Jim Harris's page

This form only seems to be for people wishing to volunteer for in-person GMing. When will the volunteer form go live for those of us wishing to volunteer for the online-side of the convention? These online/hybrid cons are a fabulous outcome of an awful cause and I hope they continue after the pandemic eventually ends.

Has anyone dropped any teasers about when the next One-Shots are coming out? I'm especially hyped for these for Starfinder. They are so much fun!

The "guide" website is an incomprehensible/unsearchable piece of garbage. Can we PLEASE go back to a PDF please!

Bumping this thread since my players are nagging me about sheets for our Return campaign.

Do we have a vague sense of when this last round of additional resources will come out yet?

I spoke to the team following that last post and it looks like Linda has jumped on the sanctioning for this. I don't have any further information at this point in time beyond it being likely that we'll probably have a relatively big sanctioning drop that'll happen all at once and include the last round of additional resources, Cradle of Night, and Return of the Runelords. I don't currently have an ETA on when that will be.

Any chance you have an ETA on this yet?

Has there been any update on when Return of the Runelords will be sanctioned? Or where in the queue it is?

This scenario is listed "available for sale August 2, 2018." It is now September 12 (I concede to the website issues some delays) and I have a local group organizing this special on September 29 (planned based on/well before the August 2 release date). Any chance this will be made available for purchase soon?

Mark,

So to clarify (since I'm the GM in question): the spell essentially gains the "Attack" trait under certain circumstances? i.e. In the case of "Heal" when you use the Somatic Casting action to make "melee touch attack to damage an undead target" (or the inverse for Harm)?

If so, I think the confusion comes from a more fundamental problem: it's not the "Attack" trait that triggers the MAP, it's the fact that you're making any form of a second attack. I think the suggestion at hand is that that could be made clearer, as it seems by the RAW only actions that explicitly have the "Attack" trait trigger a MAP and in this (above) example, the "Attack" trait seems to be lacking.

Hey Paizo (especially PFS and ACG) fans! In just a few short weeks (June 14-18) Columbus, OH will be playing host to Origins Game Fair and we are still looking for a few more GMs for both Pathfinder Society and the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Guild.

GMing 4+ slots gets you a badge, 7+ slots earns a 1/4 of a hotel room or a parking pass for the weekend. Boons are awarded based on GM-tier as well.

Signups can be found here (for PFS): http://ohiopfs.org/origins/origins-gm-application/

And here (for the ACG): http://ohiopfs.org/origins/origins-acg-gm-application/

Thanks! Looking forward to seeing you there!

I know this has been discussed elsewhere, but I can't find the thread with the official ruling: What is the EXACT ruling on what to do with players who chooses to play an iconic rather than their own character (who is level appropriate for the scenario)?

The situation at hand: I've organized King of the Storval Stairs tomorrow, and several of players want to play iconics rather than their own characters (to avoid death/cheat the system). I know this is against the spirit of the rules, but I want to be able to cite an official ruling when I chide them about this.

As I recall, the ruling was that if they play an iconic, they'd have to apply the chronicle sheet to a character who is BELOW level 7 (and is thus ineligible to play the scenario), right?

Congratulations all around!

I miss the old-style faction missions, and would strongly like to see them brought back. I felt that they opened up opportunities for more roleplaying in the game.

The death seems completely legit to me. Stupidity gets PCs killed. Repeatedly attacking Iron Golems at level 1 counts as stupid in my book.

Plus, it sounds like you gave the player more than enough clues that s/he was being dumb...

It has been noted numerous times, in various threads, that this is on IT's list of thing to do, but that it is a low priority.

Way to go, June!

And my table was playing lower tier.

I miss the old faction missions! They made factions meaningful. I wish that the they continued the old style of start-of-the-game handouts, but made the missions more tied to the overall objectives of the faction during the season (which season 5 did well!).

They spent a a good while talking to her before the combat started.

I just ran this scenario and had a huge fight break out at my table during the final encounter. So I'd like some peer review. As context, Severina's tactics say that

I had a player (who had previously GMed the scenario) argue with me about what invalidates her tactics. Here is the situation:

As a INT 22 creature, I ruled that getting hit for 2/3 of her total HP in a SINGLE attack (by an uber min-maxed character) is sufficient to trigger the "she realizes this battle does nothing to serve her" in that she realizes that "one more hit from this person and I'm dead." So at 52/125ish HP I had her try to Dimension Door away one round 1, defensively (she does). One round later, she uses her scroll of Teleport and boom, gone, done with scenario. Y'all win! Yay! (After all, she just wants to leave! And half the party was OK with this in the first place.)

SO, then, the player (using metagame knowledge from previously GMing) calls me out on this. I read the tactics aloud to the table, verbatim, and six of my seven players agree that, yes, I made the right call. That a 22 INT lich would be smart enough to know she's doomed, and this would thereby invalidate the tactics. But the one player makes me RESTART the combat from the Dimension Door, wasting 20 minutes of everyone's time as two rounds later she is reduced to 20 HP and the same result.

SO. My question: Is this situation a fair example of tactics becoming invalidated? If so, did I make a reasonable call (as most of my table thought) or not? If not, what should I have done better?

Awesome stuff here!

McNerney. Amazing as always. He's assembled quite the team with June and Costello, and adding Luke and Jim made the team that much stronger.

The most amazing part was the number of players who stepped up to GM, and the ability to never turn away a generic ticket and prop up any player to GM any game at a moments notice. I don't think the sense of community and customer focus is appreciated as much as it should be.

Thanks for the praise, Brent. As a relatively new VL, this was quite the learning experience for me!

I'm very pleased to hear how happy everyone was with the show and I'm certain Michael is too!

Welcome to the team!

I have no clue about Eyes of the Ten right now - according to the prereg system (and assuming that the number displayed is the number of tickets remaining), Part 1 has 3 people, Part 2 has 4, Part 3 has 5, and Part 4 has 3. *throws hands up in the air*

Part of this weirdness in numbers is that I'm only playing in parts 2 and 3. (I've played part I and I'm GMing Friday night during Part IV.)

I suspect that the table will fill itself out with on-site registration, but at least those two parts have the requisite 4 to run it seems.

One of my players just asked me an interesting question about this prestige award. Would it be possible use the Magnimarian debt boon from Race from the Runecarved Key to reduce the cost of the Risen Guard award by half, if it was used as a raise dead effect?

I'm not signed up but I see it.

1. Log in, go to Event Selection from the drop-down.
2. Enter 6863 in search textfield
3. Date = All
4. Event Category = Roleplaying
5. Search

Maybe try a different browser. Do you have anything like Noscript running?

My suggestion for y'all is follow these instructions, but instead of searching by # in the search textfield search by the title of the scenario you want to play, i.e. "Siege of the Diamond City." This should result in all the options for the special, as the tickets are sold by sub-tier for this particular event (1-2, 3-4, etc. each have a separate event #).

They need to be more than "PFS legal", they must actually be PFS characters, with a PFS# and all the appropriate tracking done (chronicles up to date, and so on).

Tony is 100% on the mark here. Yes, I should have been clearer that "PFS legal" = PFS characters. Sorry about that.

In a home game if the ENTIRE TABLE plays PFS-legal characters you may play it for PFS credit, which it sounds like your group does not. (Adventure paths are different.)

Second, when playing a module you must play a legal character within the appropriate level range, either your character must fall within the appropriate level range or you must use a legal iconic pregen. You cannot artificially level a character, no.

This sounds super cool!

Glad you had fun Matthew!

Does anybody know if Paizo plans to sanction the Carrion Crown AP for Pathfinder Society credit as they have done with several of the other more recent Adventure Paths?