I don't always read the blogs so that's how I missed it, but essentially the Organized Play Coordinator said in response to a question from the Finnish Venture-Lieutenant that he doesn't see why a same adventure couldn't be replayed multiple times.
Unless this changed since then (possible), I'm luckily on the safer side staying. In this case, I burn a replay, that's to be expected
Getting reported twice for obvious errors rather than deliberate attempts at screwing up the party clearly had a chilling effect on my willingness to GM, for quite a bit of time.
Now that I know that there's some level of leeway allowed with that rewording (without abusing it, it's obv to be said), I might be able to return to GM something higher than level 11 (it's mostly tier 12-18 who are the sticking point in PFS1 in my case), and I might finally do the jump towards GMing PFS2 and SFS (1 or 2)
Male Human Male Human - Warpriest 3 - AC 25/T 11/F 25 - HP 27 - Fort : +5, Ref +1, Will : +7 - Perception +5 - Init +0
Daniel gets a little singed by the hit of the Water elemental, but he was expecting way worse, so he doesn't feel that bad I note the damage I got, as I quoted earlier, you did hit, I just forgot to temporarily edit it on my profile. But now the AC is back to 25
But he's hellbent on finish the water elemental as soon as possible. The less he suffers, the better. If he could find a way to permanently keep the Hit button On instead of half malfunctioning, he would smile a lot more. But after a second, he tries to think about the glass half full, regardless of the strength of the hit.
So if we assume they always have enviromental seals activated whats the point of having hazards like this. Unless they say they have activated them i assume there off noone wants to walk around breathing recycled farts 100% of the time
To constantly have enviromental seals up when your on a planet with a breathable atmosphere and no visible threat is metagaming, i mean do any of you walk around in hazmat suits all the time.
I would take it the opposite way : those not doing so are exposing themselves to a needless risk.
For me the transition between PFS1 and PFS2 was about better ingame lore transparency. While why keeping this secret makes sense it goes counter to teamworking.
I don't hold too much illusions about the effectiveness of KAC/EAC against bosses, but it's still useful if they take penalties for any reason, but lowering the numbers of hits coming from the lesser mobs is the most important there. As long I can survive long enough to outlast the enemies, that's what matters (it helps me to be able to rely on a big stamina pool)
Given how the whole schtick is panning out, it's impossible to not be judgemental either way.
Paizo making errors during the process but which often are necessary evil (but sometimes could be avoidable), and on the other hand players need to accept they can't control everything. No one is entirely right or wrong, but on both sides, the whole problem could be handled better.
Everybody speaks in a different way and that's what causes problems. Asking people to be adaptive shouldn't be a F-word. The only real limit is whether any word spoken infringes the PFS guidelines. The fundamental discrepancy between that and the higher overall sensitivity of people is part of why tempers flare (too) fast.
This is the kind of response where it's clear the topic reached a dead end. While disagreeing, you don't get to be dismissive no matter how improbable you think it is. Because it does happen and I never rejected the opposite point of view off the bat.
One ruins it when they forget how to argue and focus only on the why when it's a mix of both. Arguing 101.
At the very least, it's stretching the goodwill on many corners and can deepen some divides between those who want this extra freedom and the more traditionalist players. Sounds like TwilightKnight thinks his argument is something he wishes everybody should agree with, when in effect this is not entirely true.
Ironically, for some of us who grew up reading *really* early sci-fi, Numeria and Alkenstar are both callbacks to familiar sci fi tropes from our childhood.
In fact, one of the earliest D&D rule books I owned had a section on incorporating the wild west (via the rules published in boot hill) and sci-fi (via the rules published in Gammaworld) into your D&D games.
For RP purposes it's not a problem. Many might do the same thing so can't blame them, one gets inspirations from where possible.
The yellow flag starts when some players use these tropes are used as in-session arguments over rules or other characters in an often not-so-polite way. Now this is not completely avoidable but that's why I prefer to strictly separate IRL from the game at the best possible.
Some people suggest fudging rolls, and I would do the same to ensure everyone has a tense but fun game. The problem is that some GMs are legit out for blood and want to make the game as difficult as possible. They will play up tactics and make enemies act in ways they probably shouldn't but aren't necessarily restricted by the given tactics.
