Nimrandir's page

I thought I had just misclicked on the 0-HP question, so that's a relief of sorts. Since I couldn't go back, I just filled in the information for the one time we had a character go down during the adventure. Hopefully that doesn't throw things off too much.

Out of curiosity, are there plans to add comment boxes to the survey going forward? My fellow players and I had more specific thoughts we wished to share, but we had no way to do so within the designed instrument.

I don't have many concerns regarding most of the topics here (my collection of boons mostly serves to cushion my character binders, and I play rather than GM seldom enough these days for replay to be irrelevant), but I had a thought regarding the star system.

The switch to a new ruleset is a great time for newer players to make the transition to the GM seat, since we're all going to be new to the system. That might be tricky if members of the 'old guard' are clamoring to recover whatever may be considered lost in the transition.

"...a ninth level fighter with 45 hitpoints. Thats REAALY going to protect the party"

Okay, Gram's not that bad. He also brings a chocobo with him when he can.

casts Raise Thread

... one of the players introduces their PC, then asks everyone to roll Sense Motive.

I now do this with two of my newer PC's.

This happened at my very first PFS game (a halfling summoner who passes himself off as his eidolon's slave, if I remember right).

I actually disagree that you could play a (for example) 7th level Pregen in two back-to-back 5-7 Modules, as you'd be ineligible to receive the second Chronicle after leveling to 8 from the first Chronicle.

Not that I've ever heard of that happening, to anyone. But since we're speaking hypothetically.

Isn't the appropriate level in that case five, rather than seven? I thought that was why the GM wrote in '6-8' on my Serpents Rise Chronicle.

I don't really think it's erratum-worthy, but that text would probably be clearer if it read ". . . of its wielder's size".

Justin Riddler wrote:

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Nimrandir wrote:

See, I was thinking a 5-foot enhancement bonus to your land speed, but only when moving in a line.

There. That's the qualifier to keep that option from being overpowered that I was looking for!

Or only when running or charging might be another one

While also insulting the badniks by telling them that they are, in fact, too slow.

We should probably also work chili dogs into this somehow.

*looks over Familiars roster again*

I really think hedgehogs should give you a bonus to Acrobatics checks. Just saying....

See, I was thinking a 5-foot enhancement bonus to your land speed, but only when moving in a line.

So are you arguing against or for the idea of a Large Lance?

Seems like a Large Lance would be an option for a medium character, provided you used two hands while mounted, and you'd be unable to wield it if you dismounted.

I believe DesolateHarmony's post is meant to convey that a weapon's type is determined by its placement in the weapon table, and that specific weapon text allowing alternate wielding options does not shift that type.

We've got you covered.

Take a look.

This reminds me of one of my all-time favorite convention PFS quotes: "Look, I'm a paladin -- I've gotta kill something!"

Bob Jonquet wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

10 Luddite DM will not handle tablet

Not wanting to inadvertently damage someone's often expensive device than may contain irreplaceable data does not make one a Luddite.

Dm aware of ham fists was ranked at 12 and did not make the top ten list.

Was 'inexplicable hard drive failure' number eleven?

leonvios wrote:

What about making scenario's that a Gm can Roll several aspects of it allowing for quite a few different things that could happen during play.

For instance the opponents faction could be determined by a dice roll for the gm, makes it interesting as different pc's would have different reactions insights on them. This may also determine their objectives creating a different story that builds off the same environment.

Different creatures/ enemy party makeups could also be determined by a dice roll. this would change up the tactics that the enemy uses and possibly give the pc's chances for favorable or unfavorable encounters.

I am not sure how many factors the developers would want to put in this would clearly be a more difficult type of scenario to create but these scenarios would create awesome unique adventures, hell it would even be fun to roll them up as a gm I would think :).

These are called 'evergreens' and they already exist (a lot) for L1(Or one time play at L2 in some cases).

The Consortium Compact (the evergreen from the current season) does a really good job of boosting replayability. At a minimum, you have to play the scenario twice to see everything -- disregarding any randomized aspects.

