ProfessorC's page

I would like some definitions to be clearly laid out please, as some of this is still unclear to me. Which would be nice if the editing team stayed with the same layout across all the books and entries.

So in some cases it looks like I can gain access via the access entry in the uncommon item:

IE Lastwall Sentry Access you must be from the Eye of Dread region.

Easy enough take the 0 Fame Home Region boon, I meet the access requirements and all feats under it are not listed as uncommon so I am good.

So lets move on to the Knights of Lastwall where the problem starts creeping in:

Knights of Lastwall entry sidebar P88 Lost Omens Character Guide:
Membership Requirements any of the following: refugee of Lastwall, previous membership in the Knights of Ozem, sponsorship by a knight in good standing and approval from two others

Ok so if I am reading the secondary initiation correct buying that boon for 2 fame takes care of the above. IE I am now a member of the Knights of Lastwall.

So here is where it becomes unclear, mainly because there is not an access entry for the individual items. The books says:
Knights of Lastwall Class Feats
The following class feats are available to Knights of Lastwall. Those with the champion trait are champion class feats. Those with both the champion and fighter traits are both champion class feats and fighter class feats; when you take one of these feats, it loses the trait that doesn’t apply to your class.

So does this paragraph and the above boon mean I have access now? Unlike the Lastwall Sentry where it spells out what I need to do with an access entry, these feats do not other than the above paragraph.

Lets take this problem a step further.
Knight Vigilant Archetype:
Prerequisites trained in Religion, any good alignment, member of the Knights of Lastwall of knight rank

Ok first there is a paragraph similar to the Feat one above so assuming the answer is yes I have access because of my Secondary Initiation Boon we run into another problem, what is my rank?

Do I need to buy another Secondary Initiation boon to get the Rank of Knight? Is my first one good enough?

In conclusion it would be nice if the OPF staff took a couple of these situations and put out concrete examples with the references to the text of the rules so we can model off those.

--Chris

The only reason PF2 appears to be more balanced is because there is almost no content respectively. PF1 is perceived to be very balanced when it launch too, as most game systems are.

I am going to have to disagree with you here Bob, PF1 was never balanced, as its source 3.5 and 3.0 before that was never balanced. Look at the martial vs caster power curve, you pick it Basic D&D all the way up and through PF1. D&D 4e actually did one thing well was balance out all the classes against each other, there were only 4 but they were balanced against each other. I would go on to say later PF1 was actually more balanced than early PF1 as there were more options which were "effective" for more playstyles, but it did boil down to the flavor of the month category kind of like Warhammer 40K.

5e and PF2 use different approaches to fix the issues that D&D 3e had and subsequently PF1. All characters ACs, DCs, skills are going to stay in the general ballpark with the automated level bump. Everyone is getting approximately the same number of feats across the characters lifetime. As long as they don't deviate from that limited resource you should be able to maintain some sort of balance. Unfortunately that lack of deviation may have the problem that 4e had, was there really a difference between the leaders/strikers/defenders/controllers? If the system stays strict you may see the same problem in PF2.

But that is a stray off topic, on topic, looking at the core design of PF2 balance should be less of an issue as long as they stick with the current setup of the design structure they put in place and do not introduce new ways to add bonuses, unless there is a fundamental flaw that needs fixing.

--Chris

If I had to hazard a guess is that the point system and cert buying system is still not working on the site and that is why you do not see any sanctioning information on the Lost Omens World guide.

If I remember correctly the goal with PFS2 campaign was to make almost everything common available in campaign, and then most uncommon and few rare options available through the points store. Since most (if not all) archetypes are uncommon, until the site is fixed you'll probably not see sanctioning.

The problem is that this system still requires the code monkeys (or at least the content monkeys) to import the information into the system, which is also supposed to generate adventure records for said options. This is the same fundamental design flaw that caused problems with the Wizards Eberron campaign during the LG years, since everything was tracked online, adventures were being delayed because of web issues.

They have taken something that is relatively easy, doing an up/down check on a book and made it relatively hard. Granted the Lost Omens World Guide only needs 10 items created, what happens when the Lost Omens Character Guide comes out?