I need a balance between social sequences and combat. If a session or a series is too much of either pacifist-centric or combat-only, I won't be satisfied enough (although coming from a hack'n'slash background it's less difficult for the latter)
I have seen enough players trying to force a pacifist solution that it went quickly sour. There's identifying when someone can be peaceful and when it is impossible. Trying to do so despite the latter can be considered being a jerk (cf trying to call truce after a fight started is near impossible unless circumstances). Adapting the approach is needed but that's what many on either side of the spectrum fail to grasp. Suffering a couple sessions from that inside PFS definitely doesn't help me think I can accomodate them better.
Regardless of the circumstances, the party should take care of whether it's low or high tier. PFS2 seems to punish more harshly playing up than PFS1, and it's not a bad thing. If a specific player is unwilling to compromise to keep that risk low, questions have to be asked.
Response to pauljathorne pointing about unfairness :
a) Partially disagree. I do think it's unfair but in PFS2 it's also accepting that writers may have very different expectations than the players. That said, it was so obvious it leaves a sour taste.
b) Partially disagree. If the general trend is to make unlikely to have all the treasure bundles, it should then be seen as optional, not part of the main reward. But it's something if it's the case which should be explicited in the Guide and not just implied.
c) Agree. That said, given PFS doesn't allow for much party prep beforehand, the number of useable skills should be more lax.
d) Disagree. It's not on the GMs to handwave it, but rather on the players to explicitly voice. It takes only a few seconds to detail that it's absurd ?
e) Agree. Finding a way to work around something but not bypassing should be rewarded, not punished, if it's inverted, it's definitely wrong.
I'll be rehashing the argument about DnD 5 Adventurers' League to point out how damaging unlimited, or even broadly (if not unlimited) replayability can be harmful.
- The sense of déjà vu growing over time
- The progressively unwitting higher risk of metagaming even from people who won't do so otherwise
- Many of the scenarios are currently written to be played two times at most. Unlimited replayability as a golden standard would require altering the future publications, and complexify the authors' task. It isn't impossible, but given some plot backgrounds, it's not always desirable.
It's a debate who should be buried six feet under. PFS is its own product and worked as such for several years now. I'm among those who would leave if that happened.
You are entitled to your own inferences, too, but you don't get to put them in other people's mouths.
If you don't like what I say, ignore it. It's your choice. However, I will say what I want to say.
Goes both ways, using a inflammatory tone does disservice to the argument rather than fuels it. How to write/speak is as important if not more than the argument self.
So would, iron will, dodge, and toughness, not be worth taking (they were brought up earlier and acknowledged to be good ideas)? I can take unstoppable to replace hardy to get toughness. Dodge is only 1 ac. My character that died did have a ring of reflection, so if my party gives that to me that could replace dodge. Is Iron Will better to take later?
I'd still take Toughness because I'd never lack of HP, though I agree the feat isn't strictly a no-brainer. If your GM allows crafting, I'd say go for Master Armorer, you'll be able to craft armours and shields, to spare the spellcasters' load about crafting.
Iron Will is kinda like Dodge or Shield Focus, things to pick if the character still has feats to spend, as they bring weaker benefits than things like Armor Specialization or Armed Bravery. But if you can't wait, then go for it.
If I had to think slightly more out of the box, I would go for Steel Headbutt. If you go the shield route, that combines better because either the headbutt and the shields are part of the close group (someone correct me if I'm wrong), good on weapon training. That said it's a secondary weapon so hit/damage won't be that neat. Knockout Training if you want to do nonlethal with no penalties (but with extra damage)
Trying to completely control what the others write, as long it isn't falling out of FORUM guidelines, not YOUR guidelines, goes nowhere. As long it isn't completely offtopic AND is relevant, Scott Wilhelm is within rights to post, no matter what you think.
Your complaints could have made sense otherwise, if you weren't sabotating these by an extremely poor tone. How is as important as why if not more, and this is an example 101. What Cavall says otherwise.
The common point of the four good-aligned elemental lords : they were squabbling with each other about very small problems. This was already a bad point. From Planes of Power :
Spoiler:
As the benevolent four looked on, life evolved and began shaping the elements for malevolent uses. Disgusted, the four despaired and cast blame upon one another. Lysianassa blamed Atreia for enabling arson, Ranginori blamed Sairazul for metal shaped into weapons, and so it went. Meanwhile, Kelizandri, the Brackish Emperor, gathered his three tyrannical cousins. Together they struck at their squabbling rivals one by one, sealing each within nearly indestructible faceted prisons and casting these into the feuding planes they had helped create. Ever since, the four surviving elemental lords have ruled mercilessly on their respective planes. At least,that is how the stories go, and speaking too fondly of the deposed elemental lords can
invite retribution.
