Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 52 posts (1,569 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 36 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.
A big "Thank You"! To Paizo as a whole (for taking a step back, listening, considering, and adjusting course to the benefit of the
community as a whole), to Mark (for patiently engaging with the various feedback received), to a variety of community creators (around the world, for being both articulate and passionate)... and to the real unsung heroes, the lawyers (for doubtless working their butts off to make sure Paizo is protected *and* the Paizo Community can continue to create, collaboratively, for free.) :)
I wish to specifically say kudos to Paizo for reinstating the CUP while also maintaining the FUP for those who do want to engage with the monetization channels that this opened up. Some companies, naming no names, would have taken their proverbial ball and gone home. Paizo instead stepped up in the right way.
Hopefully, some positive process changes can take place on the communication side of things in future, so there is less stress for all in future. (I expect the discussion would have been less stressful for all if there was time to provide feedback prior to the CUP being revoked). Regardless - I'm glad Paizo graciously changed course, and I think it speaks well of their intentions and (more importantly) their actions.
Since our licensing update on July 22nd, we’ve been listening to your feedback on the potential impact of these licenses on community tools and websites. Paizo is grateful to these creators and spaces for the immense value they add to our brand and player community. We are committed to adding options to ensure that a range of community projects are protected by the license.
With Gen Con on the horizon, we can’t offer an immediate solution, but we are working to reach one that is both sustainable for Paizo and supports the community we love. As always, thank you for your feedback—we hear you and are working to address your concerns as swiftly as possible.
Thank you for the speedy reply to the community, and for considering some tweaks. A "Remaster" of the FUP, if you will. I'm optimistic that the results will be positive for the community, and look forward to reading about such changes after GenCon.
I still don't see why the former permissions of the CUP need to be scrapped for the expanded monetization options in FUP to exist?
As a community member, I feel it would be reasonable for Paizo to use the FUP to differentiate between truly free community projects and fan projects that have a non-zero degree of monetization.
If someone's project is truly free, and respects the terms of the old CUP, why has it now become a problem for Paizo? (Other than, say, existing as a potential alternative to some paid offering that a prospective licensee might wish to charge community members for)?
If someone's project is tied to some form of monetization, e.g. Patreon or subscription based features, ads on a website, pushes to donate beyond a coffee-service link on an about-us page, etc), then the new FUP seems more reasonable. Increased options to permit explicit monetization in connection with Paizo's IP, but also increased restrictions and rules to benefit Paizo.
I wonder whether confirming/enforcing a "free means free" rule for the CUP (or equivalent provision folded into a Remastered FUP) would meet Paizo's needs / interests, while also not starting down an [insert egregiously corporate example here] road of trying to stamp out truly free community fan projects?
--
Edited above to recognize that a paid option might well be 'better' than its free alternatives, but that this doesn't detract from the value that the free alternative provides to the community.
0) I am not an attorney, I'm just a meeple on the internet with unsubstantiated opinions.
1) Paizo (like WotC) can decide how to manage its own business.
2) Licensing changes are business decisions, and most North American businesses are not required to consult with external stakeholders about business decisions, regardless of impact.
3) It is not typical for businesses to consult with "the community" about its policies and procedures, around IP or otherwise.
4) From what I understand from watching videos on the internet, American IP law is not community-friendly and often incentivizes non-co-operative practices by companies.
5) It seems like companies can have strict IP policies in place while also not taking action against all sorts of free fan projects. See: the Star Trek fan space.
6) It seems reasonable to expect significant restrictions attached to Pathfinder Infinite, since this is both a monetized option and is a "walled garden" tied closely to Paizo's branding.
I'll follow with presuming some good intentions.
1) Paizo needs to be able distance itself from the OGL, and to do so with certainty and clarity. I expect Paizo wants to be certain that it will avoid any reasonable possibility of being dragged into future litigation. If WotC tries to sue some other creator into the ground over some future Starfinder 1.0 or Pathfinder 1.0 project, Paizo likely doesn't want the expense of being even briefly involved.
2) The current timing might be a result of Paizo + lawyers working hard through a long list of de-OGL-ification issues, and getting expanded monetization rules done in time for Gen Con.
3) Paizo has historically demonstrated an interest in supporting a variety of community and independent endeavours, and one stated intention of the FUP is to offer new ways for entities other than Paizo to make money using Paizo's IP assets.
I'll offer some positive thoughts and hopes for Paizo's new FUP.
1) Paizo making more money is good, for the staff and freelancers of Paizo and for the longevity of Pathfinder/Starfinder!
2) Creators and entertainers having more ways to make money from creations that build upon or engage with Paizo's own creative efforts is also good!
