Katie Sommer's page

Mazlith wrote:

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.

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. How do I, as a GM, know that your interpretation of how something works is correct unless I can see the rules from the source myself? It's not my responsibility to own all the books you build your character from, it's yours. If you don't want to carry around all those books, limit yourself to building from less resources or get a mobile device with the pdfs.

I'm going to chime in here. I'm from the same region as the OP and, this far into season 5, I much prefer the old way to the new. Here's why:

1. I feel disconnected from my factions. I built a Chelaxian paladin partly BECAUSE I wanted to have to, occasionally, either decline faction missions or be very conflicted about them. So far, I haven't even gotten a Chelaxian specific boon scenario because she's not been in tier for any of them, so I've had no chance to roleplay that aspect of her character.

2. New players know hardly anything about the factions and have no reason to learn. This makes me sad :(

3. I've skipped scenarios where my character was the proper faction because it would have negatively affected table balance. This is more important now because the scenarios are more difficult and table balance does matter. So I'm missing out not because I am entitled, but just the opposite, because I am trying to be a team player. In the past this wouldn't have mattered because I would have gotten a faction mission regardless of which character I played.

4. Casual players do not come to the board and read the faction missions. Heck, I know many non-casual players that don't read the boards. The one line blurb in the guide for each faction is not enough of a clue for most of the faction related boons I've seen and in fact, most require the board version. Which the player needs in front of them really because who is going to remember all the faction goals for each of their different character's factions. I try to make those available to my players but not all GMs do. So some casual players are missing out. And yet the casual player is important to our player base. And again even "non-casual" players don't always visit the boards.

5. Disseminating faction info is complicated if its not in the scenario. The old way, faction missions were right there, in the scenario, and it was easy peasy for the GM and the players to understand what they had to do. Not all GMs visit the boards. Not many players do either. The way the current system is set up, the info just isn't getting out there to players in an organized way. And if the GM doesn't know the faction write up for the season, he may not be able to pass on subtle hints to the player as to what they need to do.

And Chris brings in another point. What happens when faction goals change? It's not so bad if they only change at the beginning of each season, but even so, a player might end up with the wrong idea of their faction's goal because they're looking at the wrong season.

With that said, one suggestion would be to include handouts for faction missions for the factions involved in each scenario (and, in fact, this was done for one faction recently IIRC).

I would like to be able to purchase wands, scrolls and potions of higher CLs than the minimum.

This, X 1000. There is already a price difference built in and you can't buy them until you meet the fame qualifications anyway (unless using prestige and that would not work for wands). Sometimes you need a higher CL, particularly for things like remove disease that require caster level checks!

But how often do you see half a table that is replaying through GM stars? Not very often at all, because replay is still rare. I've no problem making it one replay per star per year either, but when you start allowing players (not GM's) replay, it will become more common, and the problems will crop up more. Especially since some people will try to game the system to get the "best" chronicles on their characters. Sucks to be the one or two people at the table that haven't played a scenario when 4 others are replaying just to get the "goodie" on the chronicle sheet.

If you're having trouble navigating the schedule at a convention because you've played most of the games there, then maybe its time to volunteer your services as a GM instead. That's what I did when I started "running out" of games to play (I wasn't really running out of games, its just that people tend to focus on the newest season the most, so many of the games on offer I had already played).

I don't like replay. It can and does punish the other people playing at the table. The person replaying already knows the scenario, so either metagames the heck out of it (for which the GM is perfectly OK in kicking them from the table) or is so conscious of possibly metagaming that they can't really contribute to discussion of what to do at the table. For mostly combat scenarios that's not terrible but those types of scenarios are becoming rarer... for scenarios that are largely roleplaying its incredibly difficult to keep prior knowledge out of your roleplay. Either way if can affect the experience of the people at the table with no prior knowledge, and often in a negative way.

Patience. They've still got sessions to report from Gen Con much less their usual work load to deal with. It doesn't affect your character at all, your chronicles are what are important for the legality of the character.

