Jeff Kosky 360's page

Maybe someone could just post a PDF of an example from each season to compare it to. If these sheet you have looks nothing like the examples, you probably need to have it looked at.

I thought this was the best encounter of the entire module. I made my knowledge roll and when we found out what it was there was a mad scramble to move back and total fear in the party. This encounter was a challenge, had real consequencese and after it was over you felt like you had accomplished something.

Thank you everyone. I just moved here from Oregon and I am really excited about this opportunity.

I played bonekeep at Paizocon a few weeks ago and I had a good time. We played on the 6-7 Tier and even though we started 40 min late we still cleared 7 rooms with no deaths. I expected half the party to die in the very first room, but as time went on I found out this dungeon is not that lethal at all. If you play smart and have good builds it can easily be completed in the time allowed. I hear there are more installments coming to this dungeon in the future, I would like to challenge the designers to make it even more challenging to even borderline unfair so completing it is a monumental accomplishment.

You have to be level 12 at the start of part I (give or take a few rare exceptions)

Eot10 PI brings you to 12.2
Part II brings you to 13
Part II brings you to 13.1
And part IV leaves you at 13.2

Where does it say this at? I just looked at the part 1 cronicle sheet and it has 0 exp in the exp slot, do I just cross through this then?

AcidicWind wrote:

only 28 scenarios a year is not nearly enough, especially for players where pfs is the primary source of their pathfinder games.

This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is. I know there are some people who would advise they could play 10 scenarios a month. However, 10 simply isn't feasible. So, what do you think is the target number for players where PFS is the primary source of their Pathfinder games.

4 per month would solve many issues such as running out of modules for many of us. 2 should follow the season theme while 2 others act as stand alone missions that are easily done at any time. One of each tier per month with an extra 1-5 replacing the 7-11 every second or third month.

This is even more complicated than any other solution I've seen. This would require the GM to go through every single chronicle on every single character at the table, add up all the gold ever earned, and compare it to some chart somewhere. It's just not feasible, especially at a con.

What you suggest is not feasible, a hard cap on total wealth would be enforced by the player on the honor system just like everything else is right now. Does a GM go through everyone cronicle sheets before every game and check to make sure everything is correct right now? Not in my experience. Even if the GM did want to do an audit, all you do is look at the final sheet and compare it to the chart, that would take 30 sec. If you are talking about gold being calculated incorrectly 7 sheets back, thats a problem already, not one being created by a hard cap.

This seems to be getting realy complicated and it does not have to. There is already a cap on how much you can spend on a certain item based on prestige. All we have to do is put a similar cap on total wealth (items+consumables used+gold) based on level or prestige and the problem goes away. If you play up and the gold you would get would put you over the cap you just don't get that gold. If you are forced to play down then you can recoup that money later by playing up with no game breaking effects.

As it stands now, if I go to a table with a lv 7 character and there are several 3s and 4s at the same table I have the choice of permanently being behind the gold curve with no chance to ever make it up, or just walk away and not play possibly resulting in not enough people to play.

The current system works just fine, with only a few people breaking it, why put strict limits on every player when you are only making rules to limit the top 5%-10%? Put the limits on those players and normal players will be able to continue play and never really notice a difference.

The other issue is that lower level players are being pushed into higher tiers. I think the way APL is calculated is part of the problem. If you have 4 lv 5 players at a table they can play 6-7. If you add 1 lv 3 player to the group then you are now playing on 3-4. You have added value but dropped the challenge rating. For these senarios you should only calculate APL based on the 4 highest level characters (highest 6 for seaon 4+). Whatever number you come up with you play, if you fall exactly in between tiers let them GM decide.

How about we just have a hard cap on total gold earned for a given level. If you have to play down to accomodate a table or you GM then you can still make up for it all later by playing up. Instituting a hard cap will prevent power gamers from taking over, while still perserving the ability to play up or down. If the problem is a small number of players who are min maxing the system then take that away just for them, not for everyone.

I like the idea of a set amount of gold per senario to normalize gold and to eliminate the GM penalty (since GMs always play down at certain levels they fall behind the curve with no way to ever make it up now). If you do this a large number of players will choose to play down becuase the rewards are the same, I would take the choice away from them. If you are playing a 1-7 with an APL of 5 then you play 6-7. If your APL is 4 then you play 3-4. This takes the peer pressure out of the equation, to ensure GMs are doing it correctly have them log the characters levels and APL on the roster sheet.

I plan on attending Gamestorm, I would definitly like to play Eye of the Ten if it is offered.