3) I will wait on a firm opinion until folks with skin-in-the-game and/or experience have had time to review and offer longer form comments about the details (that's where non-OGL-devils lurk), but it seems at first impression that Paizo is offering up more ways for other people to make money using Paizo's IP without having to give Paizo a cut or otherwise deal with negotiations and business 'stuff'. If so... that's amazing!
4) Increasing Paizo's presence in the actual play / entertainment stream / podcast space would enhance the visibility (and hopefully growth) of Paizo games, while offering more fun entertainment options for interested patrons.
5) Announcing this policy before GenCon enables creators and Paizo to go to GenCon primed to talk about these policy changes, and collaborate at a giant RPG community networking function.
As noted by other commenters above, however, Paizo's non-replication of certain CUP options under the FUP and Paizo's abrupt termination of the CUP have combined to create some very negative impacts and feelings. This fallout seems largest for those of us who do *not* want to make money using Paizo's IP, and for those of us who might want to continue to support Paizo's older games. (The "modding community", if you will.)
1) Any change that disallows creators from creating and distributing *free* fan-made creations are harmful to the community. The net benefit to Paizo and to creators and entertainers looking to earn income from their works might outweigh the downsides to such changes, and/or such changes might be a necessary evil (from Paizo's perspective) based on other factors. Still, a smaller scope of permitted free creative uses of Paizo's world is a clear loss for the community.
2) The contrast between "hey, lets consult and get feedback from relevant communities to make ORC the best it can be" and "stop creating *free* products using our IP in previously allowable ways, effective immediately" is quite jarring.
3) The immediate removal of the CUP --in the absence of any visible need for its immediate removal-- feels uncomfortably similar to WotC's recent "move fast and the turmoil will pass" approach to change management.
4) There is a segment of the RPG community that still enjoys PF 1.0, and prefers its mechanics and style of play to PF 2.0. It is conceivable that a similar segment of the Starfinder community might prefer SF 1.0 to SF 2.0. Players who appreciate the new Paizo world-building content but who are not fans of Paizo's new game mechanics might prefer to avail of free (or paid, if possible) resources to continue playing Starfinder / Pathfinder, rather than buying into Paizo's new game systems... and that seems like a threat that Paizo would rather avoid.
5) Given the financial incentives at play, it feels very much like Paizo wants to quietly kill off third party supports for SF 1.0 (and PF 1.0) rather than facilitate or allow the PF 1.0 and SFS 1.0 communities to continue to develop free resources to extend the lifespan of their preferred Paizo gaming products.
6) Given the concerns expressed by posters above about the FUP's new restrictions on developing and distributing free tools to support Pathfinder and Starfinder, it feels like Paizo may be trying to create perceived value to potential (or current) paying licensees by adding barriers to the development of fully integrated/effective free alternatives. This seems detrimental to the community, both in terms of the loss of free tools (or the loss of capabilities or clarity available through those free tools), but equally in the loss of competition / pressure on various paying licensees to create better tools that are worth paying for.
I remember a different company playing games with licenses not so long ago and being declared The Bad Guy.
You don't make more restrictions and get to be The Good Guy.
I think it i a bit "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation.
Doing nothing would meant that they still had entablements with the OGL and where still somewhat dependent on WotC goodwill. **In the long term** this would be a very bad descission as WotC (or better Hasbro) has shown that they don't really respect the customers.
Paizo has allways been more open with their licences and the fact that AoN exists - and as Mark has posted is in now way affected - shows that they continue that way.
Yes, it will be bumpy **for a few month** for sure, but this not so good decisssion seems to be better then the alternative. [Emphases added by Redgar]
That's definitely one take. To me, announcing big changes with 5 weeks notice (and one week before the biggest North American convention) seems worse than the clear alternative. That alternative being Paizo announcing the sunsetting of the CUP with a few months lead time, to provide for community feedback and recalibration/adjustment by all parties... .
I agree that these (or similar) changes seem to be needed *in the long term*. Any such changes would likely be bumpy *for a few months*. Paizo decided to implement these changes on a 5 week timeline - a stark contrast to the *long term* need and timeframe for community adjustment.
For the .pdf version of these pawns, can the red cutting line surrounding each pawn be toggled on/off? (I'm assuming no, but also hoping that I'm wrong and that the error lies between keyboard and chair :) ).
I prefer circular flat tokens at my table (ala the good old 3.0 starter set tokens), and would like to print and cut these out. Having a red line cut through the picture is quite distracting, however, and has really put me off using Pathfinder Pawns products.
