Search Posts
Oh, and if someone really needs the play credit they can undoubtedly find a online session on the PFSoC
But Walter... The sky is falling! THE FREAKING SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!
I agree, I never (99.9%) run something cold. I don't even like running having read through it a single time. I find that after a second read I have missed a bunch of things. AS too coordinators and convention coordinators I cannot speak to but I can say that I agree running something cold lends to a bad experience for everyone at the table. Including the GM running it. I guess there are people who might have learned to master this but I can't see it being as good as the GM who preps thoroughly before the game. K
I truly enjoyed the mass combat. It's kind of confusing at the beginning. I would love to see a few of these each season. Sure it takes away from roleplaying but that's ok, having something change every once and awhile is a good thing. Only thing I could ask for is to have have a super easy gimp encounter before the first real bad so how its supposed work can be visualized.
kill them all, let Pharasma sort out their souls. 99.99% of the time players are going to curb stomp a scenario and kill every mob within a round, 2 if they are weak PC's. It doesn't make me sad the .01% of the time they are actually in danger. But to you question... no don't change anything, consider yourself lucky if the stars have aligned to create a challenge for the PC's
Scenario: PFS 5–EX: Ruins of Bonekeep – Level 1: The Silent Grave [3-7]
A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for levels 3–7.
Notes:
Sign-ups:
https://warhorn.net/events/conline-pfs-con Just reminding everyone that there are a bunch of games to play towards the end of the month. Please sign up if you haven't. If you have any specific requests for scenarios let me know, I might be convinced to run something for you! Also, I need a few more signups for bonekeep2 on Friday at 8PM. If you want to play bonekeep 1 first let me know and I will run it before the convention. Bonekeep signup: https://warhorn.net/events/conline-pfs-con/schedule/2014/05/23#session-2488 1
Do we seriously need more re-rolls? It seems every time I run a game lately there is a class or archetype that makes me re-roll, allow's them to re-roll or maybe its some goblin stuffed animal that makes dice irrelevant? Re-rolls are never used to be a Hero. You know, to re-roll the critical confirmation that might end a boss. No they are only used to avoid death or some nasty disease. I get it, nobody likes to die... but this is a game, and the less chance of death the less exciting it is. If all anyone is interested in is character building theory than we can all just make cool character concepts and have a few round tables. Sure this is my own opinion but if my vote counted (which I have no exception that it actually does) I don't think there is any reason to add more fluff to the system. With all the OP builds (which I surely enjoy) and exercises in awesomeness on god like scales we got to leave the remote (so remote) possibility of character death. It's so unlikely now as it is, let the dice gods have some power over fate! Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Let the chaos ensue,
If you cannot do your character manually I would recommend going through the exercise of writing up your character and verifying with what you got in HL. I use HL but I also can calculate conditions on the fly without having to check buttons in HL. I like HL because it makes it easy to read all the available options for a character in one place.
Howdy Folks, I am guessing there is nothing official yet especially because the books haven't even shipped but do we have a date when chronicle's would be available for this or if they will even be available? If there was something official, or at least semi-official please link it for me. I want to run this, however the players and myself want the PFS credit.. I am probably jumping the gun too quickly on this, so I apologize in advance but feel free to reply with any information you might have. I am even ok with speculation, rumors and a lie or two if you feel it adds to the conversation.
.
A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for levels 1–5. Amenopheus has learned that the legacy of the Jeweled Sages lies near the Osirian trade city of Eto, and the Pathfinder Society has pledged its support in the Sapphire Sage’s investigation of his ancient order; however the lead dried up—that was until a familiar information broker contacted Amenopheus offering an exchange of services. To assist an ally and unlock the secrets of Osirion’s past, the Society must deal with a deadly antagonist once more by sending the PCs to fulfill the bargain and collect its due. The only question is what price their foe will demand. “A Bitter Bargain” is the first scenario in the three-part Destiny of the Sands campaign arc. It is followed by Pathfinder Society Scenario #5–15: Destiny of the Sands—Part 2: "Race to Seeker’s Folly" and Pathfinder Society Scenario #5–16: Destiny of the Sands—Part 3: "Sanctum of the Sages." All three chapters are intended to be played in order. Content in “A Bitter Bargain” also contributes directly to the ongoing storylines of the Osirion, Qadira, and Sczarni factions. Written by Scott Fernandez, RPG Superstar 2013 finalist.