Here's my recommendations, for what it's worth:

The Blakros Museum scenarios (Mists of Mwangi, Voice in the Void, The Penumbral Accords and Echoes of the Overwatched)
3-01 The Frostfur Captives
4-01 Rise of the Goblin Guild
The Quest for Perfection series (3-09, 3-11, 3-13)

Enough to get started. And I think these largely avoid interaction with the NPCs in question. At this point you can maybe run some 3-7 scenarios as some of your players will be level 3.

I would actually avoid Season 5 for right now; they're a little more complicated to run and I would try to get your players involved in the factions through the older scenarios first.

Try to avoid the trap of people starting new characters every time a new person joins the group; your level 3-5s can still play with level 1s. Once enough people hit level 3, start offering 3-7s. Once enough hit level 5, start offering 5-9s. I wouldn't necessarily start offering these until you know you have 5-6 players around at these levels. That way if one or two doesn't show, you can still get a legal table.

Just some thoughts, good luck!

Michael Brock wrote:

Ok folks. I have removed several posts. Dial down the vitriol and get back to a civil conversation.

2nd Time asking if you missed it first time please see my last post.

Does Paizo make money off any of the licensees I buy on Herolab?

Last post lists in detail exact dollar amounts, each minimum $9.99.

Maybe it was missed, maybe not, but most privately held companies don't post information like that on a public forum. It's none of our business.

And, frankly, whether they make money off it or not, it has nothing to do with not allowing you to use HeroLab as a source. Someone else already mentioned above that just because HeroLab says something doesn't make it right, you have to go back to the original source to confirm something works the way you think it does.

I have put quite a bit of money in HeroLab in order to build the characters I want to play. That doesn't change the fact that I also print out watermarked pages for all my characters for things that aren't in core and/or bring the books. Heck, sometimes I need them for my OWN reference let alone the GM requiring it.

Nothing requires you to purchase HeroLab for PFS play, if you chose to do so, that's an expense you chose to bear on your own for convenience's sake. The rule has always been what was stated, there was just some misunderstanding about photocopies; HeroLab was never an official source.

Congratulations to Athurva Gore, the newest five star GM in San Diego! He is an important pillar of the San Diego community and I'm proud to be able to announce his achievement to the wider Pathfinder community.

So congratulations Athurva, I wouldn't be able to do my job as well as I do without you! Thanks for being there when I need you and for helping to spread the awesome!

Jiggy pretty much has it covered. I'll only add that being prepared is usually cheaper than dying. I've seen parties TPK or near TPK in combats that would have otherwise been cakewalks because they couldn't handle regular darkness, much less deeper darkness.

So I realize I am late to the discussion, but here's my perspective.

I've played clerics and I've played many other classes, and every single character I play has a cure light wounds wand. Why? Because it's not fair to expect someone else to pay for my healing.

The particular incident that really solidified my opinion was last year at PaizoCon. I played an 8th level cleric at a tier 8-9 table. I started the scenario with a nearly full wand of cure light wounds. The rest of the table did not bring cure light wounds wands. Not one among 5 players that were 7-9 level. I used up my entire wand to heal people out of combat so I could save my spell slots and channels for buffing or in combat healing (where, I might add, they were needed). Why should I have to swallow 750GP or two PP every scenario because no one else brought wands? That leads to me getting behind on WBL and could lead to things like lower AC, worse saves, not being able to afford that reach rod for when YOU need a breath of life and I am too far away etc.

A cure light wounds wand is the most cost efficient way to heal out of combat. Everyone should have one for that reason alone. A cleric can spend channels and spell slots to heal outside of combat, but you're really going to regret it when that protection from evil, lesser restoration or cure disease that you really need right now was converted after the last combat because no one wanted to spend their resources on a cure light wounds wand. Or you might regret those channels that were used to heal up after the trap and you could really use them RIGHT NOW after something threw that empowered maximized fireball at the whole party.