So what is the solution? Move it to the OPF community page where it can be managed by volunteers. Some of it can be simple, like everything that is open access, even now that could be done. A simple background and common items are allowed, Uncommon and Rare: TBD. Moving the points system, certificate generation, and other uncommon/rare content in will require quite a bit of more work, and would require back end features on the Paizo website I do not know if they are there.

--Chris

I personally think they should count for 1 Glyph per run. While yes I agree my time in front of the players is less than a full scenario, which is the only reason why it shouldn't be.

In terms of prep time, the time difference between a Quest, Scenario, AP is not that large. I do organize my games at a store so some of these may not apply to everyone.

1. Arrange for Space - Same for all three.
2. Prep the adventure, the first quest being repeatable actually has the same number of stat blocks as many of the other adventures. There are 3x the number needed for a single run. If they stay the same the quest prep time will be approximately as long as a scenario, page count is close. APs are approximately 3 scenarios if you add them up and take me about 3x the time to read/prep them.
3. Gather/Prepare equipment. As above maps/minis/props are about the same for quest and scenario. Again the APs are longer.
4. Event time - run time is of quest is approximately .25 of the run time of a scenario. Setup and teardown time is approximately the same. Saying it takes 30 minutes on either side you are looking at 2 hours for a quest vs 5 hours for a scenario.

With all that I anticipate it takes me about 10 hours of my time to run a scenario I have not run. With a quest I would only save about 3 of those hours, so only 7 hours. So in the long run I do not see the quests being that much shorter of a time commitment to run.

What concerns me about this is the Common/Uncommon/Rare setup. While I have no problem with the method for items...if I get access to a cool item that I want I just ditch the current one and add the new one.

What worries me is the powers/feats/spells, there is no mention of retraining, which means kind of like Starfinder your first and even possibly second character are going to be generic, with only common abilities, until you can earn points to get an uncommon one.

It seems like that could be fixed by a retraining system that allowed you to switch out powers/feats/spells, even if it is just one a level or something. PF2 may have that in it, but I do not remember it from the playtest.

It could also be handled by speed of point earning vs. cost of uncommon powers.

It also may only be a short term problem, as more source material comes out and more options become generally available, but it will be one at the beginning of the campaign, unless they pretty much made everything there common.

I think the biggest gap is prepared casters. Starfinder has all these cool spells that get very little use because basically everyone is a Sorcerer, so you have a small subsection of commonly used spells.

I can understand the design decision to do those first since prepared casters are harder to learn and use, but now is the time. Since final release will probably be Summer so approximately 2 years in is a good number for more advanced class options.

I would like to petition the powers that be to add the repeatable tag to Skitter Shot. I could point out that it is the only 1-2 that is not repeatable, promotes additional play, good for new players...bla bla bla.

No I want it repeatable because it is a blast to run and play. I have played and run it multiple times and had a blast each time.

So if there any helpful Skittermanders at the Paizo office. The rules PDF is missing the repeatable tag and says something about it only being allowed to be played once. I believe this is a mistake and I need help fixing it.

--Chris

I am perfectly fine with not seeing worshippers of Asmodeus included in society play, and for Pharasma in 6-10 you can actually get permission to borrow the object from the priest in charge of the graveyard - which has a 1 in 4 chance of worshipping Pharasma.

Not that this is a non-issue, but I am currently not too worried to be honest.

The issue is not that it can be worked around. In an home game I 100% agree that anathemas as written can work fine. As the players and GM should be able to work out weather or not the character will one fit into the campaign and two offer interesting role playing opportunities.

We are not discussing a home game we are discussing organized play. The players and GM do not have the luxury of making that decision. So it is left to scenario authors to write the adventure in such a way that ALL legal character types can play the adventure.

Your suggestion above for Pharasma is great if the scenario author wrote it in. It is terrible for OP if it is left up to the GM to adjudicate. In that case you will get a wildly subjective answer which could be ruled very differently at every table.

The Pharasma example is the one that is relatively clear. What about ones that aren't? With no guidance from the powers that be, it will be even worse as the swing from one table to the next can be even greater.