Breaking it will probably mess with a whole bunch of feats as well... so yeah, we would need free rebuild. Perhaps just a campaign wide ban on FCB would be the best? idk
Scenario: Bonekeep – Level One: The Silent Grave (levels 7-11) Date/Time: Tuesday, February 18th, 2014 @ 8 PM CST US [-6 GMT] GM: Keht Game Client: Google Plus Hangout and the http://roll20.net/ VTT Description: A Pathfinder Society Special for characters of 3rd to 7th level (Tier 3–7). An enemy of the Pathfinder Society recently found a hidden dungeon in a centuries-old siege fortress, but despite his best efforts to convert it into his base of operations, he failed. When a pair of Pathfinders encounter disaster while scouting out the entrance, the party must explore the first level of the dungeon to determine not just what attacked their comrades but also what dark power their nemesis nearly acquired. Notes: Free roll20 account required: http://roll20.net/ Sign-ups: Please sign up on Warhorn, if interested: Sign Up Here
... giving them any idea that a dip into evil is 'OK' because 'their bosses' have that type of viewpoint/agenda.The Pathfinder Society is a neutral organization.Hmm, I always saw the society as more Neutral Evil than Neutral... but that's probably just wishful thinking... Tomb robbing can probably be justified for the greater good. Give an idea? Some of their bosses are actually evil, not just acting that way... I agree with you that the maturity is not there for evil play... But we shouldn't expect to put people in the endless hero box... I find it difficult if not impossible to play the hero so I default to the attitude of personal gain. I am not interested in theater class either and feel no need to think outside of my selfish box. I am happy playing my style, to each his own. To the posts origins...
Something about online play: Making the tokens/maps, setup is a LOT more work than prepping for tabletop. The DM has to know how to work the program and use it well or things go to hell pretty quickly.It was a lot of work at first. But to be honest I can normally have a full table setup in 5 to 30 minutes now; with special effects and all. It gets a lot easier and quicker the more you do it. Thats why I like VTT play. I mean literally it took me a little under 10 minutes to setup my Rivalry's End table for tomorrow. Hah, I don't GM real life because I think that VTT are way easier then trying to draw a map on a grid and keep up with everything.
I, personally, haven't been running any games the last couple of weeks because of the holidays and then school starting up, so I have an excuse that I'm going to throw around. I'm just kidding, of course, but it would be nice to have a larger variety of GM's, which would lead to even more games.I'm in the same boat. Was just going to just take a month off, but during that month I enrolled in school, not to mention a baby on the way. So my own GM'ing is going to be lessened. While I can still play, I can't really dedicate the time to organize and run games for a bit. I took January off as well, so haven't been running my regular Tuesday game... Maybe the perception of a lack of games is due to the fact that I know at least 10 of the regular GM's are not running this month.
I'm now searching this forum and PFS Online (Google Groups)....still not too much going on. Then run something, it's real easy... :) I see half a dozen posted games there now... but you shouldn't expect to log in and find a game running 5 minutes from now or trying to get a GM to run something when you want it... Wait for games to be posted, and sign up... simple as that.
It looks like you guys just want to force people to play in your box... Trying to control people always works for the best right? "Lizen, you will playza and runza in thiz one place. Violators will be BANNED from zee online PFS... You understand, ja?" All Arthur is saying is that a tool is being developed to help centralize things. However it will be optional because even though it may be more convenient for you its would be a dick move to try and mandate it to everyone... Let's be honest really, the problem is the same as it always is... Not enough people are GM'ing... Now it seems we can add to that list with... people are too lazy to find games if it means they have to click more than once. Not sure what everyone's problem is, when I want to play I can find a game, when I GM my tables are always full... There are multiple slots available each day... If you cant find a game then run one.
No worries. for some reason I thought that graphic designer's at paizo handled that part not the writer. In all honesty it's better than the scenarios where they just don't provide a map. I did purchase the cavern's map pack and was able to make it work. Thanks again for your time in creating the scenario.
If this has already been discussed I apologize. Let me preface this by saying that I only run/play PFS online. So I get irritated with season 0's because the maps at times take a bunch of time and effort to get them aligned to a VTT. The crop work on the maps is awful for "Tight Spaces" and "Undead End". They were cropped with squares of unequal size. This makes it impossible to have a clean alignment. I know there was talk before about making maps easier for online gamers. This one was worse than most Season 0's. Sure this only effects a smaller portion of folks than those who have to draw them out (and yes we are lucky we don't have to draw them out) but I would ask that these kind of things be considered before publishing PDFs. All that said the Scenario is excellently well written and I can't wait to run it during the OnlineGameDay #2. Rant over, thanks everyone at Paizo for doing what they do. If this sounded too whiney or too direct it was not my intention, I just couldn't find the words to point out this issue without sounding jerky.