They forgot why they decided to band together in the first place, and ended up playing the blame game when good or bad can happen at equal levels, outside of their control. They should have watched over it instead. So it could be argued that they brought their current predicament upon themselves, and that ironically the evil-aligned ones were more mature. The Society trying to free Ranginori plausibly might not make Abadar that happy because of risking doing worse than keeping him imprisoned.
Some of the other details are littered amongst some of the year 8 scenarios, but I won't detail these for possible spoiler purposes (this is different from just taking an extract from a book).
Some of the recent posts in other topics make me think that while I don't agree with Rysky's point of view about PFS, I can easily understand where it comes from ... can't say I blame at all.
But a lot of us will defend those doing the work because we understand what they are working so we can play a game.
I respect your wanting to defend the organized play staff. They are indeed human beings who deserve empathy, as well as thanks for their work to support our hobby.
At the same time, Paizo is a company that gladly accepts our money. Without making ad hominem attacks on any employee, I think it's fair and even a kindness to share concerns about processes. Those of us who raise concerns do so because we want the Society and Paizo to thrive. We're raising flags about things that are driving people away from Society play and Pathfinder.
If I'm angry at anyone, it isn't the Paizo team — it's the many community members here who take any criticism as an attack on staff. And those on this thread who present yourselves as the in-group, and me and others who share feedback as outsiders.
I've been a part of PFS since Season 2, and began playing 1E while it was still in beta. I'm no outsider to this community, even though I haven't been to PaizoCon (loyal to Kublacon here in the Bay Area) or GenCon (can't afford it) and haven't historically participated much here on the messageboards.
You might think you're doing the team a favor jumping zealously to defend them and dismiss feedback, but you're actually potentially alienating loyal Paizo customers who very much want their business to thrive.
Gary Bush wrote:
...this process has been refined for over 10 years and it does work.
The thing is, there are a number of processes that *aren't* working well.
There is the slow sanctioning process, which came about as an over-correction against a minority of players who abused character options, and now leads to months-long delays for making content legal. The current review system was super well-intended, and I commend folks who are trying to make it work quickly. It's not an attack on anyone to say, "Let's review this to correct the over-correction."...
Being vitriolic only slows the process, rather than speeds things up, thus defeating the intent on wanting things change. I won't speak further, since there's a lack of acknowledgement that how you express yourself is wrong.
Speaking as a computer enthusiast, they clearly can do things better. Does it serve purpose trying to steer them as average joes ? That's the problem, it's a no.
Trying to completely control the course chart of Paizo isn't what I'd call acceptable, nor healthy. Circumstances outside Paizo's control, either day-to-day or unforeseen, make the wish moot.
There's also not getting too emotionally invested, and looking at the greater picture.
Could you tell me why putting information into a messageboard or blog post adds any significant time to the process and their workload? What are the steps of the process you've previously experienced?
I ask this with an awareness that they would still need to track information for an eventual publication into a more permanent repository (using, perhaps, a Google or Word doc). And perhaps have send quick tweets / Facebook posts / Slack posts. Are there other steps that I'm not understanding — that is, once the information has been vetted?
Wish for more transparency/quicker posts have caused more harm than good in the past, given how some topics went overdrive at times. As they're doing now, it's the "least bad" solution.
Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:
Paizo's been publishing nice fiction pieces on the blog, but I'm more interested in seeing stuff that helps me actually use materials I've already purchased...
Not everyone has the same priorities, there's respecting that. Fiction pieces do serve their purpose.
The first post alone was enough to discredit the argument as a whole, Azymondias can't seem to accept the approach is wrong there. The volume and the tone of the posts alone is proof of that.
[I’ve been playing this game for 7 years and never heard of this item.
It’s not a reasonable expectation that every level 7 party will always carry this random niche item when there are literally thousands of items in the game. Plenty of which players will never have even seen the entry for.
I don't think this is unreasonable myself. Even if not this item, there should be a way to be able to deal with, at that level, especially when the said swarms start to be super ugly (oh, ticks or vescavors). Everybody being able to throw the random alchemist's fire wouldn't be bad either. Level 7 is very different from level 1 in that aspect.
I'd recommend just playing your character how you like and don't worry about optimization. It's stressed too much on this board and unless you're playing with some mad power gamers, it won't be a problem.
If the GM warns you against doing something that weakens the character too much, it will be a problem.
