Search Posts
Did the Customer Service Forum get removed? The "how do I reach customer service?" section on the FAQ/Help page refers to it, but the link now just leads to the main forum page. Has that been moved and I'm just to blind to find it, or is the forum no longer an option to reach CS? (way back, it used to be the only somewhat reliable way...)
The chronicle for this scenario awards the item "shifting runestone". I assume that that is intended to be a runestone with a shifting rune engraved on it; however if that is the case both item level and price would be increadibly low - a shifting rune is normally a 6th level item costing 225 gp (not 4th level / 20 gp) As that is obviosuly not intended (a resale value of 112 gp and no limit would be an easy way to infinite gold), GMs should probably correct this before handing out the chronicle, lest players start purchasing them for 20 gp a piece...
As a player, I've been involved in a game where 4 PCs started an adventure as CP 20, i.e. high-tier (levels 3,3,4,4, in a 1-4 scenario). However, a little over half-way through, we lost one of the level 4 players due to real-life issues that caused him to have to leave early. How is a situation like this usually handled? I've been unable to find any official directions, so this question is obviously somewhat of a "how do you handle this?" a) does the player who had to leave receive (partial) rewards? It seems that there is no requirement to have completed any amount of the scenario after starting it to receive at least the xp?! b) how should the scenario continue for the remaining players? If rescheduling at a later date with the same group is possible then pausing and finishing up the scenario another time is likely a good option, but what if that's not possible? Allow them to abort with no credit and replay the scenario later, even though they've already played a significant portion? Add a pregen in the middle of the adventure? Have them go on as just the three, as if that PC had died? And if so, do you recalculate CP for future encounters - you wouldn't after a character death, I think(?! Please correct me, if I'm wrong there), but this is somewhat different. Our GM chose to handle it as if the character had died, so no replacement by a pregen nor recalculating of CP. However, that saw our now CP 14 party facing high sub-tier opposition scaled for CP 20, ultimately leading to the death of another character before the remaining two ultimately bailed. This did seem rather harsh, especially considering that noone, including the player who had to leave early, had done anything wrong, it was just an unpredictable accident. Has something similar happened at one of your tables and how was it handled? Or is there some official guidance on the matter that I may have missed?
Going through the most recent scenarios, I've noticed that starting from 1-18 they had advice regarding the use of challenge points and on which subtier to choose. However, the table of how to convert player levels to challenge points contains a difference to the one printed in the guide: While the guide assigns 2,3,4,6 challenge points to the possible player levels from lowest to highest, the table printed in every one of the recent modules only assigns 5 challenge points to the highest level. In one case, that almost would have made an actual difference in the sub-tier-selection of a game I played (it ultimately didn't, because one player chose to play a different-level character on short notice). I don't recall seeing an official announcement about this, so this begs the question: is this the new norm and the guide (last updated in March) just doesn't reflect this yet,
I know there's no surprise round anymore. Still, I'm wondering how to handle the following situation: The party and the evil count are negotiating the conditions for him releasing some hostages. There is some diplomacy and role-playing happening, but no combat. Suddenly, the party's barbarian decides he has had enough of the negotiations and declares that he charges the count's throne to attack. Normally, I wouldn't run role-play negotiations like that in encounter mode / initiative order, but rather more free-form. Maybe that's a mistake?! Obviously, when the barbarian charges, I have everyone roll for initiative. But does the barbarian get a head start by surprising everyone with his charge? I.e. does he still get some form of "surprise round" before everyone else gets to act? Or does he announce "I charge", then everyone rolls initiative, and then depending on the results other people possibly get to act before the barbarian even gets to go? Seems counter-intuitive not to give him a head start, doesn't it?!
Does gaining access to, say, a +1 [uncommon weapon] also gain access to / allow me to purchase just the plain [uncommmon weapon] without the rune? Now that Michael has clarified that free shifting of runes between weapons at the Grand Lodge is available, most of us will not need that many different versions of +1 runes. Say e.g., my fighter wants to "upgrade" his +1 striking scimitar to a +1 striking katana now that he got a chronicle giving him access to it. However, if his chronicle only gave him access to a +1 katana (instead of a plain katana), because he finished the high sub-tier of the adventure, he'd basically be forced to purchase a +1 rune that he doesn't want, because he was just going to transfer the runes from his longsword, anyway. Money wasted... I'm hoping that we either introduce the standard that you automatically gain access to the weapon without the runes as well (or better yet, the individual parts, i.e. the plain weapon, as well as the individual runes), or that chronicles only award the actual weapons and runes seperately. If that were not the case, under current PFS2 conditions, a +1 striking [uncommon weapon] is actually the worse reward than a plain [uncommon weapon] in most cases. This is a significant change from PFS1, where runes were not transferable between items, and authors likely still think of magic weapons as more valuable and better rewards than just plain ones.