I've spoken to quite a lot of people on this matter to get their takes, and we did arrive at one conclusion: There is a large number of people that would happily hand out alignment infractions for a miniscule number of castings of animate dead, once again finding it to be a good example here. Hence the concern. There would definitely have to be a set number of castings per scenario allowable before an infraction to properly enforce a reversal of this particular ruling. Fortunately, this last bit here seems to be something the people in favor of a reversal are at least willing to entertain. Could make for good middle ground, but it would be a lot easier on everyone to just leave the spells alone.Those of us speaking of the potential damage it could do are currently doing so off of RAW, not any of the recommended revisions noted thus far in the thread. At present, the casting of an evil descriptor spell is generally considered to be a pretty major infraction (outside of PFS), not nearly so minor as some appear to believe. One could very easily shift themselves clear to evil if utilizing that kind of magic more than once in a blue moon.Well... outside of PFS there isn't a magic number either, so its very much left to the GM. Some are okay with you almost focusing on it, others get onto you if you do it even once. Lots of interpretations. Yeah, if a change needs to be made (still not convinced this is the case) than I don't see any other way to do it and keep it fair from table to table.
Well... outside of PFS there isn't a magic number either, so its very much left to the GM. Some are okay with you almost focusing on it, others get onto you if you do it even once. Lots of interpretations. Right, and here lies the problem. Outside of PFS it really doesn't matter. A GM can kick someone out of a game, allow them to be evil, not call it an evil act, whatever. In PFS, where the experience is supposed to be the same from table to table is where we have issues. Unlike home game's where players know what GM's expect its a crap shoot in PFS.
Ahh very good, thanks for the clarification. I can only answer this by providing my own experience. That is that when people see the EVIL word in a spell they jump immediately to think there is something inherently wrong with its use. Perhaps that is, but not sure if that part is relevant right now. I mentioned before about how I have had to prove a few different times that casting animate dead wast specifically evil act. The GMs calling it an evil act were not necessarily jerk's but they were assuming based on the EVIL word in the description that it was indeed evil. So how do we change this for the better? Any policy or let call it a clarification on the matter is going to be read as a ban. Which will result in heated conversations about what it means. I see this being similar to when I have to explain Mike's ruling on animate dead. The difference will be that people will not read, they will just hear about some change about evil spells and make there own assumptions. Does this mean we don't do anything? No, I am certainly not arguing that. I will say the more we talk about it I am not sure something can be done without creating some sort of mess. As said before, how much of a mess is everyone willing to clean up to change this problem?
So I have no clue what CdG is, sorry... but Paladin's is a bad example druid and barbarian's probably easier to deal with.. Problem with Paladin's is they have a code. A specific written guideline. So it should be relatively easy to figure out when it's broken. IMHO it is very different than having a GM judge your alignment based on one scenario and allowing him to say you cast X more times than you did X this time therefore you are evil. We know that when a paladin lies (even for a good reason) its a violation of his code and therefore a violation of his alignment. Does that make sense?
As for the "protecting from bad GMs" thing, that's a legitimate concern. Post incoming via edit, as I'm tired of the ninjas. ;) I think I am finally understanding this Ninja Jargon... so super quick replies that change the topic in a way that makes your post irrelevant? Is this the Ninja you speak of? I feel you, keeping up with these mega threads is a full time job. It's not lost on my that I am probably one of these Ninja's you speak of. Sorry, but hey without a live chat you got to do what you got to do. Oh, and I am constantly Ninja'd, so in my case because it suits me... Two wrong's make me write.
I believe negative energy is something more akin to a primordial unaligned force than anything evil, is it not? You can use it to COMMIT evil, but you could likewise commit acts of evil using positive energy. deja vu, gun debate... lol
No, I'm suggesting we shouldn't build our policies around those who aren't.NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift.You are assuming that all GMs are reasonable people. Yes, but this is one of the problem's with Living Campaign's. The goal is to keep the experience the same from table to table, with different GM's. Many time's this requires rulings to be made for the least common denominator no matter how small the occurrence would be. It's hard enough handling people's interpretations of printed rules, let alone trying to get everyone to agree on things that can be fiat.
NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift. In fact, I have had a GM or two tell me that casting animate dead was going to shift my alignment... Which is why I have to keep printed copies and links readily available for Mike's ruling.
NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift. +1
So this would effectively be a ban would it not? Right, and I think the fiat part here would be a major issue. This all comes down to balancing the "Living Campaign" aspect. While it's impossible to keep things the same at every table for various reason's I think this type of fiat would lead to big trouble. In fact, this is probably the reason Mike addressed it back in August 2012. That said your role playing examples were dead on. Having a GM weigh good and evil actions for some total at the end of a session when they only have that session as a reference point would probably cause issues but you are right, these scenarios are role playing gold. A few posts back you talked about mechanics needed to force player's role-playing. Your right, this is the truth of the matter. I would argue that the majority of players are not going to role play alignments 100% as written without some mechanical penalty to enforce it. So the question boils down to how hard a stance to take and if its worth destroying character concepts to institute a new policy or affirm an existing one. I would say NO, it's not worth it but I understand this is just my opinion.
|
