Patrick Harris @ MU's page

Yeah, but the wand boon is still listed as charging full price for a partially charged wand.

Maybe it's deliberate?

Patrick, in all honesty ... I get where you're at. I really do. And I get what you're saying. Please allow me to interject that I think you're reacting a bit strongly over something that really honestly isn't that big of a deal.

Honest to God, Thea, I don't think I am. I have not in any way condemned this move, I have simply expressed concerns about it. Everything I have said has been pointing out that there are both ups and downs, and explaining why I feel that way. The only thing that's gotten me at all irate is the assertion that I shouldn't be voicing my opinion at all.

I get that people have concerns over various portions of this, or may be disappointed due to various portions ... however, can we please just have a day or maybe two to be grateful that we got a kick-butt boon (regardless of what you think about it) and that there is an exclusive (no matter the form).

Sure. Would you prefer to have comments on these posts locked until 48 hours have passed, or just to not read them until after that? Because this is a discussion forum on the Internet, so those are your options.

Also, why is "expressing concerns" the same thing as "complaining?" Why can't I simply say, "I have these concerns, here are the results I see, let's talk about this" without people reading that as "DIE IN A FIRE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T DO WHAT I WANTED" and telling me I don't have a right to express my thoughts?

(I know, I know, because it's a discussion forum on the Internet. It was a rhetorical question.)

I shudder to think of what could happen when Mike and John get tired of trying to give us things and due to all the complaints decide that we don't need anything.

If you legitimately think they didn't expect there to be some concerns about this decision, I believe you are severely underestimating them.

This is the same arguement for the 4-star exclusives in general, so is the issue you are having with Bonekeep as the exclusive, or with the exclusives in general?

Burnout happens no matter the scenario ... at that point it's more a matter of the GM recognizing their limits and being able to say "no" I need a weekend off.

I said more burnout. Midnight Mauler has several endings and a variety of approaches. In Bonekeep you can either pick "east" or "west." Yes, you will get burned out running the same thing over and over, but things like roleplay and variation--which Bonekeep lacks--will put that off a bit.

Darius Silverbolt wrote:

I for one am very glad Bonekeep Part 1 is the 5-EX and I hope part two next year is the 6-EX. We didn't get to run this scenario in my area while I was VC and I don't think as of today the Current VC's have had the chance either.

I don't get to play much PFS as of late and when the opprotunity arrives I like to play the hard / challenging games and this one from what I have read fits that billing.

I look forward to dying in this one.

Thank you Mike & John.

Mike said up thread that there were no current plans to make Bonekeep II the season 6 exclusive.

If you mean his reply to Drogon, I think what he said was that there are no current plans for Bonekeep 1 to move from 05-EX to 06-16. That doesn't say anything about whether Bonekeep 2 will be 06-EX. (You might be talking about a separate post, but if so, it's one I missed.)

Hm. My followup post on what I said earlier, which I was almost late to work because I was so busy typing, has disappeared. But there is no indication that it was deliberately deleted, nor do I see any reason that it would have been, so I will try saying it again.

Bonekeep is now more available that it was before. No longer will you be required to attend a convention with 50+ tables to enjoy it. That is bonus. Period.

Despite my earlier willingness to stipulate this for a specific argument, I actually disagree with it on its own.

First, I don't think this "is bonus. Period." I think that it's differently accessible, but not universally so. People will be more likely to be able to find a table of it overall, but big cons will not be able to offer as much of it, and given the nature of Bonekeep, I think you'll find fewer 4+GMs/VOs willing to run it over and over, and of the ones who do, I think you'll see more burnout. It's got a very specific appeal, which means it's not going to be as useful for most.

Second, I like the idea of "con exclusives" and "merit exclusives" being separate things. Con exclusives are rewards to people who organize big events, which serve as draw to same. Merit exclusives are rewards to people who are in it for the long haul, which serve as reasons for them to stay in it. And neither precludes the existence of the other: People who organize big events over the long term get both. The blending of these two previously separate concepts, in my opinion, lessens the impact of both.