There is also at least one non-evergreen with a randomization mechanic built into it (Murder on the Throaty Mermaid). I have neither played nor run that scenario, though, so I cannot vouch for how extensive the 'replay value' on that one is.

Nimrandir wrote:

TomG wrote:

I'm nearing completion of my fourth run of GM-ing this. As others mentioned, the lack of notes on lighting in the sewer was frustrating the first time. After that, I simply made sure the PCs had light, and described Laszo as working in light.

I got overly worried on this when I ran it as well, but the beetle gives off light for Laszo to use in his work. I kinda forgot that in the heat of the moment.

Right, but the flash beetles are "hiding in the pipes near the statue", and thus are not initially visible and usable as a source of light.

The beetles' light works for the fight, though.

I'm preparing to run this scenario again, so I revisited the encounter in question.

Laszo is diagonally adjacent to the beetle at the pipe's entrance (labeled B1 on the tactical map for the encounter, and thus presumably the one to be used if only one beetle is present), so any light it emits should fall on Laszo. Nothing in the beetle's description indicates that it is capable of neutralizing its luminescence; in fact, since neither Laszo nor the beetle has darkvision, sacrificing its own vision seems counter-intuitive.

The only remaining variable I can see is the location of Laszo's workbench. I'd probably put it to his north, as that would also be illuminated.

I'm nearing completion of my fourth run of GM-ing this. As others mentioned, the lack of notes on lighting in the sewer was frustrating the first time. After that, I simply made sure the PCs had light, and described Laszo as working in light.

I got overly worried on this when I ran it as well, but the beetle gives off light for Laszo to use in his work. I kinda forgot that in the heat of the moment.

I find I do better on this when I am in the GM chair, since I write down every character's name before the mission briefing. Anyhoo, on Saturday I ran an evergreen scenario for:
1.) Olan, a human from the northern reaches of Avistan who wielded divine powers without the use of a holy symbol;
ii.) Kulavic, a half-orc with massive tusks and a profound lack of understanding of the geography of Kortos;
c.) Moto Rolla, a tengu prone to fits of rage and tearing apart his opponents with his bare hands (and beak);
Four.) Celan, a half-elven sorcerer with a knack for pretending to be someone else;
- Esmay, a sneaky Varisian who had to show Kulavic how to use lockpicks;
and finally, Han Li, a Tien archer who always shoots first and is also an accomplished flautist.

As for my own characters, almost every PFS character I have possesses a name that is an anagram of 'random guy', with the exception to my Core bard (whose name is an anagram of Pat Benatar) and my witch (who shares her first name with a module NPC and uses the surname of another one of my characters' clans).

Matthew Morris wrote:

Stephen Ross wrote:

time to burn some GM stars on Bonekeep... dibs on the Estra tha Spiritualist...

I've only had the pleasure of running Bonekeep I once, but it is amusing how people take Bonekeep.

Group A. Bring it on! (I actually have a couple locals working on a GM star just for a rematch)

Group B. Let me work a new character up to level, so I won't feel bad when it dies. :-(

or option three:

"Wait, Bonekeep? I didn't sign up for... wait, I think my wife needs me at home. Sorry, gotta go!"

Would putting your face in your hands and sobbing count as a variant of option three, or is it a separate reaction?

You're welcome. Have you signed up for our lodge's anniversary event on December 19? We've still got plenty of seats available if not.

Welcome aboard, Thokar!

I'll do my best to answer your questions below.

1.) I presume you've built Pathfinder characters before. Here are some of the highlights of PFS-specific character building:
- PFS play is built on a 20-point buy standard for ability scores.
- Every character begins play with 150 gold.
- As far as race selection is concerned, players are generally restricted to Core Rulebook races, tengu, nagaji, kitsune, and wayang.
- No evil characters are allowed.
- You may select two traits for your character.
- If you use something from a particular sourcebook, you should bring that book or a watermarked PDF/printout to games (so GM's without the book have access to its rules text).