(Toggling the cut lines would, I expect, also be helpful for folks playing on VTTs. Looking at some crafting threads elsewhere, having the cut lines as a separate 'layer' would also seem to help folks having these professionally printed and cut. An option that seems more important now, given the discontinuance of printed versions of most Pawns products).
If this option does not currently exist, could this please be added as a feature to your pawn .pdfs? (It seems like this is something that would be straightforward to add, since someone had to add the red lines overtop of the art when the .pdfs were created?)
Thank you, Mark! (And the rest of the awesome Paizo team)!
While I have physical copies of most of the currently available titles, I'm very pleased to see them reoffered in a sustainable way, and look forward to the selection of titles hopefully growing over time.
@ any veteran PFSers with piles o' GM boons, etc, for PFS 1.0:
Don't think you'll get value for your trade-in at the PFS 2.0 table? Then come on down to Honest Redgar's Used Boon Emporium! No sp, gp, pp, or ep will change hands, we favour the good ol' fashioned barter system. Who knows what wonders might be found in our vaults that could form a bargain to satisfy Abadar himself!
Who knows, Grandmaster Torch might even make you an offer you can't refuse!
(Offer not valid where prohibited by law, scripture, or Dragon. Your mileage, much like that of our inventory, may vary.)
For what it may be worth, I think Option 1 is preferable. Reasonable replay that would enable:
a) experienced players to continue to meet monthly to (re)play some PFS 1.0 scenarios together; and,
b) experienced players to gain some credit (and thereby incentivize participation / full tables / fun times) when they tag along to support new groups/players playing through PFS 1.0 content for the first time.
Small lodges, like ours here in Halifax/Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, benefit greatly from the enthusiasm, engagement, and knowledge of veteran PFSers. There are some great PFS 1.0 stories to be told to new players who want to play PFS 1.0, and option 1 helps new players experience that content (if, as is usually the case in my experience, there are 1-2 brand new players in the hopper, and a motley crew of veterans with different play experiences for whom sometimes new-to-them content can be scheduled, but who sometimes find themselves filling out a table for a scenario they have already played).
Plus, it would be a nice gesture to providing at least a minimum of "Legacy" support to the system many veterans have expended significant piles of gp and years of their lives investing in. Helps offset the great devaluation to come with the advent of PFS 2.0. ;)
(Tongue in cheek reference to the GP = SP change in the new system, and an acknowledgement of the real financial cost that Paizo will be asking new players to bear when they switch to 2.0. Coming from the CCG/LCG world, the current play value of 'legacy' products influences perception of the longevity/value of today and tomorrow's 'new' products, at least in my experience... .)
Greetings! I been done messed up, and signed myself up for a scenario I'd already played many, many moons ago in Standard:
3-18 The Gods Market Gamble.
I'm taking the unsolicited liberty of posting here, to hopefully connect an interested player with a table which now has a space, thanks to my fuzzy-headedness
Thanks to HSalgo and Lau Bannenberg for your helpful advice/perspective!
I was, indeed, still in need of answers (ended up playing less PFS than I planned at GenCon... did too well in the Doomtown tournies. ;)) and thought my thread had been lost to the dustbin of history.
Oh, bother. Thank you for the advice, I will recuse myself from the tpKon5 session. :(
(Hmm. In further analysis, it is less dire than I thought: looking at the tiers again, I suppose I'm really looking for suggestions for relevant or thematic scenarios in the level 2-6 range, since I could play Destiny and the Unseen Inclusion at lvl 5-6, then do Test of Tar Kuata at lvl 6... .)
I figure I might as well jump in on this thread to ask: what should I fill the empty levels with?
I have a Scarab Sage who has finished level 1, and hasn't played any of the iconic adventures. Right now, an ideal path looks something like:
PFS #9-04: The Unseen Inclusion (Tier 1-5)
PFS #5-12: Destiny of the Sands, Part 1: A Bitter Bargain (Tier 1-5)
PFS #5-15: Destiny of the Sands, Part 2: Race to Seeker's Folly (Tier 1-5)
PFS #5-16: Destiny of the Sands, Part 3: Sanctum of the Sages (Tier 3-7)
PFS #6-19: Test of Tar Kuata (Tier 3-7)
- a random lvl 3 scenario
Levels 4, 5, and 6 are currently black holes, except for 2-03, The Rebel's Ransom while at level 5-6, though I suppose at lvl 6 I might be able to try and start 'playing up' into the lvl 7-11 scenarios.
So, I thought I'd ask some more experienced Sages if they had any recommendations for relevant (or, failing directly relevant, thematic) scenarios to fill the level 4-6 gap?