So I don't think this is automatically all bonus. I think it's a change, and it might even be a positive one, but like everything else in the world, it has both good and bad aspects.

Finally, I want to restate that this is a discussion forum, and this thread is devoted to discussing this announcement. Discussion doesn't mean "just agreement," so if you want a thread that's just agreement, you would be the one who should go start another thread, not the people here to discuss in good faith.

We were told to ask back in February, so you're on the right track. :D

Bonekeep is now more available that it was before. No longer will you be required to attend a convention with 50+ tables to enjoy it. That is bonus. Period.

There's obviously not universal agreement on that point, but let's set it aside. For the sake of these next few paragraphs, let's pretend everyone in the world agrees that Bonekeep's widened audience "is bonus. Period."

These things don't exist in a vacuum. As a consequence of that change, there is not a new exclusive scenario, i.e. one that had not been run before, that 4+ star GMs could pick up and run with. Being on the verge of 4 stars, I was looking forward to that, but now it's not going to happen. Several other 4+ star GMs have expressed similar disappointment.

Just because one aspect of this--again, only for the purposes of this conversation--"is bonus. Period." doesn't mean that every aspect is. We have a right to our own opinions, and here on a discussion forum, which is a forum for discussion, where we are intended to discuss things, we're gonna discuss 'em. Cope.

It saddens me when Paizo announces new bonus/rewards for PFS and people use the opportunity to complain about it. I wish we could just be happy for the new shiny and leave the complaints to another thread.

It saddens me when people who like something somehow have their enjoyment impinged upon by people disagreeing with them.

Edit: Also, your "new" is debatable. Nobody's running down that Chronicle, from what I can see. There is, however, concern about the change being made to (1) what Bonekeep's requirements are and (2) what it means to be in on an exclusive scenario. And if you want people to not complain about change, the Internet is not a good place for you.

Interesting choice. I would call this about 70-80% as 'special' as an exclusive scenario in general, since this was fairly well limited previously. And it brings it to a broader audience on an 18-month delay from release - that's a good thing.

Yeah ... I haven't decided how I feel about this.

On the Paizo side, this makes a lot of sense. There's no point in keeping it con-exclusive forever, because there will be other con-exclusive mods, and you don't want cons to become just con-exclusive mods, so you need to cycle them. If they retired it, people would complain, so it was going to be a general release eventually. This mid-stage probably seems like a good neutral ground. Also, they don't have to have another scenario written, which is also a good thing.

On the other hand, though, it makes it less special as a scenario (since it's not con-only now) and less special as an exclusive (since it's not exclusive to VOs and 4+ stars; it's exclusive to VOs and 4+ stars and anyone who's already run it at a con).

Two concerns.
1: When this is released as the Exclusive scenario, is it no longer going to be available for any con-GM? Which is to say, can anyone still run this at a con, or is it "exclusive crowd or con setting?" Like, if I went to a con today where they were going to run Day of the Demon (which is still exclusive for a few days), I couldn't run it. Is that going to become the case with Bonekeep? I'm guessing not, since I know cons scheduling it as far out as May already. But what does that say about the nature of exclusivity in this context?
2: Is this what we can expect for the next 3 exclusive releases, too?

You know, at first I said I was ambivalent about this, but now I think I'm just conflicted.

(That was a joke.)

omgz, where can we find it? linky, pleeease?

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lfui?GM-Rewards

Can clerics change their god just like that?

I don't know the rules for retraining as a cleric, but I'm pretty sure there is more to it than just filling a form and visiting a new temple from now on.

It's been argued before; nobody had an answer.

Jiggy wrote:

Erick Wilson wrote:

Mr. Brock's post at the end of my previous thread not only implies that the behavior of the player at my table was justified

Actually, he said that the player had a right to be upset. How the player handled his feelings was neither stated nor implied to be okay.

He specifically used the phrase "you brought it on yourself." Unacceptable. His tone in the post in general was condescending well beyond the line of professionalism. Even the beginning: "It takes a special kind of post to pull me from my vacation?" Seriously? Narcissistic, self involved and belittling. Again, all unacceptable from an employee.