2.) While the level twelve cap is not technically true, there are precious few opportunities for PFS play beyond that stage. Some modules and adventure path segments are available, and there is a specific 'retirement' arc of four scenarios available to level-twelve characters.

3.) The only restriction on your first scenario is its tier, or allowed level range. Since all PFS characters begin at level one, you should look for a scenario in the tiers 1-2, 1-5, or 1-7 for your first game. You could technically begin with a higher-tier scenario, but you would be restricted to using one of the PFS-approved pregenerated characters instead of a character of your own construction.

4.) We've had players show up for their first game with less than you just listed. If you want to build yourself a character beforehand, have a character sheet (some of us prefer paper, but electronic versions are quite common) filled out. I'd recommend paper and pencil for note-taking.

I look forward to seeing you at the table soon!

I can think of one other scenario where that was an option.

PFS doesn't care about Srolls linky. Again

Wands never care.

Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Thanks for the link; as I'm not terribly interested in the occult classes and wasn't running games at the time, I had not been following that thread. Also, thank you for not shouting at me. :-)

I suppose that means the only thing requiring addition is a lack of difference in psychic scrolls and wands?

The aforementioned Stolen Heir and Between the Lines are good ones, though I agree with Serisan on the latter.

Quest for Perfection I has a bit of role-play tucked at the end, and it doesn't fall into the 'fighting encounter' trap . . .

Frozen Fingers of Midnight has a couple of later-on role-playing moments as well.

Many Fortunes gets well over the PC's heads when the items are accidentally activated. It gets worse when PC's do not run.

"When will then be now?"

"Soon."

Thanks a bunch!

I presume that scenarios with feat rewards now simply do not have a reward associated with them. Obviously the development team has quite a bit of stuff on the to-do list, but will that be revisited at some point in the future?

We had a local convention that eschewed the 'swag die' and used a Harrow deck instead. I had more fun with that method, even though the deck was no kinder to me than the die.

Hi all!

My family and I recently started playing through the Season 0 ACG scenarios, and I wanted to make sure I understand how older scenario rewards work with the tier system. Things seem pretty cut and dried except for feat rewards.

For instance, my character had previously played scenario 0-1C at our local game store, the stated reward of which is a power feat. My reading of the guide says that I disregard that and receive a skill feat instead, since that was his first scenario of the adventure. I would then receive the power feat when our family game completed scenario 0-1A.

Am I correct on this?

If we really want to look at the power curve and how difficult scenarios are/could be, lets get specific.

These are some of the scenarios that could result in TPK.

King of the Stoval Stairs
The Disappeared
Waking Rune (yeah, run that one in hard mode...)
Many Fortunes of Grand Master Torch
Sniper in the Deep
Voice in the Void
The Dalsine Affair
The Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment
Portal of the Sacred Rune
The Golemworks Incident
The Cultists Kiss
The Refuge of Time
Fortress of the Nail
Glories of the Past Pt II The Price of Friendship
The Elven Entanglement
The Merchant's Wake
Trail by Machine
Hall of the Flesh Eaters
To Judge a Soul Pt I The Lost Legacy

Of these, I have the most ire against King of the Stoval Stairs. If there are more scenarios that are retired, this should be the first to be retired out of all of them.

What do you think?

I haven't played quite a few of those, but I'd agree on the ones I have, except for maybe The Disappeared.

I would also add Tide of Twilight to the list; I know it's resulted in two TPK's locally (I miss you, Alexander).

I really liked the idea of getting to create a character with an extra trait or bonus language. Neither of those really has 'oomph' when presented at a table, though. However, it would be pretty funny when a 7-Intelligence fighter somehow speaks Thassilonian or something.

What about a boon that allowed for selection from a set of unique traits at character creation? Are there any cool traits from retired factions that might somehow make a triumphant return?

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

There is a certain amount of inherent peer pressure if you are the only person at the table who doesn't want to play hard mode. It doesn't have to be "collusion"--it's just how things are.

Then that's when your GM and/or VO need to step in. Bullying people into playing hard mode is something I simply don't stand for and I would expect the same of any of my GMs.