Shamelessly stealing from Curaigh's "Wizards Wanted" earlier this year, I thought I'd reach out to see if any fellow spell-slingers might be interested in an all-Caster party to tackle a scenario and swap spellbook notes at the upcoming OutpostCon?
Since this is really all about me, I would be hoping to play in a session with a 3rd or 4th level Wizard. He has yet to play "Beyond the Halflight Path", in terms of easy/evergreen scenario selection, but I'd be game for playing a large number of the t3-5 scenarios on offer at the Con. (Alas, he has received GM credit for Tome.
There are a couple of variant decks that tone down / expand the range of possible 'encounters'. While the high-stakes nature of the original can be fun, I think the stakes of (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/artifacts/minor-artifacts/deck-of-many -things-harrow/), for example, can be just as fun and a little less game-destroying... .
(Experiential Data-Point: my GM (who is great with narrative) just used one for/on us. I recommend, heartily! It was less game-warping (and less soulcrushing) than the original deck... although our gnome ended up with a Ring of "Get out of Consequences Free* x 3", which helped smooth out the results a little.)
... that is genius, thank you! I owe you a frosted beverage...
(Now looking at a crossblooded sorcerer dip... hmmm...)
Edit: Darn. Can't do a cross-blooded Orc/Sylvan sorcerer. And I don't even want the 'good' part of the Orc Bloodline Arcana! :( Back to the drawing board... .
I'm not looking for Amplified Rage for myself to benefit directly (though I'll definitely take the extra hp...).
I'm looking to use Battle Scion (or more likely a dip into Cavalier or Drill Sergeant Fighter, or Exemplar Brawler to help my allies get around the prerequisites issue) to help me throw down some Really Awesome Rage onto my companions (one of whom would be the aforementioned reluctant berserk beatstick; another of which would be my cute owlbear cub animal companion... :))
The feat I was thinking of was "Racial Heritage" (I confused it and the Adopted trait).
The Feat I am looking to get is Amplified Rage. ^^;
(The General Shtick I am working on is playing a halfling adopted by berserks in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings. He sings the songs of his people, and helps his normally quiet and lumbering 'big brother' find his inner berserk... :))
I'm looking for a way to gain access to a teamwork feat, even temporarily, for which I do not meet all prerequisites (I am a halfling, not a half-orc).
I would be happy to sacrifice a feat for Adopted... except that is a Human-only feat. :(
This is for PFS play, so I sadly cannot rely on another player playing a particular character and using a class ability to grant me the feat.
I was hoping there was a Ranger "Combat-Style" for teamwork feats, or an archtype that let you gain a teamwork feat ignoring a prerequisite, but so far I am coming up empty.
Paizo has a booth presence planned for PAX Unplugged, with demos of Starfinder, Pathfinder, and Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. We are working to put the final details on the what, when, where, who, how and will that posted asap!
How about plans for organized PFS events?
I have attended events and Redcap's Corner and they had a nice following so I know the interest is there. For a lot of the younger crowd, who can't make it out to GenCon, this would provide a perfect opportunity to play at a large event.
Redcap's Corner Pathfinder Society
Philadelphia, PA, US
So... any information that folks can share? I might be able to run a scenario or two if there was a desire for more GMing, and would like to play if there's slots that don't conflict with Doomtown events, but there seems to be a dearth of information available thus far... .
Looks like I will be headin' down for this, super excited that there will be Pathfinder here too! Looking forward to getting scheduling details, so I can start planning around other events (Doomtown, mostly...). :)
Tried searching the forums and trawling the product thread, but didn't find answers to a couple of specific questions about the Grand Lodge Faction Journal Card.
I'm dusting off some characters that haven't seen play in a few years, and am hoping to succeed in missions for the Grand Lodge whilst playing Scenarios at GenCon. (Also, I realize I might have done one old character incorrectly!)
1. For the "Complete at least three consecutive scenarios in which you completed both the primary and secondary success conditions."
a) Suppose I have a lvl 1 character who successfully completed 2 scenarios at full pp in the storied days of yesteryear. I then dust off the cobwebs and complete my third scenario at full pp. Could I get a check for completing this goal?
b) Suppose I have a lvl 1 character that completed 2 scenarios at full pp. in season 6. I dust off the slightly less thick cobwebs and complete a third scenario at full pp. Could I get a check for completing this goal?