Such speech from a position of power turns these threads into Mr. Brock's personal bully pulpit, and we should not have to tolerate it.

And since you know perfectly well that he's on vacation, your decision to bring this up the next day, instead of waiting a week for people to settle down and for him to get back, demonstrates not only that you aren't interested in taking time to reflect, but that you're also either vindictive (you want him to respond when he's supposed to be on vacation) or craven (you want to pee all over the boards while he's away).

Or both, I guess.

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

Whoa.

So, just to be clear, I can put one of these (my choice) on a character. As the character levels--assuming my star count matches--he unlocks each of these boons in turn, yes?

Then for every 50 tables after 150, I can do it again?

That's pretty awesome.

Yes, but do keep in mind the 1 PP or Day Job "cost" to activation for each ability!

Totally worth it. :D

It's up. I'm ambivalent towards the "Exclusive" but pretty happy about the other thing (no spoilers; go read it).

Oh, good, because threads following up on others that were locked often lead to happy endings.

Whoa.

So, just to be clear, I can put one of these (my choice) on a character. As the character levels--assuming my star count matches--he unlocks each of these boons in turn, yes?

Then for every 50 tables after 150, I can do it again?

That's pretty awesome.

With all due respect, the fact that it keeps coming up is the definition of a Frequently Asked Question.

Unless we really think that the FAQs are nothing but a place for stealth-errata, this fits right in.

Y'know, whatever. I'm so sick of arguing about it. If this many people need that much handholding, maybe that's just the only option.

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

Myles Crocker wrote:

I am sure you all know this, but the replays you get for your stars renew at each Gen Con each year.

No, they don't.

The Guide, Page 20 wrote:

Alternatively, campaign GMs who are recognized for their efforts by receiving GM stars (see page 37), may receive additional player or GM credit for a number of non-Tier 1 scenarios or sanctioned modules per GM star they have earned. For example, a three-star GM may select any three scenarios or sanctioned modules that she can then play or GM for credit one additional time each. For each of these adventures, she can thus earn a total of three Chronicle sheets, rather than the two normally allowed. When replaying a scenario with GM-star credit, the GM completing the Chronicle sheet will annotate the Notes section of the Chronicle sheet and add “GM Star Replay Credit × Star” to annotate the use of star credit replay. The GM Star Replay Credits are a once per star, lifetime benefit.

It seems like half this thread has been about people saying that and being corrected.

Patrick, perhaps I am misreading this. On page 20 of the 5.0 Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play : " The GM Star Replay Credits renew each year on the first day of Pathfinder Society events at Gen Con."

I believe that they do renew every year. Ah It looks like I should read the second post you are replying to. Someone beat me to the post.

You have the wrong version of the Guide. The one that says they renew every year was the beta release. See this thread for full backstory.

You can play "for no credit" to make a table legal. You get no XP, no PP, no gold, and no boons. You do use expendables and run the risk of dying. See page 20 of the Guide.

Using a star replay just gives you the XP, PP, etc.

Would it be possible that we could get a decision one way or the other in a PFS FAQ? I think that would help out with this debate substantially.

There is no debate. The rule is explicitly stated in the Guide. Some people have the wrong Guide, but that's not something that needs a FAQ--they just need to download the right Guide.

That's why I posted this thread.

I think the main problem is the beta having the same version number as the release version. At least once I actually looked up the rule in my copy of the guide, and then actually looked at my downloads page to check because I thought I remembered differently, but didn't download the new one because I thought mine was current.

I think this confusion would be much reduced if Paizo just incremented the version of the current guide by 1.

Assuming you mean .1, I agree. The beta release could be 6.0, and the official version could be 6.1.

If they feel like it makes more sense to have 6.0 release with Season 6, the beta version could be 6.0b, or it could be 5.99.

Or the beta version could have "THIS IS A BETA VERSION" watermarked on every page, even! As long as it's clear. ;)

That said, not everyone is terribly keen on re-running for no chronicle. I've got 93 tables worth of credit and it's not until the convention next month that I'm rerunning something without credit for the first time, and in that case primarily because it's a Special, and I need to run a certain number of Specials to get from 4 stars to 5. (Also because there's nothing else during that slot, so I might as well, etc etc. But you see my point.)