Coercion into hard mode is not the only issue at play here. Dorothy used the term 'inherent' to describe the pressure, but I would use the term 'internal' instead. I felt pretty darned uncomfortable when everyone else at my table of Weapon in the Rift said something to the effect of "Bring it!" when the subject of hard mode came up. My only in-tier character had a practically irreplaceable boon applied to him, and I believe he was between subtiers. As I said, I was more than willing to go play the ACG instead so that the rest of the table could play the scenario in hard mode.

In general, I am attached to my characters to the point that I do not wish to put them at risk greater than my perception of their readiness, or the campaign's ability to let me prepare for the worst-case scenario.

Since this subject came up again . . .

My point was simply that if hard mode was more available it would be taken advantage of. Yours was not the only post referencing hard mode. If my post was in specific reply to yours I would have quoted it.

No snark was intended in my response to your post, Jessex. I simply found the immediacy of a comment saying "we'd almost always want hard mode" to my comment of "I'd be uncomfortable if I have to say no to hard mode every other week" useful for demonstrating my position.

Easy, now. I'm not sure I could handle an entire game session with the overpowering scent of freesia assaulting my nostrils.

I'm not sure if you were trying to help me prove my point, but it's appreciated nonetheless.

Playing up carries the possibility of greater rewards (item access, gold), while hard mode doesn't.

People who play hard mode do it because they want a hard time/bragging rights, not out of greed. I think that takes off some of the unhealthy pressure.

In the scenarios where I've seen it, hard mode was usually pretty simple to run; add a few more of the same monster or add a template here and there. Keeping it simple for the GM is good, that cuts down on having to prepare numerous different versions of the scenario.

I play in an area with many people who will want to play hard mode -- every time, no diggity, no doubt. While they don't begrudge me my risk-aversion, I would personally feel like I'm cramping the table's style if the hard-mode question starts coming up more than once a year or so.

Again, I do not have a problem with some hard mode scenarios, provided that addition does not become the standard. It might also be nice if the scenario blurb mentions the presence of hard mode; it gives me the heads-up that I might need to play something else that night.

I don't have a problem with scenarios which have hard modes built into them, so long as that doesn't become the norm. I've already been the guy who put the kibosh on hard mode once, and I offered to leave the table to let the rest of the party do it.

The concern that might arise if hard mode became more prevalent is that 'play-up pressure' becomes 'hard-mode pressure'. Given that the campaign has already done away with optional playing up, I don't know if essentially introducing that feature again is feasible.

Perhaps someone could compile a list of scenarios known for their difficulty as a means of assisting GM's and organizers whose players crave greater challenge?

I know that the review feature on the Paizo site already does this to an extent, but as I recall, most scenarios aren't receiving enough reviews for what I'd call an accurate measure.

I've had pretty good experiences with play-by-post as well. For instance, my investigator is a walking thesaurus, so being able to look over a post and use online thesauri to change things works way more smoothly than the sheet of paper with verbose equivalences I use at a tabletop game.

Zak is correct. I tend to change the name of my dead characters to 'the late'. I did that with one PC who died in the first level of Thornkeep, and created a new character using the name again.

It's funny because the concept behind the character(s) is that he's a member of the Belmont clan from the Castlevania video game series, so it's like I just lost a life and had to start back at the beginning of the level.

I have actually been using the Faction Journal cards for each of my PCs. Back when they were introduced I even used them to settle on which faction several of my PCs should join/switch too, and for 2 of my PCs I went looking for another PC that could sponsor them to change factions.

** spoiler omitted **

Now, when I am creating a new PC, I will pull out the Faction Journal cards and "fit" the PC to his faction (personality/background/skills). It really helps to have the PCs goals match up better with his faction goals.

It can also be entertaining if the character really doesn't fit with his faction. My bloodrager joined the Exchange because he was a caravan guard before joining the Society (his default pose is leaned against a wall with his arms folded, and he sounds generally bored with whatever is happening around him). The journal card had almost nothing he could accomplish on his own -- until I purchased a caravan vanity for him to play off his Intimidate skill. Yug is now on track as a very successful member of his faction.