Part of this game is about resource management. A cure light wounds wand from every player is critical for the conservation of resources needed so that you haven't used up all your healing before running into the BBEG. And it's also not fair to expect that the cleric or other healing type (or those that you seem to think SHOULD be healing types even if they aren't designed to be so) should shoulder all the expense. Besides healing, my cleric is also able to: handle darkness, deeper darkness, can fly, teleport, buff the party, etc. But she also carries a runestone of power so that she doesn't have to use someone else's spell slot up for buff spells (heroism or barkskin usually). It's really simple courtesy. So is carrying a cure light wounds wand.

The way I see it, Knowledge skills are not just testing what you've studied, but a variety of things. If you're not trained in Knowledge (x) then that means you might have read a book or two back at the lodge, but your character isn't that interested in it, and/or doesn't remember enough about it to know that thing coming at him is a bone devil and not an ice devil. Regardless of any tales novel the player has read. Even if by having the chronicle it, say, represents him listening to a Pathfinder tell of his own adventure or reading about it in the Pathfinder Chronicles in game, that still doesn't mean he a) listened that closely to the story when told b) paid much attention when he was reading or c) retained that knowledge and can recall it in the middle of combat or some other stressful situation. That's what a rank in the knowledge skill represents, not just having read something, but having had enough interest in it to retain the knowledge and be able to use it at a moment's notice. You can say as much as you want about how a Pathfinder WOULD be interested in those things for his survival, etc. but without putting an investment in the appropriate knowledge skill, the character just doesn't have the ability to put everything together at a moment's notice.

With that said, some times some common sense is required. A knowledge check might be required to tell you, say, the intricacies of a noble house in Cheliax, but if you're from the Inner Sea I would expect that your character knows at least something about Cheliax in general, like it's ruled by a bunch of diabolists. Or that Andoran is all about freedom, etc.

It really is a question of your GM and the rest of your table. When I started PFS I was much more comfortable at the roll-play portion of the game and uncomfortable with the role-play portion of the game. But being at a table with other players that encouraged role play helped a lot. Playing regularly with a group of role-play minded players has helped even more. I am still more comfortable in the roll-play portion of the game, but with the right people to play off of, I am becoming more comfortable and better at the role-play portion of the game. It's simply a matter of finding the right GM and the right players to play with. Granted some of our session go long because of the role play, but we never seem to mind :)

About time I get someone to help me keep Eric in line! ;)

So the rash of posts lately where people have said they are running out of scenarios has got me thinking. A lot of these posts have talked about how people coordinate their game days and I am interested in hearing how other people coordinate their games days and why it works for them. I am particularly interested in the contexts that have been discussed recently, with many people requesting more low level scenarios. I really haven't seen the same problems that others have, but I am wondering if it's because of how I coordinate my game days, the nature of the local gamer population or some other factor I haven't considered. I also want to encourage us to share how we coordinate our game days to pick each others' brains a bit...

I coordinate at a store in Poway, CA which is about 20 minutes north of San Diego proper. I usually run three game days a month there (one on the first Saturday of the month which I have turned over to someone else so I can start coordinating another store) and one every other Monday night. This usually works out to 3 game days or 4 game slots a month. Including the other local game store in San Diego proper, there are up to 6 games available per month.

So, a little about how I organize game days, since it seems from what I have seen others post, they try to coordinate scenarios based on who has played what. I have never really tried to do that. Well, except I sometimes schedule scenarios that I know people who routinely judge for me haven't played as a return favor for all their judging. In other words, I don't have lists of what people have played, I simply schedule scenarios based on what has or has not been played in the area recently and my judgement of how much overlap there is between the Poway store and other stores in the area (there's a little overlap with Temecula and a slightly larger one with the San Diego store). I always schedule a 1-5 (or 1-7) for newer players and then schedule a 5-9 or 7-11 for the more experienced players. Once in a while one of the high tier tables doesn't get enough players, but other times I get surprised by having two tables of the high tier game seated.