(I'm assuming the answer to both is yes, because I'm completing the 3rd/4th/5th/6th scenario, and I'm not trying to claim credit for achieving the goal retroactively [i.e. if I'd completed 3 in days of yore, I'd need to complete at least a 4th during the 'open season' for Faction Journals to check that box.] Also, if it was a cumulative effect that had to be actively achieved over 3 scenarios, one would expect 3 boxes to check. But I realized I should probably ask. Because I lack a "dispel magic" scroll for if I'm wrong... :-))
c) are GM'd scenarios skipped for these purposes? (I presume they are, but realize I could be wrong).
2. "Expedition Co-ordinator" (you can forgo your Downtime to organize an expedition to gather missed PP.) Is this required to be used immediately upon completion of the relevant scenario? (I'm guessing yes?)
Thanks, and look forward to rollin' some dice soon!
Addendum: 3.
For the "Adventure in a nation other than Absalom. You may only receive credit for visiting a particular nation once. Checking one of this Goal's boxes does not prevent you from checking one box for a different goal." Is the restriction sheet/season specific? I would normally assume that goals are wholly separate from each-other, including any restrictions on said goals... but given the nature of this goal, I wasn't sure.
What's the difference between "paladin falls" and "dex monk/Bonded Witch/Cha 11 android psychic/etc falls"? Am I not allowed to have fun making and playing these builds because a GM feels like it?
Hardly! Unless you are playing a specific module/AP (and, thankfully, even then the GM can deviate from the printed rules to provide a different start to the campaign), nothing requires ALL play-groups / GMs to periodically knock people unconscious / separate them from their loots.
I don't see anything that obliges the GM and other players, however, to modify their play style to suit your preferences if you are not a member of this group/campaign.
I've had players that I've politely not invited to particular games I've run because their play style didn't match the campaign's style, and I've refrained from asking to join certain games because I didn't think I'd enjoy the narrative/play style of that particular campaign/game/group or haven't had the time/ability to do it justice (such as becoming familiar enough with the campaign world and inventing a well-fleshed out back story with the time and energy I had available). I may also have been politely and surreptitiously not invited to games that I wouldn't be a good fit for, and that would be fine.
If there is a sudden mid-campaign divergence from player expectations, or if the GM and other players expect you to be a part of the campaign but also do not appear responsive to the elements that you find fun (for example, it sounds as though you enjoy trying out fun/innovative builds and making the most of your resources, including gear, which makes sense), then that is not cool. Part of a healthy group is one that can make time / adjustments to the campaign so that all players regularly have fun.
Screening you out at the 'intake' / backstory stage, however, seems like it was a good thing for both you and them: if this campaign / plot railroading would hamper your fun, or if your playstyle diverged significantly from group expectations, surely it is much better to find out before you spend significant time/effort and have a miserable play experience when the plot unfolds as most other players are comfortable with?
They can play their game; you can find (or run) a campaign that is more suited to your tastes.
So I was browsing Amazon (yay Gift Card + preorder of Crimson Throne AP!), when I stumbled upon what appears to be a fake version of the Pathfinder ACG app.
It was only uploaded a couple weeks ago, and the Icon, Screenshots, Description, and other information all appear to be straight out of the Pathfinder Adventures App.
It's in the French section, though, so I don't know if Paizo has a different distribution partner for that? ("Express Games Arena", vs. Obsidian)?
If it is a fake, sadly, it appears a couple of customers may have purchased this.
Where Paizo is the IP holder of a lot of the material displayed in the app, this seemed like the kind of thing that Paizo might care about, so I thought I'd post this here in case my suspicions are confirmed and the powers-that-be want to do something about it.
Also, anyone who was unfortunate enough to download the app would miss out on a fun of playing through
snark:
half of
the real RotRL AP app, so if any disappointed customers might come here looking for help, hopefully they can be alerted to the fact that they might have grabbed the wrong app and pointed in the right direction (to either the cards or the app.)
I also don't like being the bearer of disappointment. Much as I'd like all of my friends to be involved in campaigns together, however, scheduling / interests / real life doesn't permit every friend I want to play with to be in every game.
I have to agree that your stance on this seems a bit melodramatic. I presume that being de-invited from a game does not result in this lady being banished to an ice-flow, never to be seen again? (Edit: intended to be tongue-in-cheek to illustrate the relatively low stakes that would seem to be involved in this decision).
In terms of conscience, I struggle to see what is 'wrong' with a candid conversation acknowledging that real life has unfortunately intruded on this player's ability to consistently join in on a fun leisure activity.
