RealAlchemy's page

I was invited to tea in Tian Xia, but regretfully stated tea would go right through me.

5E? Really?

As others have expressed, I find the tighter level banding in PFS scenarios to be a poor idea. I believe it is likely to make it harder for PFS tables to fire in local game shops.

Representation win! This demon lord has two dads.

For all we know, demons don't even have genders as we understand the term.

An ancient vault, you say? As a dwarf miner myself, I can dig it!

I accidentally read that as the Year of Immoral Influence and thought things were about to get real.

Arshea and Calistrea approve!

Summoners with fey eidolons get fey gift spells from the illusion and enchantment schools. Since I presume a new summoner would use the spells from Player Core, how does this mesh with spells no longer having schools?

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

I am vaguely curious whether the new name is because "half-orc" was feared to be an infringement on WOTC or because the devs felt they just deserved their own name.

I suggested horcs and was shot down u_u

Isn't horc what happens when a catfolk coughs up a hairball?

I am concerned about Champions. As currently written, all Champion causes are dependent on alignment, which will disappear when the new book becomes live. Since Champions are not in the first remaster book as I understand it, no Champion is legal until the second remaster book is published since nothing is written to replace the alignment rules of the class. Is anything planned to address this? I do not want to wait until the next book is published to be able to play two of my favorite PFS characters.

As a gnome cloistered cleric, I am size small and fairly light, but only had an 8 strength as that was a low priority for the character. The party needed to cross a river in a cold area as part of a certain scenario involving a race, but I wasn't going to pass any athletics checks. My solution was to turn to the pregen Amiri.
Throw me!

Favorite PFS gaming moment was admittedly from well over a year ago.

A lich end boss started reciting his monologue. I don't remember what all he was saying, but it was going on way too long.
Playing a Divine Hunter paladin of Sarenrae, I exchanged a look with an archer inquisitor of Pharasma, and I swear we achieved telepathy in that moment.

I've had enough of his crap.

I have too.

Want to send him to the Boneyard?

Sounds good to me!

"I am smiting and attacking with rapid shot."

"I am declaring bane and doing the same thing."

"But my speech isn't ..."

"It's been more than a round of talking, right?"

All my characters are Good aligned, and some of them are Lawful or Chaotic. If that means I take extra damage in some fights, oh well. TN seems a rather flat choice to me, so I'll accept the consequences.

I only made one TN. To be fair, for a gnome cleric of Nethys it seemed thematically appropriate. He's really enthusiastic about all the casters he meets. Even the necromancers and demon summoners.

Dhamphir agents sound like a great reason to bring my gnome cloistered cleric of Nethys. Because some clerics go both ways :)

Ragathiel would be cheering you on.
Shelyn or Arshea, not so much.
Depends on who you follow.

I'd be interested in being able to in the future spend X amount of ACP to get a replay.

Cleric of Nethys! Take both fonts and directed channel and blast the enemy with a harming cone while healing your dhamphir!

RealAlchemy wrote:

I admit I'm a bit late to the party, but one way to avoid combining encounters to the point of an auto-tpk is to not necessarily send everybody from the next room at the PCs at once. Something along the lines of Grog! Go see what those idiots up front are brawling about! Don't make me get up and put down my mead! And then send over only one guy. Which is also a hint to the PCs that somebody noticed them.

The issue I run into with this sort of tactic is that you can end up feeding a later, generally more difficult, encounter to your party piecemeal and everything ends up easier.

Nobody but the GM knows how many bad guys were there to start with. As you get a feel for what challenges the party, you can set numbers as appropriate.

I admit I'm a bit late to the party, but one way to avoid combining encounters to the point of an auto-tpk is to not necessarily send everybody from the next room at the PCs at once. Something along the lines of Grog! Go see what those idiots up front are brawling about! Don't make me get up and put down my mead! And then send over only one guy. Which is also a hint to the PCs that somebody noticed them.

When I started organized play, my understanding was that the hard copy trumped everything. I expect that all I should need to play in a game is my character, my books, and my stack of chronicle sheets to prove that I have X character, and the character is X level with X amount of experience.

Gary Bush wrote:

Still think a reasonable expectation is 24 hours.

I respectfully disagree.