Now, in May I am re-running several things without credit because there's a convention that is being organized by someone I like, which I very much want to make happen. But in both cases there's something in it for me (after a fashion). Speaking as someone who really enjoys the "I can organize my own stuff" status of being an online GM, I don't mind re-running to make things happen (as evidenced), but according to my tracking spreadsheet there are currently 136 sanctioned things that I have neither run nor played--why would I want to double-up for no chronicle when there are new things out there? It just doesn't jive with my personal view of the activity.

Edit: Except for The Harrowing. That's about the only thing I've experienced that I would run over and over without credit. Because it's just that awesome. (But I probably would only want to do that for a set of players I knew and enjoyed, because if you sit four people who hate roleplay down at a table of The Harrowing, everyone is going away unhappy. But that's neither here nor there.)

Nudge?

Did that one last month. ;)

Jounce.

I'm running out of synonyms. Maybe I'll do translations next?

Folks, over in this thread it has become very apparent that people are confused about GM Star replays and whether or not they renew.

Here is the text from the Guide, page 20, with relevant text bolded:

Alternatively, campaign GMs who are recognized for their efforts by receiving GM stars (see page 37), may receive additional player or GM credit for a number of non-Tier 1 scenarios or sanctioned modules per GM star they have earned. For example, a three-star GM may select any three scenarios or sanctioned modules that she can then play or GM for credit one additional time each. For each of these adventures, she can thus earn a total of three Chronicle sheets, rather than the two normally allowed. When replaying a scenario with GM-star credit, the GM completing the Chronicle sheet will annotate the Notes section of the Chronicle sheet and add “GM Star Replay Credit × Star” to annotate the use of star credit replay. The GM Star Replay Credits are a once per star, lifetime benefit.

The confusion stems from the fact that the "Beta" version of the Guide 5.0, which was released before GenCon 2013, said that they would renew every season. However, from the time the Guide went live, the policy has been "lifetime"; this is not a mid-season shift.

If you have a version of the Guide that says otherwise, you need to download the new version of the Guide!

Now, it is possible that this will change in the future, but time will tell.

Finally, I want to note something here: I am concerned that this is going to be blamed on the fact that the Guide sees a beta release at all. While I definitely absolutely agree with the general sentiment that the next beta release should be clearly marked as such--not least because at least a few of the people who expressed confusion in that other thread are Venture Officers--I think it's worth noting that the confusion was internal as well as external (note not just the linked message but the one it was replying to, please). I don't think the policy of releasing the Guide early, for feedback, is to blame; it was in fact that same early release that caught this error. While the process of release obviously needs some refinement, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I am sure you all know this, but the replays you get for your stars renew at each Gen Con each year.

No, they don't.

Alternatively, campaign GMs who are recognized for their efforts by receiving GM stars (see page 37), may receive additional player or GM credit for a number of non-Tier 1 scenarios or sanctioned modules per GM star they have earned. For example, a three-star GM may select any three scenarios or sanctioned modules that she can then play or GM for credit one additional time each. For each of these adventures, she can thus earn a total of three Chronicle sheets, rather than the two normally allowed. When replaying a scenario with GM-star credit, the GM completing the Chronicle sheet will annotate the Notes section of the Chronicle sheet and add “GM Star Replay Credit × Star” to annotate the use of star credit replay. The GM Star Replay Credits are a once per star, lifetime benefit.

It seems like half this thread has been about people saying that and being corrected.

I've used two, and I don't regret that. I'm hanging on to the last one and the other I'll be getting very soon, because I'll be playing the first two parts of the S5 3-parter on one Osirion character, but the other Osirion character has two separate build boons, so my policy for him is "no GM credit," and if the 3-part boon (which I won't see until after I've played parts 1 & 2) is worth putting on him, it'll be worth replaying for.

Hmm. Maybe. Or I could put him on slow as soon as he hits his next level ... well crap, now I have to think about it.