The advantage of this method is that I don't have to keep track of who has played what scenarios. It also means I always have scenarios available for new players because I run a 1-5 (or 1-7) in every slot. There are always higher level games for people to play once they reach level 5, making it less likely that they will run out of low level scenarios as quickly. Usually the minimum number of tables I get during a single slot is 3, so this method works well for me. This works really well in an area where I get a constant influx of new players as well as people coming and going as their schedules permit.

One of the downsides to this is that sometimes new players don't get to play with older players until they hit level 5-7. However, this happens less often than you might think as it seems like there's always that one scenario that an older player missed and so sits down with the newer players... Sometimes players look at the schedule and realize they can't play anything. Sometimes that means they step up and judge, and sometimes that means they do something else that day. But, as far as I am concerned, that's OK, you can't please everyone all the time, so I do my best to please as many as possible.

So, I am curious. How do you coordinate your game days? What's the same? What's different? What can I blatantly steal to make my game days better?

All right so after looking up my list of scenarios I come up with the following:

34 1-5 scenarios
20 1-7 scenarios
12 3-7 scenarios
24 5-9 scenarios
32 7-11 scenarios

It's basically equal in terms of low vs high level scenarios, as you have approximately equal numbers of level 1-5 scenarios as level 5-11 scenarios plus 12 scenarios at 3-7.

This is just me quickly glancing through my scenario tracker so it shouldn't be taken as absolute gospel but the numbers should be close...

One of my fellow players suggested that maybe the rules could be changed to that players can play each Sub-tier of a scenario once, instead of only each scenario once.

(With each Character still limited to playing each scenario once.)

That would help to expand more options for players.
While still preventing abuse.

The minute you do this, then people will start clamoring for unlimited replay which I think is a terrible idea. It's very easy to draw the line at no replay for credit. You are not the first (nor will you be the last) to suggest some form of replay, but so far that idea hasn't gained any traction (with the exception of 1st level modules and First steps).

There's already unlimited replay for level 1 modules and First Steps. That's enough to get you to level 2 an unlimited amount of times. Then there is GM credit. I've currently got 16 characters with credit on them and I still have over 20 games left to play, and more than that to take GM credit on. If anything, I am running out of high tier games rather than low tier to play.

The group I game with regularly has one person who only has 3 scenarios left to play and one who has none. However, with two new scenarios released every month, modules, and now adventure paths, we still seem to find something to play every time we get together (nearly every weekend). It helps that we all have multiple characters over different level ranges and we pretty much all GM to get additional credit on characters to get them where we want them to be.

It can be done, but you should realize that if you are playing more than 2 games a month, the possibility does exist that you will run out of things to play eventually (it's simple math after all)... if all you do is play (not GM) scenarios (and not modules or APs).

Chalk Microbe wrote:

Tell me this, RE, do you require clerics to roll d20, add their BAB, Strength Modifier and other applicable modifiers when she attempts to use Cure Light Wounds on an ally?

Of course not. For melee touch spells, you have this clause:

Melee Touch Spells wrote:

You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

So you can skip rolling the attack roll on a melee touch spell. Nowhere does it say you can ever skip the attack roll on a ranged touch spell, even a beneficial one against an ally. Thus, you can't skip rolling the attack roll on reach touch spells.

Nowhere does it say you have to make an attack roll on a willing ally for a ranged touch spell either. I tend to go with the interpretation that favors the player.

I plan to handle this the same as always: I've never had a problem with tablets at the table, so go for it. In terms of character sheets I prefer paper, as -I- don't want to be responsible for your tablet, so if your character sheet is on your tablet, you're gonna hold it while I look at it. And I would only accept a pdf character sheet, not a herolab file. I haven't looked at the new herolab app yet so whether or not I would accept it will depend on what it looks like.

Also, people named Patrick don't get to use dice towers at my table. ;)

I agree that shame is a poor motivator for a variety of reasons.

The first is that some people just don't feel shame; these are the people that will take take take and never give back, and sometimes they will continue to do this even after it's been pointed out to them.

The second is that someone shamed into judging is likely not going to do their best, nor are they going to want to judge "more than the minimum" that they feel they have to.

