the S8 Guide goes on to say (p.18) that "players are encouraged to share their physical resources in order to resolve any and all conditions." (including death) So, at 7th, 2000gp/x (where x is the number of players at the table) is also a legal and viable strategy. You should mention this option to the table, because 500gp or less a piece is an altruistic expense that allows the player who used the pregen (whether new to PFS or otherwise) to earn a little more gold for the adventure with a mortal mishap. As a GM, you just need to note the PFS IDs of the players who opted to contribute on the pregen chronicle.

As above, the metrics are more onerous at 4th level, but upper-level pregen death is usually very recoverable, whether or not the underlying character to which the chronicle will be assigned has the requisite gold or prestige available to foot the bill. So, at the high level, enjoy the pregens, try out new classes, play at tables, support local PFS, and have a good time! You will live to fight another day, even if you lose a bit on the chronicle in the (hopefully unlikely) event that you die during the scenario.

If you'd like to learn how Seelah died, you can read the tale of her death below. By Iomedae's blade...what a battle! ...especially in 4-player when the heavy hitter PC is carrying 6 negative levels from a prior encounter's enervations!

Seelah, the Victorious!
Yesterday, brave Seelah of the 7th Tier of Iomedae was strangled to death by a deadly plant. True to the Code of the Paladin, she strode forward and made a bold entreaty for peace and virtue. However, when peace seemed unlikely and she saw other enslaved Pathfinders being forced to dig their own graves, she sought to smite the evil plant creature for its perfidy, even while fighting back a strange fog that threatened to cloud her mind.

Unfortunately, Seelah failed to act quickly enough, and the thorny, constricting tendrils of woe wrapped around her, drawing her near and snaking into the gaps in her contorted armor. The tendrils bathed in gouts of Seelah's righteous blood as they laid bare her divine flesh. Iomedae was saddened that day as the villainous vegetation mocked her fallen daughter. Using the tendrils as malevolent marionette's strings, the wicked plant animated Seelah in a meat-puppet pantomime of pseudo-valor as her allies looked on in horror.

But, all was not lost! Severely beaten, bloody and magically exhausted, the Pathfinders rallied and, with great difficulty, turned the tide of the battle, freeing the thralls, and winning the day in honor of Seelah's tragic sacrifice.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since you are in the midst of reporting/layout changes, there are a few problems with PFS reporting that I would like to add:

1. If you enter a GM PC for a reported session and save the session, then go back and change the GM name because of a mistake, etc. It never properly resets the name for the assigned PC, where the wrong name is propagated in the GM session list and the specific play session list for the -x PC.

For example, from PaizoCon 2017, my GM credit for Bluebeard Alefist (-3) character shows up as "Jim Davis 747" because of a saved, then corrected, entry error on Solstice Scar. In addition, another game I ran (House of Harmonious Wisdom) was assigned to a player at the table instead of me, so a credit for "Sortox the Mad" (my -23) shows up as "Colby Chedderington" (which is an awesome name, but not the one belonging to the PC assigned for my GM session).

Solution: Make sure the code resets the GM name and PC assignment fields when they change in the reporting session, and you probably also want to run a batch query against the database to clear out all the wrong names that have been saved over time.

By the way, the same thing happens when changing the name of a PC. The name changes have never propagated properly.

2. On the "Player" tab for Pathfinder Society info, when viewing the list of reported sessions for a specific player PC, the "-x" number doesn't show on all the entries. At first, I thought it was a field width issue, but in looking at the page source, the -x numbers are not there. So, when you do a query from the database to show the PC's play history, the -x number is either missing from the source field or getting deleted for some entries along the way prior to final display.

If I want to grab all my player sessions for a particular PC, I have to always edit the PFS IDs, since some number of them don't include the suffix.

3. On the reporting side, when saving sessions that have player counts of less than six, the blank entries are now being stuck in the middle of the list after saving by the newly-changed reporting code (recent change). So, if I enter Player 1, Player 2, Player 3, Player 4, then save it, when I look at the session afterwards, I see Player 1, Player 2, Blank, Blank, Player 3, Player 4, etc. Saving PFS sessions should preserve the list order and put the blank entries at the end. And again, you may want to run a batch query with a date after the recent changes to globally eliminate the blank space.

Thanks. It would be great if you could fix these issues.

Grand Lodge

Saurian Shaman/rage splash is tons of fun!

Also - Greater Magic Fang with AoMF Bane+Furious = +5 vs. typed enemies. Add in Strong Jaw for extra damage and Stoneskin for defense. My druid hates evil outsiders and constructs.

He also has combat reflexes, wildshapes into a huge allosaurus, casts spider climb and attacks upside-down from the ceiling, taking AoOs and grappling enemies who run through his threatened space.

1 to 50 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>