/ raise dead.

Poop! I just found our my version of the PFSOP was the old version 5 with the Star reset at GenCon every year....

As the Star replay's are now a one-off benefit over my lifetime with PFS I will be more inclined to sit back and hoard them for my own benefit rather than helping fill tables, til now I have been using the stars to play on tables when numbers were low and a game wouldn't have run.

Do we know why the change was made?

I am not sure how I missed the updated guide to organised play but it's totally my fault - I am just embarrassed as I have to send emails to the people I have given incorrect information too, it's only a couple of GM's (I could have sworn the version numbers were the same).

The version numbers are the same; it's just that the one that was released before GenCon was the beta guide. (Clearly there needs to be a way of marking that in the future.)

Yeah, it's not trying to cater to all types.

I like running PFS scenarios. If you don't ... well ... don't.

Hall of Drunken Heroes is one of the more amusing scenarios in the entire product run. I can't imagine feeling the need to make a harder BBEG just to feel like you didn't waste your time.

Also, your play style also does not cater to all types, as evidenced by the player of that wizard. Except he's the one who got shafted by not getting the experience he was supposed to be getting.

You know you're in trouble when you get to the table and...

... everybody just wants to talk about the Fly mechanic.

I ran this scenario last night and I'm not sure how well the new Secondary condition of "learn from Jiang Dan how to restore power to the Braid of a Hundred Masters" works with the way the scenario is written.

From the Briefing the VC gives, the group knows that they're seeking out the Braid of the Masters, but from my reading there's no clues that it's currently dormant.

I personally gave the group a DC 20 Knowledge: Arcana roll when they were looking at it to realize that that it was dormant, which prompted the party them to ask the statue the correct line of inquiry. I could also see a knowledge: Religion being a potential alternative... maybe coupled with the knowledge religion check in F2? Either way, there should be some mechanical means of determining it is dormant if it's tied to a Secondary Condition.

It might also be a good idea to clarify what information from Jiang Dan actually satisfies the requirement. Technically, the party *doesn't* learn from Jiang Dan how to restore the braid (though I would assume that realizing there is a Master to seek out is what was expected.) I personally didn't want to spoon-feed Prestige when the party asked "What do you know about the Braid?"

I understand that achieving the secondary conditions should be expected, but as written, this one seems like it's very dependent on the GM.

I GMed this when there were still faction missions, but when I played it just recently the revelation of dormancy was pretty straightforward--someone put it on, and the GM said, "Okay, nothing happens." I think this is in keeping with the ideas of the secondary success missions--if the Pathfinders just grab it and go home, they don't get the second PP; they need to take initiative.

The issue with our game was Jiang Dan--I couldn't say anything since I'd run it, but we very nearly didn't investigate the rest of the complex. Finally we just kind of looked around for information, and then once we found the statue there was no reason to actually touch it, which is what allows it to talk. Only the fact that our resident lunatic necromancer randomly licks things (I'm not kidding) resulted in us discovering that it was sentient.

you can't use two-weapon fighting with two greatswords.

Why can't one expend resources (in this case, two discoveries) to achieve that? Rules have exceptions, and there's precedent in this game of being able to spend character-build resources (feats, class features, whatever) to be able to achieve exceptions to the standard rules.

... and a rule that's unwritten is, by definition, not "rules as written." So how is an unwritten rule relevant for PFS?

I was never a fan of the 'You need to do X without anyone seeing'. Which was impossible because as soon as a character leaves the group for any reason you get players piping up with the rpg cliche 'Dont split the party!'. Or you have no valid reason to leave the group for a second so X can sleight of hand without you watching up close.

I almost miss the moment of "COULD EVERYONE PLEASE MOVE ON SO I CAN TOTALLY NOT DO A FACTION MISSION OR ANYTHING" that would happen for those. :P

Quote:

You know you're in trouble when you get to the table and...

... no one is wearing pants.

Wait, that's abnormal? Crap.

Keep in mind, the nuclear option described is literally wishing someone into the Sun.