If I need to have that chronicle for the next slot of a game, at a con I can’t wait 24 hours. It’s not fair to me to not have the boons for the scenario I just played, nor is it fair for the next GM to be forced to wait for 24 hours while I get the chronicle, multiply that by 6 for each player at the table and you have a giant cluster. Do that for every slot of a con... No there needs to be more efficiency.

Or is it no longer reasonable to assume my players have all of the up to date information about their characters?

As a person I do not like to use an incomplete product, characters missing chronicles feels much like that.

With that as a potential failing, are you suggesting that I don’t play the same character throughout the con, because those responsible for getting the information to me can’t do so before I would play that character again?

From the con this weekend I know for a fact someone was in a game that ended at midnight, and the GM did not get them their chronicle until well after 9:00 pm the following day.

That screwed up the certs for those players on the tables they played the following day, and explaining that takes away from table time, which penalizes the other players at the table. Also the GM in question played in one of those tables the next day... I can assure you THIER chronicles were up to date from that midnight game.

I know it is not easy for some, maybe even most, GMs to generate the chronicles. Please understand from the player perspective it does not appear as a struggle. It appears as lazy... couple that when the GMs comment (as most of my GMs did from this con) that they had the table made for them by someone else ... I become less proud of my Lodge.

Maybe as a compromise give out the values so we know. Most of the sign in sheets are in Excel/Google Docs anyway, just make them do some math, so the appropriate information can be given.

Do you want to have less GMs? Because calling our volunteers lazy gets you less GMs.

The timeworn items come out for special circumstances with my PFS1 characters. Such as when some critter dropped a silence spell, so I responded, "If that's how you want it," and my magus dropped his sword and drew a chainsaw+1, and started spending arcana points to beef up the chainsaw.

I'll reiterate that this change is completely out of left field and feels utterly unnecessary. It should be removed from the guide unless there's some incredibly strong evidence provided that having a familiar and an AC actually impacts game play. It Invalides a huge number of completely legitimate builds, many of which can be accomplished with core feats only.

Not sure if you can argue it's completely out of left field, as the same rule was present in PFS1. You can argue if it is a good idea, but I don't think it's fair to call it unprecented or unexpected.

I am one of those players who always wants to try to do something that is not the stereotyped version of a class. So I start by thinking of what I want to do, and then try to fit together classes, feats, and archetypes to make it work.

As an example in PF1, I wanted a dwarf ranger, but not something like Harsk. I instead wanted to lean into the dwarfishness, so I made an underground ranger with the deep walker and guide archetypes, and decided this was the guy the Society sent on missions when they needed to keep a team safe on cave and dungeon missions.With that in mind, I took the tunnel fighter trait and the weapon and shield fighting style to make a very tanky ranger. Since dexterity was part of being a tanky ranger, I started taking two weapon fighting feats, but I didn't want my shield to be my off-hand weapon, so I make the character a very traditional dwarf, fighting with a traditional dwarven waraxe and a traditional dwarven battle helmet.
That was the basic process which went into building Thoradin the ranger.

Knowing which deity a cleric or champion follows helps with characterization. A true neutral cleric of Nethys will have a different outlook than a true neutral cleric of Pharasma. Likewise a NG champion of Arshea is likely to have a different emphasis than a NG champion of Sarenrae.

The followers of Shelyn, Calistria, and Arshea would tell you everyone needs some love.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Like a pathfinder ISN"T going to open up three brand new carcasses before breakfast anyway...

To be fair, Pathfinders often try VERY hard to have no carcasses until AFTER breakfast (assuming breakfast is part of your normal daily preparation time).

But what about second breakfast? There might be halflings in the party.

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.

There are ways to stop the fight without killing somebody, but you are correct that just standing there saying "Please stop" is not going to be useful to the party. I like the "Put the enemy into time-out" options for that sort of thing. (Daze monster, hold person, hold monster, create pit, etc)

gnoams wrote:

I just call people by their names. Problem solved.

I would add: If character has long name and/or challenging pronunciation; do something that allows others to succeed at using the name.

Use a phonetic spelling on the name card. Or use your character's full name during introductions, but then have them use a streetname (similar to shadowrun) during the game. Or use a nickname during the game.

I've done the nickname thing in Pathfinder. "I am Megil en Anoran, but I understand that the Elvish is difficult for some. I grew up in Varisia, so you can call me Miguel if you wish."

Bid for Alabastrine ends non-violently (and could potentially be done by a pacifist party).