For what it's worth, my idea is primarily headcanon that should never actually matter at a table (I plan to change the NPC's name to match my current PC's clan, and her history won't be something she'll want to bring up except in great duress).

My apologies for the thread necro; I've never really been sure if posting a new thread with a similar topic is worse netiquette.

I currently have a GM Chronicle stack which I plan to use to create a witch PC. The only thing holding me back at this stage is a worthwhile backstory for the character, but running Feast of Ravenmoor at a convention this weekend gave me a burst of inspiration.

By the way, if you haven't played or run Feast of Ravenmoor, you should do something about that. I really need to make time to write a review and find some way to give the adventure seven stars.

Does that seem reasonable?

claudekennilol wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

It's possible to get the SSC in Stolen Heir without doing anything nasty, but you do have to beat a very high Diplomacy DC with the right NPC. You can bring down the DC by blackmailing him but even so it's hard. Just not impossible.

That's another problem I've got with the scenario. My GM ran it wrong and we weren't even given that option.

In my case, I feel that is a problem with the GM, not the scenario. We failed the SSC because we didn't make the K:Local to know who that NPC was, and so were never told later. He was just some random guy we never saw again. (Which is apparently not how it is supposed to go.)

I concur. I try not to get mad at my radio just because someone decided to play KC and the Sunshine Band. Well, not that mad at the radio.

** spoiler omitted **

Philip Carroll, Asheville Pathfinder Lodge, point of information: What?

Sorry if the tone in that spoiler is snippy, but I really like Stolen Heir and cannot abide its unjust besmirchment.

Edit: The Diplomacy DC isn't that high under the right conditions. A typical level 1 bard can make it by taking 10, after negotiations.

My apologies for the thread necro, but I'm slated to run this scenario at a convention soon. Given the length of time since anyone has asked about these things, I just wanted to confirm that I should run Lady Morilaeth's fear effects as per the current Pathfinder Bestiary.

Given that players can already swap Lem for Amiri between quests, I'm not sure how big an issue this is.

The modularity of First Steps is probably what got me thinking about this in the first place. Well, that and the fact that every few months presents a new 'When will First Steps Get Retired?' thread.

Fair enough. If I hadn't put that down, I'd have had the ideas rattling around in my brain for the next three days.

After reading Drogon's suggestion, my mind started trying to find ways to retrofit the existing replayable scenarios into this format.

The problem would be that two of those aren't fully mix-and-match, since Confirmation and Wounded Wisp have anchored beginnings and ends. Thoughts?

That's not an unfair point, but I have a feeling we're working from different definitions of 'invalidate'. I can think of at least one scenario where the tactics of the final encounter should invalidate themselves, if the GM is using a liberal interpretation of that clause.

Much of the rules of pathfinder is how to play the tactical combat game. Some people are good at these types of games, some are not. Some are interested in this part of the game, some are not. If your GM is good at tabletop strategy games then you better have a well built character or you will get slaughtered. If your GM sucks at tabletop strategy games then you can play a character with no combat skill whatsoever and survive just fine. [Emphasis mine]

I have played with GMs on both sides of the spectrum. Playing with the latter I got to feel like oh man, I made my characters way too strong. Playing with the former had me hunting through splatbooks for feats and items to get that bit of an edge I need to survive.

Powergaming is all relative to who you play with. Some people will glare at you and accuse you of cheating because you took power attack (OMG how do you do so much damage!). Others will glare at you and tell you to learn2playnoob because you aren't one shot killing everything (OMG you're going to get us all killed with your weak character!). It has to do with who is GMing and how good they are at the tactical combat game.

Given that we as PFS GM's are supposed to be following predetermined tactics unless something invalidates them, I'm not sure how often GM skill should be a factor in combat difficulty. Of course, I don't have much high-tier experience, where invalidating printed tactics may not be much of a challenge.