Unless there's subtext here that I'm missing, it seems like a really simple/straightforward conversation to have:
a) We like you, and want to keep playing and having fun with you;
b) The campaign needs a level of commitment that you might not be able to make;
c) If you can't make that level of commitment, nothing against you as a person or as a player, but:
i) we'd prefer it if you played an NPC / NPCs when you can drop in to play;
ii) as a GM, I'll suck it up and GM for 7 on the occasional time you can play, but would you mind playing a less mission-critical build so that the party isn't going to get crushed in combat when you aren't here; or,
iii) if/when your schedule changes and you can join in more consistently, please let us know and we'll add you to the wait list, and in the meantime we'll keep in touch for one-shot adventure nights or game days.
Offer whichever options you are comfortable with as a GM, and let the player decide how she'd like to handle her scheduling conflicts.
Edited to try and come across better. It's nice that you appear to be a thoughtful person who wants to facilitate your friends' fun. That is the kind of GM I like to play with, and strive to be. But the stakes seem really low here, and in my xp a candid conversation with the party involved is the best way to respect that person and preserve the friendship (and opportunities for future gaming).
Where does it say that? Why else would they get Scion of Humanity-type options otherwise? Which DOES open things up a bit more, but you have to give up being an outsider. As Nefreet said, they're counting as descended from humans, and many may have completely human parents. That doesn't make them "half-human."
Probably because the fluff is so all over the place that you are talking about one specific instance. Hell the whole descended from humans bit is completely unnecessary too.
Presumably it is in the FAQ for a mechanical reason... http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/faq#v5748eaic9qyc .
We used to play On The Edge, the trading card game version of the RPG Over The Edge. In that game there's a card called Copyright Violation that lets you convert any other trading card game card to an On The Edge character, using the first three numbers printed on the card as game stats. To get that non-OTE card, however, you had to put it in your deck initially and draw it since there's no other way to legally get cards in On The Edge. So it was pretty obvious if you were going to try it.
I know we'd found a card that gave something like 1,000,000 attack power for 5 cost, but I don't remember where it came from. (I want to say the Star Wars CCG.)
I think it was the Star Wars CCG - IIRC two of the first three numbers on many cards were the copyright date twice. So at the very least you were getting numbers in the 199X range. The third number was generally something between 0 and 7, so I think you could get a very powerful card with a minimal cost if you chose wisely. I remember hearing TIE fighters were good for this, having something like 1996/1996/1.
Sounds like a Tribbles card from Decipher's Star Trek CCG (or their Tribbles game/CCG)... :)
Since this is a thread about upgrades and a particular nifty sword, I thought I should ask this here. (Tried searching the PFS forum, did not find an answer).
My lvl 1 Pally just stumbled across this item, so I have the chance to try to build a character that plays this opportunity to the hilt. Given the expense and drawbacks associated with using this boon companion, however, it's going to take quite some time before I have the funds necessary to even acquire same. Which is going to mean using another weapon for several levels.
RotRL: Prt 1 has previously taught me (the player) to acquire a magic weapon ASAP. Hence the desire to make 'instalment payments' towards our friend.
Plus, from a fluff perspective, it would be fun to make occasional 'off-hand' comments to no-one in particular (i.e. my sword). Then when I finally acquired the genuine article, all of a sudden the rest of the table would hear 'no-one in particular' answer back. :)
I understand if the answer is no, however, in which case I could look into investing into a +1 secondary weapon (Heavy Mace, perhaps), and then travelling back across Golarion in a few levels to be re-united with a friend.
I had to re read it, I remembered from another discussion that researching high level spells was very costly, but at first glance I wasn't capable to find way.
"In the downtime system, the steps for spell research each day are as follows."
Bolding that you need to repeat all steps, including paying the research cost, every day, help a lot.
The checks aren't so hard, even if you can't take 10 you will generally succeed when rolling a 1 or 2 if you are a wizard with maximized Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft researching a spell of the highest level you can cast.
A cleric will have more problems, but the buildings giving a bonus to those rolls will generally resolve the problem.
I hear what you are saying; the "each day" wording would appear to indicate that all the following steps are to take place each day.
To play devil's advocate, though, I read the remainder of section as indicating that it is specifically Step 4 (the research rolls) that are to be repeated.
Step 1 is the contested section. The cost is clear; the frequency of payment is not specified under this heading.
Step 2 is to "determine the total days of progress required to complete the research". This, to me, reads as a 'one off' step rather than a repeatable step. If it was daily, I would expect the formula to calculate the remaining research time, rather than the overall research time.
Step 3, ditto. Why would one "determine the spell's research DC" each day? It's not like this would ever change.
Step 4. The way I read step 4, with the 'finishing' conditions appearing under Step 4 rather than a separate paragraph, suggests that one continues [u]with Step 4[/u] until the spell is researched.
