Murdoc Strangways's page

For general easy of use I tend to go whole weapon either way. It keeps fussing over sundering to a minimum and everyone understands just what they got and why they can't have a darkwood shaft shod in cold iron and tipped with an adamantine glaive blade.

I think you can, only it's a matter of how you put it together. as for sundering, you could being it to there attention before they bother. but if they build a weakness in to it ( ie. Adamantine has 40hp per inch hardness 20 and darkwood is only 10hp per inch hardness 5 ) they need to live with it.

Glaive 8gp 10 lbs

Adamantine 3000gp ( this look to be a fixed coast weight doesn't matter)

Darkwood 408gp -5 lbs ( in my openion masterwork was paid for in the preveis step -300gp)

Coldiron buttspike ?gp 1or2 lbs ( this step may make it a double weapon half cold iron. if so ? = 4gp or 50% of the glaive gp)

( spikes on armor are 50gp and on shield 10gp. a spear or dagger is only 2gp x2 for coldiron=4gp)
Masterwork 300gp ( if the spike is it's own part in my openion you would have to pay this again for the 2nd half)

so this could be done for around 3420gp +or- 300gp depending on where the masterwork coast add in. I got my numbers from pg.142,143, & 154 of the pathfinder book. the first and only the first enchantment on the spike will coast will be increased by 2000gp. I'm didn't see if both ends are enchanced as 1 weapon or not.

ok I know this is a fantasy game, but I did a little research in the real world. as per the World Book Encyclopedia a lance is a spear used for horse back, and implies it has a tip and not just a pointed stick. Wikipedia shows a lance tip from the re-enactment of the famous Eglinton Tournament.

Murdoc Strangways wrote:

dieing is not a real issue. if I die I'm not sticking for an hour or more on the chronicle or scenario sheet that said heres for nothing. if I you don't have the sheet it didn't happen work both ways. an I think that was posted as much some where.

Your GM will report you as dead in our reporting system. Dead PCs can't be reported on anymore.

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, what you're suggesting is cheating. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

sorry I can't find the orngle post. may be the misunderstanding is mine. however in a case of a total party wipe at 1st Lv is it still posted.

Murdoc Strangways wrote:

<anything he says>

Wha-...?

What I can make of that he is already replaying scenarios, which outright is cheating, no matter which way you put it. Or maybe I'm just reading wrong, I don't know

Although there are points being brought out: Ambushes aren't ambushes anymore. Spellcasters can prepare optimal spells for the scenario ("I know there's a monster which spits acid, so I prepare Resist Energy!"). Characters know about swarms and stock up with grenade-like weapons (Acid flasks etc.)...

I would like to start off with I don't want to replay, I couldn't be happier playing only 1 character. but for some replay seem to be a necessary evil.

one of my GM ran a scenario he played. he did it for 3 player who missed it the first time. he had me make a brand new 1st Lv. cleric to be a support/ healbot and be the 4th for there 2nd Lv character ( which at what point is it any deferens a pre-gen or npc tagging along) I and the other osaron failed our perception in the room where our faction idem was. ( knew it was there but heaving not made the role the first time. we left the room) I didn't tell the player he miss it and at the end no prestige was handed out, only about half the gold was handed out. ( for the same reason as be for) the scenario was posted as stander. I got a scenario sheet with a big 0 on it. so yes you read it right, I played the scenario more than 1 time. cheating? did cheat or up set the balance of play. I'm not shore where.

I think some of the player are missing that there character are working for the Pathfinder Society. the guys who work for Exon don't get to keep the oil they find. the guys who work for a company what dig up gold or diamonds most scrutiny don't. a few players still see they game as old D&D I keep what I kill because I'm my own boss and work for me. the fact that getting played for your finds, will keep most character gp in the same ball park, is a happy bones.

as fare as the PA go, " yes we do have ONE of thou's in the vault.... NO you may not have it, some one more importent than you has need of it...I don't care how much gold you have come back when you are more impotent." lol or " just because you hung up ONE poster for me, you really thing I'm going to just give you a 750 gp wand. do me a few more favors and we'll talk about it."

is there a lay out as to what number/ codes go in what boxes. having more than 1 GM running, so my first haft dozen sheet have number and crached out numbers all over it.

having played a scenario with a level 2 rogue in tier 1-2 and again with a level 1 cleric same tier. the out come was NOT the same. what I learner, or had re-enforce.
1 knowing a monster is behind the door or in the room may not save you.
2 an ambush is still and ambush.
3 any low level character is 1 failed save throw away from death, or just waiting for it's embrace.
4 a failed skill roll can coast you your faction mission, or more.
5 if the fighter get hit a few time just be for getting crited that may kill him out right. ( every one else the crit alone will do that)
6 most spells are only haft as defective if the monster saves.
7 the same or similar character mite not be played the same way by some one else.
8 each character has a job to do, and handles things differently.