So in my opinion Paizo needs to do one of the following for OP:

1. Eliminate anathema for OP. I am not necessarily advocating this action, but it has to be presented as an option.

2. Provide clear rules when anathema each applies in an OP setting in a setting like a players guide. In addition, rules stating that when a PC is about to perform an action that will trigger it the GM should give a warning.

3. Perform some sort of watering down of anathema where it works like the other conditions and does not come into full effect until you get to anathema 3 or 4 or something.

4. Have the scenario authors point out when anathema applies.

5. Some hybrid of 2 and 4.

I do not think that doing nothing is an option as it will cause disagreements and wildly different table experiences as GM adjudicate it differently, which will cause complaints coming up stream through the venture officer core.

--Chris

ProfessorC wrote:

Removed quote of my example

The solution here is the you lick it its yours rule. First one to lick it owns it and is responsible for it.

Once its been licked by the cleric of gorum its not an enemy of the dwarves any more and the dwarf isn't obligated to kill him.

Once the dwarf has licked it the gorumite IS accepting its surrender but he's not responsible for what the dwarf does.

This is exactly my point about the problem with anathema in an OP setting. The above ruling requires a subjective ruling by the GM that does not trigger the anathema of one or the other cleric.

So if you leave it in as is one of two things happen:
1. The scenario author is going to have to spell out what anathemas are going to be triggered, and a bunch of errata will need to be released every time a new set of anathemas are released.
2. You leave the GMs with the ability to rip the power away from certain classes when upon their opinion an anathema is triggered. Of which could be appealed at events where there is officers above said GM at the event. Resulting in another subjective call about the situation.

In case 1 you are putting a lot of work on the authors and editors to come up with every situation and continued support of scenarios after they are published.
In case 2 you are assuming the GM has a complete working knowledge of every anathema available. Second you could likely remove the primary power of the character for the rest of the scenario. How many scenarios in OP allow a 8 hour rest, which is the minimum time to recover from an anathema? How do you maintain a consistency of ruling or do you accept wildly different rulings from game to game? Are you simply not going to write certain scenarios (no going to a tomb and getting something, Pharasma anathema for example)?

--Chris

The problem with organized play has always been when creating adventures you must assume all legal characters are at the table at the same time. A well written adventure will take into account this fact, and handle abnormalities.

As an author of Living Greyhawk adventures in the past, I can tell you from experience this is not an easy feat. I can also definitively say that all my adventures do not qualify as well written by my statement above.

Right now the anathema system for the Paladin, Barbarian, Cleric, & Druid is most likely the cause of an adventure abnormality. At least those that the writer can account for. While I do not think the system necessarily needs to be gotten rid of for PFS a definitive set of rules need to be established to handle such, and I believe it has to be less severe than the rules established in the core rule book. Which in general is an anathema for the PFS folks. :)

Here is what I would suggest:
Cleric, & Druid - Performs an act of anathema, lose 1 casting of top level spell.
Paladin - Lose 1 spell point.
Barbarian - Lose ability to rage and gain fatigued condition until next 10 minute rest. (This may need refinement)

You could also introduce an anathema penalty like any other condition make it a -1 to all d20 roles or something for each level and level X anathema 3 or 4 would be my suggestion would put on the full anathema penalty. With the requirements of the Atone ritual to get this cleared, 10 x level gold and 1 day cast time.

This way you don't need to have writers writing themselves around in circles to try to account for all the possible anathemas out there, much less future ones that could appear later.

--Chris

The problem with Anathema in PFS is weather or not it is triggered is a subjective call and not an objective one. There is nothing wrong with subjective calls in role playing games, as it usually spawns roleplaying opportunities. The problem is in an organized play environment, where you are going to see a huge mix of characters whom may or may not have played together. In addition GM license is minimal in an OP environment, again making Anathemas particularly punishing. Could having a Pharasman along cause a failure of an adventure? How would the Pharasman player know to play another character, or not play the adventure? Do we want to design adventures where certain anathemas are not a good fit for.

