This is an easy problem for the community to self-regulate. The mechanism is already in place.
Pursuant to the PFS rules, a player must own the book that contains whatever resource their character is using and have it in their possession at the table when playing. Ostensibly, this is so the GM, if unfamiliar with what the thing does can reference it. It is also a good business model for Paizo to sell books and thus make money. The book is the authority the player has to cite both his ability to use a resource, and to define what that resource does. If the player doesn't have the book, then the GM can rule that resource inadmissible for play.
Ergo, the books are the canon. Have the book; you're good to go. Don't have the book; you're not getting to use that fancy Feat Chain spread out over 4 books. Until, suddenly, years after you purchased the books you needed, and have played a character or characters with resources from these books you purchased, the leadership decides something needs to be nerfed. The why is inconsequential. Frankly, who cares, which I'll get to in a minute.
Unless you come to the boards and keep up with whatever minutia the leadership wants to crap all over this week, you wouldn't know that the contents of your books are now obsolete. You're first likely to learn it when some GM who does come to the boards crashes down on you for using an obsolete resource, and won't let you play your character that you had already paid the entrance fee for by buying the books in the first place.
Well, the way I see it, unless the GM owns the superseding book with the new resource language, then the player's resource wins that argument. If the GM can't produce a copy of the book with the new language for the resource, but the player went to all the trouble to purchase and lug around what was a good resource until he sat down to play with that GM, than there is no errata.
TL:DR -- if the GM can't produce a copy of the product with the errata, then there is no errata, and the player's book is still the authority that overrides some fun sponge blog post by the developers. So, who cares why they nerf things?
Sharing an announcement regarding Extra-Life 3, a small charity convention being held for the third year in central North Carolina.
Regarding Extra Life 3, I have some unfortunate news. The Regional Venture Coordinator, Del Collins, has determined that our small charity convention, which generally gets a good boost in donations from the yearly special, should not be allowed to run Cosmic Captive, said special. His reasoning was thus:
"Sorry but I will not approve that.
This convention was created to bring together like-minded people to enjoy our mutual hobby and, most importantly, raise money for the sick kids at the Duke Children's hospital. It is deplorable that leadership would act so callously as to not even give a reason regarding their denial.
Therefore, I've determined that future Extra Life events, unless something radically changes, will no longer support Pathfinder Society when leadership has made it clear that they do not care about our cause enough to even give a reason. Furthermore, our GMs have already received the scenario from Paizo, so I have put in an appeal to Tonya hoping to overturn this decision, even though it was made late enough that I am not hopeful she will even see it in time.
However, as we currently have the means to, I have decided that as we have been denied permission for such a non-existent reason, to run an unauthorized version of the special, allowing us to actually play it, though not for credit. This means that it will basically be a one-shot where you can create any level (1-11) character within Pathfinder Society rules and come play the special, but not for credit.
I understand that some of you may not want to play or GM for no credit, and that is understandable, so I will be posting other tables for that slot that will be basic Pathfinder games. However, as I know many of you will not be able to play the special, I am happy to have it run unofficially, which also gives us the ability to run it for as many, or as few people who would like to play.
In the mean-time, you can donate below and sign up to play here: https://warhorn.net/events/extra-life-3
Assign character numbers at the conclusion of the scenario. Everyone can play with gusto and full engagement, no one is worried about the death of an actual PC due to Paizo making potentially crappy pregens and being stuck at a table with people unfamiliar with potentially crappy pregens. Fun sponging is contrary to the Don't Be A Jerk Rule, even if it is Paizo who writes the fun sponge rule.
Problem solved. Problem staying solved.
This. A thousand times this. And what's with the restriction on not being able to upgrade named magic items, anyway? If I've dumped the cash on a Flametongue, is Golarion going to implode if I, GASP!, spend the gold to make it +2?
Oh noooooooes! My Paladin has a +2 flame burst longsword that once a day casts Scorching Ray instead of a +1. Drendle Dreng weeps a single tear at its overpoweredness.
Mike Lindner wrote:
This. A thousand times this.
And everyone getting squirrelly over some super-special build while Alchemists run around unchecked is hilarious. There are MANY more, and more frequent, fun sponge builds that exist in PFS.
I perma-booted a kid from my tables for playing a wizard just like that. Dude was a jerk on top of bring a fun sponge, so when tables stopped making when he signed up, I had him banned.
Congrats, you won Pathfinder. With that accomplishment you don't ever have to play at my table again. Bye, Felicia.
Lack of time and resources to sanction modules and APs is a cop out. Paizo has an enormous stable of talent that already produces monthly scenarios, module authors, venture officers, and a crap load of 5 star GMs loose in the wild. Some people are all of those combined. The task of taking a first cut at chronicle sheets could be farmed out to the best of the best of those folks easily.
I have been to one convention: GenCon 2014. I ran six sessions and got a convention boon for doing so.
I have four GM Stars from running regular games in my community. I got 4 GM Stars for doing so.