Actually, it's wishing everybody into the sun. :D

Since the entire AP is reported as one event, wouldn't it just be 1 star, like a module?

It is a module, not an AP. Also, you only check one box to include it in your event, but parts 1, 2, and 3 show up separately in the drop-down list for reporting. The check boxes are by product rather than PFS unit--it's the same for Thornkeep and the Anniversary Edition of RotRL.

Yep, So we add the complication thread (which is basically Mike Brock posts) and set up by Jiggy.

I don't think that's in use anymore. It's not stickied in the forum and I haven't seen an update recently.

... the Monk dumped Wisdom.

I tend to ignore the boards, there can be a lot of conflicting opinions. It must daunting for a new player.

The Additional Resources page is very useful The FAQ is fine but less so. Sometimes you have to drill down into the book and as some issues covering the one topic can run over several books it's not as easy I'd like.

As far as I was aware for organised play only the AR page and FAQ's are legal for PFSOP, please correct me if I am wrong.

Messageboard clarifications by the campaign leadership are binding. See page 5 of the Guide.

... and the Guide, of course, is also binding. I only bring that up because it wasn't on your list. :)

I wish I could say the same about it not miffing other people. I've been pretty much asked never to play my barbarian again due to its habit of red misting everything it touches.

You could just sit out the first round or two of combat. "No, no, Mongo not feeling the moment. Mongo must contemplate past transgressions first." <twelve seconds pass> "Okay, Mongo ready to be angry now."

I read her as kind of nuts; she might be willing to negotiate for her freedom but she's also going to try to escape if she's given the opportunity. She definitely wouldn't trust the PCs to treat her fairly, even (especially?) if they were a party full of paladins.

Jeff Merola wrote:

Actually, you can't. As per the FAQ, you cannot retrain a base class level into a prestige class level.

Did they FAQratta yet another change?

Guess you'll need to be a 1st level Wizard, 9th level Bloatmage (using yet another FAQsploit to qualify), and then retrain those levels into Diabolist levels, because the FAQ has decreed that Prestige Class levels are inherently more "valuable" than base class levels. *rolls eyes*

I assure you that the subtext wasn't that PrC levels are more valuable. The subtext was that they were sick of people asking questions about it. (I'm not kidding; check out the thread.)

Also, the dodge you have just mentioned is a damn fine idea.

The one thing that hasn't worked in the past is complaining about stuff.

There is, perhaps, some evidence to the contrary.

Edit: I originally said "IMO" but I'm not actually the only person to think that. So "in my opinion and that of the people who brought that to my attention, and that of several people I've discussed it with since" might be more accurate. But as disclaimers go, it's pretty unwieldy. :P

Shouldn't there be a purchase limit of 1 on the two partially charged wands?

Not always. There's at least one scenario that's been around since season 0 that doesn't have a purchase limit on a rather nice wand.

great, now I'm going to be hearing bender every time someone mentions maldris...

You didn't already?

Imperia Korva Alazario wrote:

sadly not one of the class features open for retraining via Ultimate Campaign, else I'd have done so months ago.

If you have Inner Sea Magic, you could retrain the curse into the Black Blooded Archetype.

And then back out of it! ;p

The first one is right.

The second one is wrong. You can play anything you haven't played before, even if you have run it before. This information is detailed in the Guide to Organized Play.

Also, FYI, "DM" is apparently trademarked or copyrighted or whatever by WotC, so for Pathfinder we must use "GM." Or so they tell me. (But they might be lying.)

I think that he should be allowed to rebuild the illegal levels for free and would have to retrain any other stuff

No doubt, no doubt. I don't think anyone's saying the character's just hosed--he can definitely rebuild the illegal levels. The question seems to be whether the others can also be rebuilt for free, which I don't think they are, because the clarification has existed for quite some time.

However ...

There is no requirement to have read every post ever made. Message board posts are binding if you have read them, but not otherwise.

That's a very good point.

At least I didn't get around to have them laminated yet - but I'm not happy to have to redo the whole lot.

Aren't mid-season faction letters a tradition? I mean, I think I recall them from S4, at least.