Bless you, Navdi, for saying that more eloquently than I could.

Murdoc does bring up the point that people who want to cheat -- walking up to their next GM and "forgetting" that their character had died, in his example -- exist in all large Organized Play environments.

And it's easy in Pathfinder Society. (I know that I got a reputation as a hard-arse at Gen-Con for being one of the very few GMs who insisted on looking through every player's character records. More than a couple of the players had sheets that were completely blank, except they had the GM's signatures at the bottom of the pages. "Nope. Sorry. You don't get to play that PC at my table. Would you like to play a new Level One character?")

But it's kind of pointless.

fist off I would like to thank you for checking paper work. at lest some one does. I wish I could find to orignal post still looking. but here was the gist of it. if you die in 1 of your 1st 3 scenario rather than cabin copy it's twin. don't count that one and play on. 1st Lv can die easy, I role away from death. if you lose 2 low level scenario here and 3 there on and a few on another character from dieing. A. aventually short your self on Lv. B. becomes a hard sale C. character never develop. D. dumb, dull, and waste of time are the feeling some people start having about it. E. eliminates some of the need for replay

Murdoc Strangways wrote:

I understand more scenario are on the way, but they are not here yet and I'm talking about now. but it seems to be set up to run 1 character per season. well my gaming group games plays a lot, 1 to 3 scenario a week (16 so far). my primary character played 14 out of the 20 low tier scenario. my second character was made just as much to cache up other people, who missed games or cons as it was to play something new. with out replaying leaves only 6 low end scenario to do that with. (*) if replay to fill out the table but playing a 1st or 2nd Lv character with out getting any gold, gear or better skills ( sound like old school D&D, and Oh how I don't miss that) just to help some low level or new pathfinder play cache up. that sound lame to me ( I think GM should get something for there time every time WINK. not that I run) I love the game. but I don't every want feel helping some one new is a waste of my time. " sorry kid I...

1 to 3 scenarios a week, every week with 2 new adventures a month?

Is it really more fun to spend 75% (on average) of your time playing adventures you've already played? Why not take up something else three weeks out of four and play PFS the one week when it comes out? I know paizo puts out plenty of other awesome stuff.

I personally think it would be imprudent of the campaign staff to make decisions based on immediate needs without considering the long term implications. However, decisions based just on the long term can be very frustrating in the present. A balance is probably best with a slight focus on the long view.

ok maybe I should give some detail on my gamming circle. there is 3 full time gamers and 9 who game when they can. out of all that there is 4 GMs. 1 GM can only plays or runs Tues. 1 is only available on odd Tues. the other are open for most any time. we play 4 hours Tues and or 8 hours on Sat. (not counting gaming cons) we keeping to the 4 hour scenario time limit. the guy who run love the fact there not a week of plain out the game and there characters don't lose ground when when not played. most of the player are just as all over the place as to when they can play. the hole thing is like herding cats. I don't really want to replay every game with 2 characters. but I play what's being ran, and if it help some one keep up good. how ever 1 or 2 1st Lv what ever with nothing is not going to really help a 2 or 3 of 4th Lv characters. and playing down is a bit of a hit on them to and playing up get your help killed quick. I don't want or expect the campaign staff to work them self's to death. some of us are looking at this as a way to keep balance, and not as a way to upset the cart. may be they can sun set law it, after date x, or scenario y then no more replay. I know not every one is in the same boat I'm in but my boat will have to fallow what ever the rulings ends up being. I just hope the ruling doesn't put a hole in my boat to soon.

Bob, you note:

Bob wrote:

As discussed in a few threads about GM rewards, the effectiveness of a character includes their level, their wealth, and their access to items. If you artificially stunt the acquisition of gold or prestige award, then you end up with characters with noticeably less power than their level would indicate. This negatively impacts the enjoyment of the player of the nerfed character, it makes it much more difficult for the GM/scenario author to gauge what the party can handle, and it could contribute to an increase in character deaths or party wipes (worst case).

If we end up with a system where replays are allowed but yield only a half-strength character, then we will have made the situation worse. We'll have spent time codifying a set of rules to do something no one will want to do. Replay characters will tend to be segregated from non-replay characters, which could effectively give us two smaller groups (replay PFS and non-reply PFS) which don't really play together. That would be bad for our growth.

Two notes: first, I'm imagining that a character who played nothing but replays would, indeed, be significantly less powerful than one who didn't. But a character who has died and been raised a couple of times is significantly less powerful, as is a character who hasn't managed to succeed very often on her faction missions. These things happen.