Does completing the high subtier of a PFS2 adventure award only the high-subtier rewards, or both low and high subtier? Personally, I've been leaning towards rewarding only that individual subtier, but I've been unable to find an official statement regarding that. I've had GMs handle it both ways, some strike out the low subtier rewards, others don't. In the cases so far it doesn't make a significant difference since many of the early chronicles just had common low-level rewards from the CRB. Worst case, access would be delayed a level or two. But recently, that changed: e.g., a recent quest gave access to a limited quantity of a completely new, uncommon alchemical item. Low tier awarded the lesser version (limit 5) while high tier award the moderate version (limit 5). So, if both subtier rewards were granted, I could potentially buy 5 each. A few somewhat related questions: - The items are listed on the chronicle with a purchase price significantly lower that the value of the item listed on the same sheet (even though they are not marked "reduced price" as in previous chronicles). So much lower, in fact, that purchsing the moderate version at the listed purchasing price, and re-selling them for half their listed value would still net a (small) profit. Not that the amount is all that relevant, but is this intentional? - Does obtaining access to purchasing a limited amount of such an item also enable you to attempt to reverse engineer it to attempt to learn its formula? I.e. does this also grant you access to have the formula in your book (even if you cannot purchase the formula itself)? I'd assume so, and also assume that the limit should obviously not apply to items you then crafted yourself. - I addition, is said access required to have the formula in your book? Or can I copy the formula from another player that is willing to share his formula book, when I myself do not have access to the item via a chronicle. I'd say no, the formula of an uncommon item would/should(?) generally be uncommon as well, and as such, you'd need access to it to use ("access" in this case meaning permission to use rules-wise, not physical access). N.b., technically, the CRB does not seem to allow actually sharing formulas with fellow crafters/alchemists, the only two ways of obtaining a formula are purchase or pay an NPC to share it. However, I'd be surprised if that difference to wizard spell books was intentional.
If you made a character with playtest credit to start at a higher level, you may have already out-leveled the currently published adventures. And even if you started as a brand-new level 1 character, if you've used that one character to successfully complete all the currently published scenarios and quests, you're 1 XP / one quest shy of fourth level, and at that rate will have "out-grown" level 1-4 adventures by January. Since some of the boons acquired state that they'll have an effect in future adventures, could we get some idea of what levels the upcoming scenarios and quests are intended to be? It would be unfortunate to acquire such a boon on one character only to have him out of level range for the intended continuation by the time that is published. Since the adventures for the first season have likely all been assigned to authors already, I'd assume that levels for these have probably been planned out (barring unforeseen circumstances, of course). Or maybe if not for the entire rest of the season then at least for the next months. I totally understand that we're not going to have one continouus career playing all published material with just one character and that there need to be plenty more low-level adventures. But some idea to allow for some planning ahead while the total number of available adventures is still low would be nice. Thx! :)
The above order from September has not arrived yet. Normally, it can take quite a while for orders to reach me here in Europe, so I wasn't overly concerned, but my October order (#8181831) has just arrived today and there's no sign of the previous one yet. Do you have a way of tracking the delivery and could you see where the hold-up is? Thank you!
It seems like this should be obvious but I have not been able to find this stated outright in the CRB, other than refering to bulk: The listed stats for weapons and other equipment are the same for bothe medium and small creatures, right? So the 3' halfling can use the same rapier as his 7' half-orc buddy, doing the same basic weapon damage die, etc.? Or do I have to modify the weapons for small creatures? I always assumed they would be using the same size weapons, but I have to admit, the picture of a 3' halfling wielding a normal sized rapier ("normal" for a human irl being on average 3'6'', with ideal size for an individual often quoted as "ground to navel") is kind of odd...
Here are the relevant bits of the spell descriptions from the CRB:
True strike:
Now, how do these two interact?
The way the rules are written, a case could be made for either, it seems.