Forgot to add, it is common sense, and not even power gaming. And wouldn't be surprised to see otherwise reasonable players showing and voicing unhappiness when being hindered by a bad apple. Teamwork has limits, and others aren't forced to cover for the weakness of one past a point.
I'd recommend just playing your character how you like and don't worry about optimization. It's stressed too much on this board and unless you're playing with some mad power gamers, it won't be a problem. If you are stuck with some mad munchkins then you have other problems to worry about and should just play what you like in turn.
Keeping on opposing RP and mechanics is on Stormwind Fallacy or godwin level. Vocabulary is on a rude level either. Merely two sides of the same (I should use capital letters) coin.
Not a lot of reviewers can claim being completely neutral/unbiased/analyze the circumstances of the game on their reviews. That pretty much sums up what I think about the topic.
If having the scenarios on unlimited replays would result in a large loss of players what about a limited replay time? For instance one weekend in the month make everything repeatable for different characters? Or the month a scenario is released make it re-playable for a limited time with different characters? Either way you would expand options for players to explore and enjoy different roles. The first way would help out small groups with new and veteran players. The second would spice things up for veterans who want to try new combinations. These are just the first few ideas upon reading this, because I personally prefer being able to replay and using different classes a lot.
The one-time replay giveaway and the GM stars are sufficient for that purpose. The damage dealt to early AL by unlimited replay was telling, and even opening a permanent limited amount would be harmful for PFS.
If campaign leadership were truly embracing of their role as a marketing tool, they would want to release the AR updates as close to street date as possible, if the delay is 6 months, then other things are higher priority to them.
If we want “voting with your wallet” to create culture change here, and I certainly do,...
I would warn against unreasonable expectations. Allowing or banning things isn't a decision to be taken lightly. Rushing could way ten times worse and hurtful than intended. I also expect them on not commenting why, because it only invites endless debates.
PFS isn't their main product, so higher priorities ain't surprising. Unless 50 percent +1 people do the same walkaway as you, them keeping their own agenda is their safer bet. A company can't have the same mindset as the player, and vice-versa. Things are bound to make people unhappy during the process.
Not dismissing the concern because it's something that concerned me too at times, but it's clearly the bad way to do it.
Either as a GM or as a player, there's the " don't be a jerk " not-so-informal rule about any contentious situation. One may be right that badly said, it's still a bad argument.
When I played it three days ago at Geneva GardenCon with the character Degel - 117194-11 - Grand Lodge faction :
Spoiler:
Initially in part 1, we were incensed by Torch's final affronts and we were three characters willing to kill him (one of us was a Shadow Lodge member). Vahlo didn't need to convince us much about it, despite one of the players being a fan of Torch.
As the plot grows on, learning why Elysyia helped Torch started to give me a doubt. So sprinting back to Skyreach after wrecking Mediogalti earlier, we managed to stabilize the interior of the lodge good enough. Then the case of Vahlo. Having followed the orders of a graveknight was sickening. After finishing him, we had a tense but decent speech with Torch. After he explained everything, we ultimately decided to let him go, but with a caveat : as a penance for all his faults, he will have to retire on vacation in the location of the Ruins of Azlant settings. Some Pathfinder colleagues need help in the colony, especially he will have the opportunity to open a bath-house.
The decision about the Ten : Three of us decided to take the opportunity to become one of them. One didn't and stayed as an advisor because of not being sure of the transparency in the future.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with Eliza Petulengro staying in 2E as an Unmasked, better transparency (but also maybe risk) is why Eando Kline came back, no ?
The damage bonuses will very often be more important than the damage dices, the only exception I know (if others could add more examples) are the Vital Strike-centered concepts.
As for your question, the -2 penalty would apply because even if the maul axe would then be considered a "one-handed weapon", it will still be regarded as inappropriately-sized. And on average the extra damage won't compensate for the lower attack rolls.
Even the faintest emanation from the Shadow Lodge/Grandmaster Torch is already a red flag to me. I hope that Fola Barun doesn't go the " I absolutely do not care about the consequences " route.
Still opposing Roleplayers and minmaxers is perpetuating the stormwind fallacy. I wonder when it will stop, if ever.
Point-buy allows for everyone to start equal, and then the players decide whereas rolling makes the players being shoehorned in things not always convenient. It's not always making service to the RP, on the contrary. Being "inventive" for the sake of being "inventive" ? Also min-maxing exists since systems have been published, it's not really new.