Second, we already have a class of people whose characters are "nerfed" in exactly the way you describe: those people who spend the bulk of their PFS time GMing.

dieing is not a real issue. if I die I'm not sticking for an hour or more on the chronicle or scenario sheet that said heres for nothing. if I you don't have the sheet it didn't happen work both ways. an I think that was posted as much some where.

Murdoc Strangways wrote:

I know I have a few characters I would like to try. but the fear of being punsh for haveing more than 1 character doesn't sound like fun to me.

How are you punished for having more than one character? The way PFS is structured, a certain character can only play 33 adventures before you retire and once you hit level 6 and 8 you are no longer able to play the low level adventures. That means, that especially as new adventures come out, second and third characters will be necessary to keep playing the new adventures.

I'm also seeing the replay argument as somewhat impatient. Right now, we're barely into year one of PFS and so there are only 28 adventures to play. If I remember correctly, most of the adventures will not be retired. Over time that means the library of playable adventures will grow and the complaints of running out of adventures to play will dwindle to a very dedicated few. We know that paizo is a relatively small company with limited resrouces; perhaps patience is the most prudent choice.

I understand more scenario are on the way, but they are not here yet and I'm talking about now. but it seems to be set up to run 1 character per season. well my gaming group games plays a lot, 1 to 3 scenario a week (16 so far). my primary character played 14 out of the 20 low tier scenario. my second character was made just as much to cache up other people, who missed games or cons as it was to play something new. with out replaying leaves only 6 low end scenario to do that with. (*) if replay to fill out the table but playing a 1st or 2nd Lv character with out getting any gold, gear or better skills ( sound like old school D&D, and Oh how I don't miss that) just to help some low level or new pathfinder play cache up. that sound lame to me ( I think GM should get something for there time every time WINK. not that I run) I love the game. but I don't every want feel helping some one new is a waste of my time. " sorry kid I don't have time to help you, come back in a few month and we will see what we can do. may be". it would also be a disserves to them making them play down a tier helping them, or to me getting killed playing up to there level. and so we don't for get getting nothing for it.

if and thank god I didn't. played 3 characters equally with no replay allowed I would end up in a few weeks from now with 3-3rd Lv character, and not be able to play tier 5-6 and beyond till new low end scenario came available, and there only a few games a month (*) (sound like a penalty to me. )

let us not for get the gaming convention. how lame would that be after hundreds of miles and hundreds of dollars for hotel and con fees. then not play pathfinder because my 6th Lv character played all the low tier scenario they are running. so my other 1st or 2nd Lv character can't be played. you play what thay ran. it's not like I can tell them what they have to run for me. ( O well it looks like D&D 4th for the weekend. how's that for being punished. I think dunking for razor blades in the kitty litter box would be as much if not more fun. lol)

so yea as time most of this will work is self out. but not all.

* I understand more scenario are on the way, but they are not here yet and I'm talking about now.

ok so half-orc + harpy maybe a harcy or horcy. if it's a horcy can I play one?

Syra wrote:

Given my argument, if Paizo does decide to allow replaying, I have one suggestion/plea. Make high-level play non-replayable. At that point you won't have any new players, no new characters, just experienced players and people. Just a thought.

I think this is an excellent idea.

Just throwing it out there:
tier 1-7 & 1-5 unlimited replay

tier 5-9, 7-11 & 12 no replays

I could kinda of go along with no replay for highter level characters. I'm mostly looking to get other people up to speed. but at least 1st-7th level would let people get a feel for what thay want to play in the higher tear. I know I have a few characters I would like to try. but the fear of being punsh for haveing more than 1 character doesn't sound like fun to me.

Deussu wrote:

Regardless, I figure allowing re-play would effectively forbid any delicate plot-driven scenarios from forming. Yes, I'm still optimistic about it.

For example having a player re-play a scenario which consists a murder mystery (the guilty being the butler or something). Either this player spoils the thing for the team or sits quietly without giving any contribution to the group in fear of spoiling or using metaknowledge.

If, however, PFS will degenerate into a series of dull dungeon crawls (Trouble with Secrets, Eternal Obelisk), it's irrelevant whether a player can re-play them.

I think, at this point, it's safe to say that I know exactly where you stand and that I've taken your feedback to heart and think on it each time I order/edit/develop a new scenario.

While I love new feedback, hearing the same feedback on a daily basis is not as useful for me.

maybe you could set scenario up as 1 time (murder mystery and the like) or replayabuls(with other character and diferint tier). like Black Waters this is a point A to point B scenario. between the party mix and tier, it realy isn't the same game.

Majuba wrote:

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Joe Cirillo wrote:

Isn't one of the purposes of the Pathfinder Society is to see which faction comes ahead? This would make it totally counterproductive and completely skew the results.