In addition there could be situations where anathemas could be mutually exclusive:

Enemy of the people surrenders:
Cleric of Torag - Must not show mercy to enemy of the people, continues to slay said enemy.

Cleric of Gorum - Must accept surrender.

In all likelihood one of these clerics are losing their power, or a fight breaks out that cannot happen in organized play.

Don't get me wrong, I like a disadvantage system (which anathemas are) as it allows for role playing opportunities. The problem is when it comes down to subjective calls on a GMs part it will always be a problem in an organized play setting.

--Chris

I think this is currently less of a problem in the Playtest since level 1 is a bit more interesting (though I personally would want it to be even more so, skill feats and general feats - maybe even give everyone an extra class feat to multiclass so their character can play with the class combination from level 1....).

Make level 1 more fun seems to be the best option.

I agree with the make level 1 more fun option, but I disagree with the make level 1 more complex option. Level 1 is the gateway for new players and as such characters must be simple enough that you aren't going to overwhelm the new player in the process.

I think as long as you can make level 1 feel heroic it will be more fun. I do not know what the answer here is but in general the system has to be fast, simple, and the PCs have to be able to do cool things. It needs to be able to hook new players and make them excited for more.

Level 1 will eventually become a slog for veteran players, because in a world where almost all PCs start at level 1 you will spend most of your time there. No matter how exciting you make it, it will get to the been there done that point.

--Chris

First off, I do not think the problem is as bad in PF2 as it is in PF1. Level 1 characters are decently hardy and level 2 characters do not have that much more HP (50% - 75% more) a +1 addition to basically everything. In addition all casters can get a useful cantrip usable an unlimited number of times.

What changes is if an average would hit on an 11 at first level it would be a 10 at second or 50% chance to a 55%. You have another 1st level spell slot if you are a caster and another 1st level cast per day. Also you have a class feat allowing you to do a trick of your class.

So I think it has gone from level 2 being completely blowing away a level 1 to being simply more powerful. I would need to playtest some games with a mixed party of level 1 and level 2s to be sure, but on the surface it does not look that bad.

If turns out to be worse than I think then there is a relatively simple solution to the issue, stealing an idea from Living Greyhawk, make intro scenarios. Level 1 only scenarios. In addition I would either make them short 1-2 hour play time or 3 xp if a full slot. Either allow the scenarios to fill the roll that quests play now, or get a 1 and done setup to level 2.

--Chris

I am for expanded or full replay and here is why:

I play OP to socialize with my friends for a few hours (I count like minded individuals as friends in this context). It is an easy method to find those individuals like a dating service for other gamers. For the most part I do not care what we play and if someone or everyone has already played it Ok that just changes the interaction a bit. So anything that makes it easier to make that happen is good in my book. I am fully aware, that what I get out of OP is not what others get out of OP and so what works for me does not work for others.

Now on to what I think Paizo should do.
I think Paizo should set up replay in such a way that PFS1 stays strong for another 2-3 years. I do not know what that is because I would have to see play numbers and patters to begin to make an educated guess. Ideally after the 2-3 year marker play drops off heavily. Why 2-3 years you ask? A mature campaign offers something different than a new one. For people who want lots of diversity and options I think it will take 2-3 years to get that source material out there for it. You are giving people time to move and allow PF2 to evolve into more things than what just the core will offer. PFS2 will also have some maturing storylines for those that are into that at the 2-3 year mark.

I think Wizards made a mistake making a hard cut for Living Greyhawk especially, but Living Forgotten Realms too. I think a slow transition versus an all or nothing move will work out better for Paizo.

So what I do is when I schedule a 3-6 I also schedule a 1-4 along side of it as a rerun. When I moved to 2 game days in a month in January I reran the quest and The Commencement. This weekend I am actually rerunning a 3-6 scenario because of demand. So people are slowly starting to get to the level they want to see them.

With the repeatable scenarios 1-12 and 1-16 coming soon you should be able to get more variety in scenarios.

I think A Night in Nightarch was too soon for a 3-6. If that one was a 1-4 I think we would be just right. Since you needed to play every scenario up to that point to qualify it was a bit of a scramble to get players when it first came out.