The third is that, frankly, there are some people out there that will make lousy judges, or haven't played long enough to make good judges. There ARE other ways to contribute other than judging; you mentioned one, buying the judge dinner. There's also helping out with coordination (I've one guy who always brings pregens so I don't have to worry about it for example).

There are plenty of benefits to judging already out there, and if they aren't enough to get people to judge, sometimes the coordinator has to go to a little extra effort. Rather than shame people into judging for me, I go the extra mile for them. For example, several people that judge regularly in our area have only a few scenarios left to play. I make sure one of those gets on the schedule from time to time. I also run private zeros, so people get the chance to play the scenario prior to running the same game at a game day.

I believe these sorts of things, and not shame, builds a community. In the long run, a building a community through mutual respect will last longer than trying to build a community through shame.

I generally don't like one GM OK'ing something and then another saying that I am cheating. Way not cool. At least give me some cred for checking with a GM. It shouldn't be my fault that the other GM OK'ed it. That is like one judge letting me go free, and another saying that I ran away from prison. Way, way, way, not cool. lol

Sometimes this happens and the best you can do is take a deep breath and explain to the judge why something that seems off is kosher. With that said, your attitude here seems to be "I got one GM to OK it, I should be OK, it's not my fault". I would recommend instead a more proactive attitude. "I know its OK because I checked this rule on p. XX of the guide/rulebook, whatever" is a much better response than "Hey Jim over there said it was OK so I should be able to do it". This is especially true in organized play as you've got to be able to show your character is legal if asked, especially if you take it somewhere else.

As for raising up your defenses, more power to you. Just be prepared to have enemies ignore you once they realize they can't hit you.

Also, you should be taking your armor check penalty on attack rolls for not having proficiency in medium armor (unless you've picked it up through using a feat) is the bad news referred to above I suspect. Breastplate still counts as medium armor in terms of armor proficiency and its associated penalties. You also can't ignore the spell failure chance.

These 2 statements seem to contradict each other:

Page 34 1st Column: "As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience."

Page 34 2nd Column: "Scenarios are to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters, or changes to stats, feats, spells, skills or any other mechanics of the scenario. GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of encounters."

I don't see a contradiction at all. Scenarios are to be run as written, but you, as a judge, can make whatever calls are necessary to ensure everyone has fun; this may be anything from interpreting a rules question to adding roleplaying material to make the module more fun. What you cannot do is change the number or stats of creatures in encounters. You also should not change their tactics unless player actions warrant it.

I'm GMing 8 slots this year, my first trip to Gen Con. The only thing I'm worried about is losing my voice. I guess if that happens I'll just gesture and grunt. ;-)

Bring lots of throat lozenges and start taking them BEFORE your voice goes...

Just another point. As a judge I, too, want to have fun. I volunteer my time to run events to try to ensure that other people have fun, but I want to have fun too! As such, I want to be able to interact with my players (which is part of what makes it fun for me), not have them hide behind a laptop the whole game.

I don't like laptops at my table and I do ask that people not use them there. I do not mind tablets or small netbooks, so players have the option of using those if they really feel the need for an electronic device at the table. If someone does not want to play at my table because of this, that's absolutely fine with me.

Edited to add: Also, I am hardly a luddite, I use HeroLab quite a bit to build my characters, print stat blocks for scenarios I am running, etc. But PFS is a social game, and to me, a laptop at the table hinders the social interactions between the players and the judge. I get that if you have a lot of buffs up HeroLab can be useful... but HeroLab isn't perfect either (I've seen it let you stack things that aren't stackable many times) and is it that big a deal to keep track of your buffs? Also, once HeroLab becomes available on a tablet, I'm all for using it at the table.

Technically within the rules, perhaps (although I'm not convinced). But definitely outside the contract as I understand it. When I sign up to run a PFS table, I'm pretty much agreeing to put my own preferences aside, and run it according to the guidelines of society play.