There’s a fair number of PFS1 scenarios that - depending on your GM and the temperament of the other players - could potentially be finished without combat. More than once my Prophet of Kalistrade simply paid muggers/bandits/henchmen to go away (or to work for him instead). Even if the scenario doesn’t explicitly have rules for it a GM may allow something similar with some version of diplomacy/intimidate/bluff/oration, depending on the NPCs’ motivations.

I still have mental scars from how poorly that scenario was designed. But you are technically correct that it is nonviolent.

I know that part of this is related to the Achievement Point system not being fully up and running, but I feel like Starfinder Society has spoiled me on getting pretty easy access to playable races fairly easily. So having things like Tengu locked away feels very restrictive, in comparison. I was looking forward to reviving my Tengu Hellknight from 1E PFS, and it seems that I'll be waiting at least as long as one of my friends has been for the Lizardfolk.

On the other hand, all of Starfinder Society's decisions are ones I'm happy with. Someday, I hope to get a starship boon to add a ram to our ship.

I admit I personally would have *far* preferred for the Tengu to be the available race and the kobold to be the one behind ACP. YMMV.

It is almost certainly not the store owner's problem. You probably want your local Venture Captain.

I have to admit: I get a bit rankled when people call me a dude. I mean, while I was growing up in small town Washington it definitely seemed like a masculine label that I did not fit at all!

But, hey, some older folks were annoyed when I started using the word "queer" in a positive way. So I'll happily shake my cane once or twice from the front porch and deal with it. Y'all.

For Starfinder and the cantina effect, I suppose gentlebeings is a reasonable term for a group of characters of multiple genders.

"Hey you guys"...

This sounds like a case where we should just spread the more inclusive Southern "Y'all." It appears to cover all genders.

I like the table tents idea. Without some indication I cannot expect someone to know the gender or pronouns of Kazmarok the dwarf, Megil en Anaron the half-elf, Oraeus the Lashunta, etc.

I have noticed that groups with one high adventurer and bunch of low levels are incredibly dangerous. It does help if the higher level players purchase mentor boons, but I've gotten to the point of warning players when I see that the characters are that far apart in levels.

Hmm

Agreed. Xzerrion (my -2001) bought the Envoy's Alliance mentor boon immediately on hitting L4.

Speaking for myself, I fully intended to run 1-10 at a convention in April. Then Covid happened.

Sadly, the fleet feat only gives you fleet feet.

My understanding is that the decision was made for balancing reasons because a 7 player low level table could easily have the same number of challenge points as a 4 player high level table but the 7 player table ends up with a near TPK while the 4 player table faces a moderate challenge.
No matter where you set the table limit, there is a non-zero chance of a last minute player being turned away due to insufficient GMs. Setting the limit at 6 instead of 7 mostly means that occasional GMs will be encouraged to have a repeatable scenario with them (Lost on the Spirit Road for example) just in case they need to scratch together a last minute table.

Awwww.. FOXY!

CUddles

ow ow ow

casts

recuddles!

Experienced druids learn to cast fire resistance before cuddling the burning things :)

BNW is right about the table math, but there is another side to this.

The thing is... I think that a healthy GM ecosystem includes casual GMs. You want to have lots of people GMing small amounts so that your dedicated GMs do not burn out. Under the old system, I could get regulars to come out to a convention like Anime Detour and agree to GM 2-3 games a piece, which meant that I could GM 3-4 games at the convention and not burn out. In order to gear up for getting my guys to a convention, we would let them GM practice games at Dreamers for a month ahead of time. The promise of an easy race boon would get a whole bunch of players to try out GMing, and it often turned them into casual once-a-month GMs at Dreamers later on.

We need casual GMs. The ACP system is not exciting the casual GMs as much, and I do find that to be a problem.

Hmm

Events ended up cancelling the first convention I planned on GMing at, so I cannot currently speak to how many casual GMs will appear at in-person conventions. I'm still hoping the one in August I planned to attend still happens, and we will see there how PF2 tables do.

Watery Soup wrote:

Why is nobody asking why estimates of player volume were so far off that GMs sitting around is not an outlier?

Because

1) If you have a DM but don't need them you have 1 unhappy person. If you need a DM but don't have them you have 6 unhappy people.

2) A DM can become a player on 2 minutes notice with no problem. A player cannot a DM of a particular scenario on 2 minutes notice with any reliability.