All that said, I hear what you are saying with respect to "each day" in the preceding line. And for the listed 100gp/level price, 100gp per day seems more in line with the CRB's high cost for spell research.
I can't help wondering whether this is all due to a typo: if step 1 was supposed to read "1000 gp" and step 4 was the only repeat (because it would be the only step that needed repetition), then the rules would sync perfectly with the CRB cost... .
I would third the "Master of the Fallen Fortress" suggestion as a free introductory adventure. I ran it for the first time this past Sunday; easily playable in 4-4.5 hours (even with some dawdling). A fun little tower-crawl.
I would second the recommendation for the "Beginner Boxed Set" as another potential starting point. It's:
a) relatively inexpensive (especially lightly used copies);
b) contains some very helpful DM tools (a dry-erase battlemat and standees for PCs and a variety of common monsters) that will be helpful even after moving on to full Pathfinder; and,
c) comes with starter adventures that can jump-start a campaign, and are a little loot/magic item heavy (which could compensate for having only 2 PCS).
Consider investing in the Pathfinder DM screen. It has some very helpful charts readily accessible (the one chart I wish it had is the "action types / provoke attacks of opportunity?" table).
Finally, the DM's best friend: +2 or -2 circumstance modifier. If the player does something clever / foolish that you're not quite sure how to account for, a circumstance modifier to an appropriate check is often your friend.
I'm quite glad that I read to the end of the thread, as Msr. De'Morcaine's post offers some useful suggestions of actions players/GMs individually can take to deal with unexpected player numbers:
My PFS Lavode De'Morcaine wrote:
Now several times I have willingly given up my spot to someone new to the game that wants to try it out (yes, even if I signed up weeks in advance). I have no problem helping to expand the player base.
I'd do this if we were scheduled to playing a 'general' scenario. If we were scheduled to play a very specific scenario (way of the Kyrin) or part of a multi-day module / scenario series, however, I confess I'd be unlikely to offer step aside (unless I was the last one to the table, in which case fair enough and serves me right for being slow. First come, first served and all that).
My PFS Lavode De'Morcaine wrote:
I think I've found something of a middle ground. I intend to completely prep maybe 2 of the older scenarios that haven't been run at our local in a while. I'll make up maps, print out the monsters, any crib notes I need, etc... Then I will just leave them in the trunk of my car. If the VL needs another GM, "Well I'm not ready to run anything that was scheduled, but I can run either X or Y with no trouble."
This is an excellent suggestion. If most of the regular players prepared one or two 'fall-back' scenarios, then the burden of unexpectedly GMing could be shared amongst the group (and on any given day the odds of finding a player who wouldn't mind stepping up rather than playing would increase).
I personally recommend "First Steps, Part I" as one option, particularly for newer GMs: it's the perfect introduction for brand new players, doesn't have too many components to worry about, is free, is likely a scenario that a 'surprise GM' will have both previously played and will remember details from, and is likely to be playable (even with complete newbies) in whatever time is left when the decision is made to split the table.
- Electronic copies of chronicle sheets enabling online play, storage/recovery/archiving, and (potentially) play when travelling are a good thing;
- *At DM's discretion*, electronic presentation of chronicle sheets (on a laptop/tablet/phone) seems okay by me. If the DM is comfortable with the chronicle sheets being presented / reviewed / marked up in that form, then more power to the DM. I think PFS should enable DMs to accept electronic sheets, provided the DM issues a physical sheet if it's a f2f game and provided the DM is comfortable in his/her ability to properly certify purchases on the inventory tracking sheets, etc.
- Players who only bring electronic chronicles to a face-to-face game should, however, be prepared to play a pre-gen if the DM wants physical chronicle sheets. Chances are, it shouldn't come to that: there's usually a less-drastic solution available. Just like showing up to a table without supporting books for a character with non-Core features, however, players should be prepared for the possibility of playing a pre-gen. I don't think players should be (or feel) entitled to assume that 'electronic only' will always be accepted by every GM they play with, wherever they happen to play.
My rationale:
I see both sides of the coin here.
On the one hand, I scanned my chronicle sheets so that I could have a printed back-up in case of accident, loss, drink-spillage, or random PFS game if I was travelling and didn't bring my sheets with me. I think that facilitating online play by enabling virtual chronicle portfolios for those situations is a good thing.
On the other hand, if replacements had been required I would have printed out the sheets to bring with me or played a pre-gen.