If I decide I don't want to have a (Laptop, summoner, ...) at my table, I can leave the table. What I can't do is tell the guy who is following all the rules that he's the one who has to leave the table. I can ask that the player not use the laptop, but I can't evict him from the table if he refuses.

So, I may have worded things a bit strongly in my last post. All my local players know that I do not allow (more like don't like really, because I've been known to make exceptions - like for the small netbooks) laptops at my table. If you're new and that's the only way you have your character, I let it slide the first time, but I let people know my preferences. All I ask is that they have printed character sheets. That way, they can't be adjusting their characters in herolab as the game goes on, like changing their spell list in the middle of the mod so they have the perfect spell ready. Yes I have had to deal with players I suspected of doing this, and this is how I dealt with it - the paper character sheet trumps all. If you do not have one, then you can quickly print one out before the session, play a pregen, move to another table, or not play.

If they need to check a rule, they can fire up the laptop and check if that's the only way they have to look up the rule. 90% of the time, they don't have to because I have the source needed on my tablet or someone else at the table has the required rulebook.

IMHO, laptops at the table slow the game down and create a barrier between the GM and the player, two things I, as a GM, really do not like. People I judge for at local game days quickly learn my preferences and requirement for an actual paper character sheet. If they don't like the requirements, they are free to play with another judge (at our local game days, there is usually more than one option). Granted, this is at local game days where I am the local coordinator. If I judge at a convention or at someone else's game day, I follow whatever the local convention is, as people can't be expected to know my requirement for a paper character sheet when they've never played with me and I can hardly expect the local environment to change for me when I am judging outside of my own region... that said, most conventions I have been to most players did not expect to be able to use their laptops at the tables (small tables that barely sat 6 or 7) and so had paper character sheets available.

As a judge, I really don't like laptops at the table and ask players to bring physical character sheets. I have several reasons for this:

1) I don't like how laptops screen you from me. I have no screen in front of myself and I want to be able to interact with you directly without the barrier of a laptop between me and you.

2) Players playing solitaire or chess at the able and then not being ready when their turn comes up. You're here to play PFS, and you should be observing things as they happen so you are ready to go on your turn.

3) Players using their laptops to cheat. Yes, I've seen this. Players accessing the bestiary to look up a monster they are currently fighting, or even looking at a copy of the scenario they are playing! Yes I can kick them for cheating if they do this, but with a laptop in front of them I don't always know what they are doing!

It also encourages lazy play. I had a player complain to me when I wouldn't let him use HeroLab on his laptop at the table that he couldn't calculate his buffs without it. Come on! You can't calculate the effects of two or three spells?

On the other hand, I have no problem with tablets. I can see you when you're using a tablet and you can see me. People won't play games on their tablets in the middle of the game because everyone can see what they're doing and they certainly won't try to cheat.

Finally, if you don't like it, you don't have to sit at my table.

I am in favor of no replay for credit. If a player doesn't want to GM, then tough luck not getting credit a second time. Some players need to step up up and judge from time to time if you are going to keep a good community going, and who knows, they might even like it! (I do... now. I didn't at first).

I am going to throw my two cents in here. While feedback cards and other ways of communicating to the GM are all well and good, I don't know about you, but there are a lot of people out there that won't write down their honest opinion if they think the GM will be reading it.

With that said, I don't see what the big deal is about judge feedback. As an Event Coordinator, I am choosy about who I ask to judge at my events. Any time I have a newer GM, I keep an eye on their table to make sure they aren't having any problems and to get an idea of their judging style (and to be able to encourage them afterwards!). There are specific GMs I always try to get new players to sit with because I know they will get people to come back. I see that as part of my job as a VO.

Understandably, this can't happen at larger events such as Gen Con or PaizoCon. What I would suggest for such larger events is this: when people volunteer for such large events, ask their local VO's for an honest opinion of their skills as a GM (at least in the case of new folks or people not known personally to the event coordinator). They would know them best, after all. Or even possibly ask them to supply the names of a VO or two that could recommend them. This probably won't work for everyone, since not everyone has a local VO, but it is at least some form of vetting before letting them loose on the convention population :p