3) Cons are chaotic events. You get your players +/- 1d4 that show up (-1d8 for AM slots)

you put that all together and the most optimum plan is to overstock with DMs and adapt your plan from there.

This. Very few of the local GMs in my area can pull off a random scenario on extremely short notice, and most of them have 5 stars. Personally, I'm doing well if I can pull a repeatable scenario out of my Pathfinder bag if I was not planning on running a scenario that day.

The alignment of the flip tiles is currently Chaotic Neutral. I'll see myself out.

My 'counter' to Dr. Cupi's counter:

I actually feel a bit dirty when I'm playing a Boon character and someone says/asks "Hey, that's pretty neato, how do *I* get to play one?"

...and it took some GM work and negotiation via the forums to trade for the character I was playing.

Trying to explain that to a new player is... problematic.

I admit I would love to play a barathu sometime just because the floating amuses me, but I don't think I have anything good to trade for one right now.

<snip>

With that said Datch has become a favorite npc for me. I hope she is around for a long long time.

As a Borai after somebody doubletaps her head.

We're all safe as long as Urgothoa doesn't branch out into computer viruses...

"Urgathoa, Urgothoa, Urgothoa, I'm ... hooked on a feeling ..."

As a GM I would have a really hard time arguing that a player could not roll Pathfinder Lore when a scenario called for Pathfinder Society Lore or vice versa.

Since I do not as of yet own any of these, the PDFs make it seem like they are all labeled/numbered?

If so, you could note down which tile goes where in the layout, which should speed things up a little.

The worst time I had was with the map packs for 8-99... the tiles were laced out in different directions there were gaps (which is why there was the need for a flip mat below them).

So, my suggestion to authors and developers... don’t get tricksy with these... lay them out in simple patterns, so that GMs can easily replicate your layouts. We are easing reusable assets to make our lives easier... if it gets too hard to lay them out, we will be better off just hand drawing on blank flip mats, and thus we’d lose the wonderful visual impact we get with the map packs and dungeon tiles.

Also, when developing, please do not use multiple packs of dungeon tiles... at $30 per pack, they get really expensive to use fast!

Personally, I am more likely to buy one if it is used... if a scenario costs me an additional $90 to run, I will find alternatives for the maps.

This. I drew the forest maps for 1-06 by hand because after looking over the scenario I decided the tiles were more trouble than they were worth, even though I could have borrowed a set from another GM.

RealAlchemy wrote:

I really liked the cards I saw last week which detailed the bonuses for level bump and for the faction mentor boons so players would remember to apply them.

Where did you see these? These are really needed as it is hard for a player to remember all the bonuses they have.

One of the regular GMs at the venue I usually play at printed a bunch of cards for commonly applied modifiers.

I'm considering running this after my own rough play through this adventure and I wanted to know if there was any advice other GMs had to run this adventure in a fun way.

How did other GMs handle any combats without the party being armed with their equipment? How should I handle it if the party doesn't have a vesk or something else with natural weapons?

Called weapon fusions and a solarian got my party through it. (Mostly the called weapons as soon as they got close enough to use them)

Gamerskum wrote:

I fail to understand how 2e is restrictive?

The things I hear the most from my players come in two broad categories.

1. Is that the math is so tight that a being even a bit suboptimal is crippling with how challenges scale. I can see where they are coming from having run some 3-4 tier tables. A suboptimal character is not only incapable of making some of the DCs even if they’re trained, they also add to the challenge points making it harder for everyone. This has created some awkward social pressures and has scared a few players away permanently.

2. There are some classes that just feel locked into certain paths. Nobody is playing caster clerics because the general impression is they just die. All the alchemists take wizard dedication at level 2. Half the sorcerers take champion dedication at 2. A plurality of martials, clerics, and druids all have field medic as their background. No one plays stock elves because they have an HP deficit. I think most tables I’ve run consist of humans and dwarves, with the odd goblin thrown in. I’ve yet to see an elf and there’s been a few halflings.

And I get that we’re early in the game, with the second wave of content now seeing society play. I think they did a good job in being pretty open with options. I think rolling it back at this point would be counter-intuitive pending something that trivializes encounters.

Awesome! I am nobody! (One gnome cloistered cleric and one cavern elf rogue with wizard dedication in PFS. And my martial is not a field medic, just has medicine training)