Further, as an occasional DM, I do not want to be responsible for manipulating potentially-expensive technological gear. It's great that Mr. Trent would readily forgive (and not expect compensation for) a potential 'butterfingers' moment by moi were I to accidentally damage a piece of his electronic gear. Sadly, not everyone in this world is so accommodating. I'd rather deal with a player who is sniffy about 'only' being able to play a pre-generated character in an adventure because he/she forgot his/her sheets or chose not to bring hard copies than a player reacting to the fact that a several hundred dollar piece of electronic equipment ceased to function whilst in my care.
(Also, I find reviewing documents at less than 8.5 x 11 size inconvenient and annoying. Either the document is zoomed out, making it harder for me to read, or I can't see the whole sheet at one time. That's a personal peeve, though.)
From a practical perspective, physical chronicle sheets only 'matter' when a player is otherwise unable to properly record something permanent on a non-physical sheet, or if a DM wants to audits a character. Unfortunately, it's in those two scenarios that I (as a DM) would really rather not deal with electronic character sheets.
I'm not going to say that I would refuse to let a character play at my table with electronic-only chronicle sheets (particularly if it is that player's first time playing at my table). But the odds of me auditing that character's chronicle sheets are low indeed. If something fishy comes up during play, I'll make a note on the (phyisical) chronicle sheet that I hand to the player, and I'll tell the character to bring physical chronicle sheets the next time he or she plays at a table I run.
Chiming in to add my 2 ep worth, as someone without an e-reader or particularly travel-friendly computer.
a) Thank you very much Mr. Brock for your clear and cogent clarification of what is required to use additional resources;
b) Thank you again, this time for agreeing to look into the 'photocopy' issue post-GenCon;
c) On one of the really nifty things about PFS was, I thought, the ability to 'drop in' and play "my character" in a PFS game if I was travelling for work (in particular) or personal reasons. Didn't matter if I was 400, 1700, or 4600 km away from home (and my physical Pathfinder Books): as long as I tucked a small loose-leaf folder containing a copy of my sheets into my bag, I was good to go! (My tiny emergency travel dice live in my travelling bag, just in case. :))
I clearly hadn't thought this through, though: as my character does generally draw from a couple of Additional Resources, I'd be out of luck. If I'd just need to add 2-3 photocopied sheets (for APG and ARG, mostly) to my little bundle, that would seem a great boon;
d) Certifying ownership of certain physical books so that photocopies from said books would be permissible sounds like a fair compromise (in terms of I'd resent the hassle a little bit, but appreciate the rationale for it and would be comfortable with this balance). Perhaps a separate and specific certification sheet could be required for each character. That way, simply buying a book, getting certified, and returning/reselling it (while being able to keep using the sheet) would not work long-term. Heck, maybe have a GM re-certify for each character at 1st, 5th, and 9th levels? (A chart similar to the inventory chart, but where you write in book names and acquire GM initials in three columns...)?
What if, after you run the same scenario for the third time, you get a credit at the store good for one free scenario? You're demonstrating that you're getting mileage out of them--that's somewhere between 9 and 21 players that were entertained by you over the span of 12-ish hours--and that builds up some goodwill amongst the GMs who are willing to keep re-running things.
Edit: Oh, oh! How about this? After you run the scenario for the third time, if you purchased it--i.e. if you paid money for it, rather than getting it free from an organizer, which is presumably something noted on your account history--you get the price "refunded" in store credit! You're demonstrating that Paizo is better served by giving you more scenarios than keeping your $4.
I like this idea.
For DMs who do not perform the PFS 'marketing' function for Paizo, paying for PFS modules makes sense. (Example: a DM like me who might acquire PFS modules 'just' to run for a home game, the same way I'd acquire Adventure Paths or other Paizo products).
For DMs who put in the time, effort, expense, and hassle of DM'ing for the public as part of Paizo's marketing program, however, a 'rebate' of the cost of purchasing the promotional material (the PFS scenario) after a certain number of times running the session seems like both a fair reward for the DM and a sensible marketing investment by Paizo.
I'd be interested in reading multi-star DMs' feedback on this idea. Do multi-starred DMs already receive most of their scenarios free? If not, would this be a useful reward?
Ahoy! Am visiting Aberdeen and environs for a couple of weeks, so I thought I'd post to see if there is still PFS play running in the area that could accommodate a wandering stranger or two... .
Well, it's been 3.5 months since the last "official" response (a rather prophetic number, don't you think? ;) )
We out here would LOOVE to know (or at least get a hint at) which WotC employee(s) we have to put a few suggestions to at GenCon...
I'm sure Paizo in general (and Erik in particular!) is doing its level best to get the pdf out (and I thought the internet was supposed to make information distribution EASIER!); we just want make sure we charm the right folks and get the best result with the fewest saves!
Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 52 posts (1,569 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 36 Organized Play characters. 1 alias. 