I don't have to be Stephen Hawking to do the math on which has promoted PFS more, and by definition put money in Paizo's pockets, which directly correlates to the relative over inflation of convention value verses local support value.
jon dehning wrote:
Oh, god no. I would ban this character from my table, and alternatively you as a player for good measure because you would definitely be owning the spotlight from the entire table with this rules monstrosity. This isn't a character, this is a spreadsheet you are passing off as a character. I'd give you a chronicle sheet and show you the door. You WIN Pathfinder, but the rest of us are here to PLAY.
This thread and some of the commenters are exactly why I very rarely play or run public games anymore. The signal to noise ratio between people who are fun to game with is way too favored to noise. Players like the INT 9 Wizard and his supporters can have all the public games they want. I'll come and cherry pick the best of the lot and we'll have excellent Pathfinder adventures together while the special snowflakes can have all the tomfoolery they want.
Basically, everyone gets a replay of everything, but they have to run a Core Rulebook character in order to do so with a table of people with characters from only the Core Rulebook, which are segregated from regular PFS?
The novelty of this will wear off quickly compared to just simply making a blanket one replay of everything for everyone.
Hashtag: not fawning, mostly yawning.
I've GMed for the OP many times and have never had a problem with Hero Lab or other non-paper references for characters.
Overall, if someone is intentionally cheating at Pathfinder Society, they have bigger problems with their life than I'm going to waste my time on trying to rein in. Do I really want to bother with, or actually care about, checking that everyone at the table spent the extra 2000 gold to enchant their cold iron longsword? Big bowl of nope. I didn't get into this game to play Tax Audit Society or fulfill my own power trip about who I let play for what reason. Obviously, if someone is blatantly cheating and it's crapping on the table, then that's when to address it.
That's up to and including whether someone uses paper or electronic character sheets. All I ask is that players can reference their stats and abilities in a timely manner and not slow down the table trying to find out if they have that +1 trait bonus to underwater basket weaving that probably isn't going to make a difference in their success or failure. And that can be a slow process whether someone has a paper or electronic character sheet, so for me, it's really about players knowing how to play their characters. If I can get roll totals from players without a lot of hemming and hawing, then who cares what they are using to get those numbers from?
Which is more likely?
A) Paizo publishes a PFS scenario with a giant "screw you" set up for a certain class.
B) This interpretation of the Paladin Code is pedantically punitive beyond all common sense.
Posit: The answer is B. And it will be an unfortunate single serving self-correcting problem because the GM will gain a very fast reputation for being a fun-sponge needlessly antagonistic GM that no one will want to play with in the future.
All because he HAD to be RIGHT!!!!111!!1oneelevenoneeleventyone.
Alternatively, step outside of the rules for a second and think, "if I were a player, what would I think of this interpretation being turned against me?" If you're thinking, "it would be shenanigans," then you are maturing as a GM and interested in providing a fun experience and not wielding the rules as a club with which to beat your fellow gamers.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Then those GMs would be welcomed to my banned list. There's no way I'd want to play with someone pulling that kind of GM power-trip dick move. PFS is supposed to be fun, not incessant mental gymnastics pimped around by abusive fiat pedants.
If this was my first introduction to Pathfinder, I don't think I would continue playing as someone I think has already stated.
The trampling construct, I think, is the key here. The mod opens with a potential TPK. That's not fun, that's demoralizing, and will set the tone for the rest of the adventure.
Coming from a newbie perspective, something so mechanically brutal, and complex, is NOT a good first encounter. Some skeletal or zombie guards would be much more appropriate, and the construct could appear later in the mod, even. Scaling and tension building makes for a better experience, more so with new people. This reminds me more of the old school design mindset of GM v Player like Grimtooth's Traps, or Save v. Death fairy foods.
That's not fun. That's just some DM getting his sadism on.
There are bigger things at stake here! Ray guns in Golarian? Scandal! Why, back in my day, Elf was a CLASS! I don't know how much I like these new fangled thematic ideas. My avatar is a dinosaur for a reason.
Rabble, rabble, rabble.
Thadius Volcani, Human Musket Master (12), Grand Lodge faction. After concluding aggressive trade negotiations with the rodent denizens of Round Mountain, Thadius retires north to his hunting lodge in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords.
While there he begins work on the sequel to his Absalom Press number one best seller “Things I’ve Shot,” titled “More Things I’ve Shot.” After completing his second book, Thadius looks to the south with nostalgia.
A missive from the Pathfinder Society for one last assignment sets him in motion. He does have to deliver the manuscript for More Things I’ve Shot to Absalom Press for printing, and with an assignment from the Society, he feels that he’ll have enough material for a third book.
So, with pages in hand, and his musket on his shoulder, Thadius heads south, ready to explore and gain new material for “Even More Thinks I’ve Shot,” the final volume to his autobiographical adventure trilogy, “Shoot All The Things!”