Wall of text ahead... I've been going over the numbers for the WotT in my head, and they just don't seem to add up. The way it's currently set up, I somewhat doubt that there is going to be any actual fighting over any towers just because there's going to be more than enough for all of us... Here's what we know (based on today's numbers):
Of the 33 settlements, the bottom 14(!) settlements have less than 18 members (and going all the way down to 7), i.e. even if they divide up into companies evenly, they have less than 3 players holding each of the "primary towers" directly adjacent to their settlement, much less expand their territory outwards. A full half have 30 or less, so just 6 companies of 5 PCs max. And let's not even start with the "expected company size" of 20-50 that was mentioned somewhere. Even Talonguard and Golgotha as two of the "big shots" currently have less than 100 members, i.e. less than 10 companies of 10 players each. And with 320 towers for 33 settlements, 10 towers would be just above average. And that's for #2 and #3 of the settlements! Unless we are going to be seeing a huge influx of new players very soon (which we can only hope for with these numbers), I don't expect the WotT to be an actual fighting war. Even if all the settlements grab as many as they reasonably can (and additinal benefits from more towers surely will hit some sort of soft ceiling), there will barely be any need for conflict. There's just enough there for all... Even if we suddenly double the number of actual players in EE (i.e. say 3000 instead of the current 1500 land rush participants), there'd barely be 10 players per tower over all! And imho even that number would be highly optimistic to expect, at least in WotT/early EE! Quite a few who bought an account through kickstarter will not be interested in playing the game anymore, for any number of reasons... Am I the only one concerned by this? Am I mistaken somewhere? Have the devs somehow seriously miscalculated the expected number of players? Or are we just expected to split up into *very* small companies for the purpose of the WotT? What could be done to alleviate this? It's probably to late for changes to the system without a lot of outcry, but I would consider seriously reducing the number of settlement spots and the number of towers at least by the same percentage (preferably more). Force the players to form bigger settlements, with bigger companies competing over fewer towers. Even if these are further apart than originally planed. Or just make only a smaller part of the current land rush map initially available. It has been repeatedly said that small settlements will be untenable and will also not be able to offer anything better than the starter settlements during EE, i.e. will not easily be able to effectively attract new members. I would actually expect quite a few of the settlements at the bottom of the list to effectivly become abandoned husks, yet indestrucible due to game mechanics of EE. So, why not require a minimum number of players to effectively claim a settlement? Say, 50 or so. Or just cut the number of settlement spots in half? Sure, some small groups will have to give up the dream of their own home. But then again, they could just grow during EE in a community with others and later set out during OE to find their own place with the numbers to support it... Opinions?
Just some ideas regarding "meaningful interaction", especially with regards to "criminal behaviour" (I'm thinking raiding, waylaying, killing, etc.).
Let's take outpost rading as an example:
Compare that to PFO: Loss of life is no real issue, as every PC gets an easy respawn and permanent character deaths don't happen. Loss of property is a serious risk for the victim(s), both in terms of resources invested in building and running the outpost (which can be completely destroyed by the raider), resources harvested and stored there, as well as stuff carried around in their inventory (as they don't know they are going to be robbed). But what risk does the raider run? He knows he's out to raid, so he will only carry the necessary items and those he can afford to lose. He does not face permanent death and there is no prison. So the worst possible outcome for the raider here is a respawn some distance away (i.e. really nothing serious). The worst possible outcome for the owner of the outpost is a respawn some distance away AND serious loss of resources/property. This lopsided distribution of consequences tilts the system here quite a bit in favor of the "bad guy", making evil (or at least banditry) play much more attractive for those so inclined. It seems highly unfair to disadvantage the "constructive" player in that way. Is the reputation system going to be enough to alleviate this difference? I doubt it, with "PvP windows" and "feuds" still allowing for repution-safe raiding. Instead, I believe that PFO might need a prison system :-). Actually, that should be fairly easy to implement. Let's say, raiding, robbing, murdering gets you a "wanted" flag for a limited amount of time (say, a week). If during that time you are caught(i.e. killed) by someone who would be expected to turn a criminal in (i.e. PCs with LG, NG, LN alignments, possibly others?), your wanted flag is exchanged for a "prisoner" flag, for starters, let's say for one week. While you are marked as a prisoner your respawn point (including the spawn point when you initially log in to the game) is fixed to a completely enclosed area somewhere (aka the prison) that you cannot leave. Effectively, the character is taken out of the game for a limited time. To me that seems a much better way to handle meaningful PvP-interaction, that does actually carry meaningful consequences for BOTH sides! That very basic system should be easy to implement, yet also could in the future be expanded:
Really consequential meaningful interaction - the PvPers should be delighted! Opinions? :-) |