That hasn't been the case since very early in the playtest during Season 0.

That's a bit disappointing to hear.

Seconded.

As far as replaying scenarios, whatever is deemed best for the PFSOP is fine with me, but this is a let down.

in the grand skeem of faction points. in less you are runing the same faction throw more than once it shoudn't skew things. 1 for andoran and 1 for osaron just mean thoes 2 are now even. as for the other faction if I play them to the total gain will be 0. and if I don't play them. thay wouldn't have got any thing from me any how.

Darius Silverbolt wrote:

What do you do when have a new player who WANTS to play and all you have is Lv 4+. Some with say with take a PRE-GEN which is 100% leagal.

Yes it is.

But how long do you keep telling people here is a level x pregen and you get no credit. Over and over?

But allowing re-plays doesn't solve that problem. They new guy is still not going to be able to use his character with the other PCs. The issue there is a discrepancy in character level, not a dearth of adventures.

re-plays with highter level character no it wouldn't. but re-plays with new low level character would help the new guy level up with the people he is trying to play with.

I did have a player repeat a scenario recently, to test out a new character and fill out the group. I think knowing that he wouldn't get credit really freed him to play with real joy, without any metagame suspicions about his character's choices.

As nice as it might be when gathering a new (or random) group together for a quick game, I wouldn't be comfortable having a player playing for credit in a scenario they'd played before.

I think perhaps allowing repeating without credit should be explicitly allowed, but not for credit.

what kind of test is it for a new character, if every time you play him/her thay are still 1st.Lv with no gear, gold, or skills. I'v plaied old school D&D, an now I don't.

yoda8myhead wrote:

Not everyone is capable of playing with character knowledge and not player knowledge. While I like to think I tend to play with people who can separate what their PC knows and what they know as players.

So true...

yoda8myhead wrote:

At first, I was upset that I might miss scenarios or my PC wouldn't have received all the potential XP, but now that we are on the verge of retirement for lvl 12 PCs (next month?) and most players have second or third PCs for playing in different tiers, it's clear to me that no PC will ever have it all.

True its almost impossible for one PC to hit all the modules just right to have it all. But what do you do when the DM tell you the module of the day in the one that your 8th level monk played back when he was level 4 and all the players present are low mid level? Right now the only way to play in that game is PRE-GEN or just simply not play and I dis-like the not play answer.

Home games and local gaming store games can be very differant. My home game was much easier to plan. Local gaming store / local cons not so much.

yoda8myhead wrote:

Furthermore, now that access to magic is determined by prestige and not chronicle sheets, what specifically you get from one scenario and not the next is no longer an issue.

I think allowing players to play scenarios is a slippery slope and not one I'd trust my own balance check on. I like this aspect of PFS just the way it is. Some other things might need to be looked into, but not this one.

I think this slope is slippary but can be managed were it wont be a problem. My #1 concern here is keep new players in the game and finding more new players. Hardest part is adventure management for DM's in running things that the masses haven't played yet. All the adventures have been played up too #31 (just havent gotten to 32 yet).

No one has ran them ALL but the modules have been played at one point or the other.

No one has played them ALL, but my gameing grop is tring our best. from the book releas to yeasterday we'v ran throw 16 modules, and afew 2nd time with new character. becaous not every one can make every game, or con. we play 1 to 3 modules a week. so by the frist of the year we mite played them ALL. it will suck haveing to want a month at a time for a few games to play. but it would seem that is how some want it to be with 31 modules, thay are saying I may have olny 1,11 lv or 2,6 lv character OR 10 character none of wich can be more than 2nd lv.

Just a couple of comments I thought worth mentioning:

The corner case I'd like to make sure we don't allow: the same group of players repeatedly playing the same adventure, gaining experience and (perhaps reduced) gold.

Does anyone else think it's odd that we're discussing allowing players to repeat a module, when the DMs repeating a module get no benefit?

Darius Silverbolt wrote:

I deal with 2-3 tables at a time now and would you consider it fun to be a new players level 1 with a group that is level 8? Even if you didn't die what fun would that be?

I can see this as a serious problem, but I don't understand how offering people the option of replaying a scenario would help. This looks like the time and place to offer the low-tier player an opportunity to play a higher-tier pre-generated iconic.

(Edit -- unless all the people ready to play at level 8 would be willing to start new characters, and they've already played through all the available low-tier modules. But (1) I imagine that the problems with replays are *most acute* when you've got three replayers at a table with only one new player who's ignorant of the scenario, and (2) there are better solutions.)

I would like to point out. IF I can only get 1 leavel per module, and made a new 1st level to help run with and leavel some one new. when he gets to 8lv I would still be 1st lv. with no gold or gear. AND as it was put that fun would that be?