SirGuido's page

A friend of mine, Jack Schneider, and I put together this little gem for drumming up GM participation here in Cincinnati...
Uncle Mike wants you!

Congratulations everyone. Brent is an amazing guy, so very glad to have him as my new venture officer.

GenCon 2012 Interview: Paizo Publishing is now live on DoucheyDm.com. Go check it out if you are into that sort of thing. http://www.doucheydm.com/?p=1077

I wrote an article talking about my initial impressions after a trip to GenCon 2012. Here it is.

I just think... this is ridiculous. Sorry Pain, I like you buddy, but the idea that I should force people to GM is pure insanity. Right now at Gateway Games and More I am the store coordinator. We regularly have 18 or more players show up to play. I have a small store that I work with and we can really only fit 3 tables in there, we can SOMETIMES squeeze in a fourth if the store has NO OTHER CUSTOMERS, which is rare. I think that without a doubt, we are the largest PFS store in the Cincinnati area.

I right now have a stable of 6 GMs, but only 2 that I can rely on to run a game regularly. One of those is me. I have approached a few people in our group to run games and a few have stepped up and run some. Others seem a bit scared still and I have given them copies of scenarios(that they already played in) to read, so that they can see what they are looking at getting into. I am supportive and helpful in any way that I can be, hoping that they will step up at some point.

Never, and I do mean never, will I tell them they can't come anymore if they decide that GMing is not for them. I don't turn people away from my tables. Sometimes this means I have three tables with 7 players each, and yes it sometimes gets quite loud and almost unbearably hot. Has the owner of the store had to turn on the AC in the dead of winter because I had 23 people packed around his tables? Yes. Is that ideal? No. Will I ever tell people to go home to prevent it? Hell no. If I have to GM two tables at once I'll do it so that people can play some PFS. Sure, it may not be the best gameplay in the world but for some of my players its the only gaming they get and I will not deny them that.

Sorry, but I won't deny my players a game for any reason unless they do something drastic. (i.e. stealing from the store/players, hurting someone else, etc) I find the idea of that somewhat offensive in a way.

Sad to see everyone go, but glad to see that these people had the foresight to recognize that they could not do the position justice and chose to step back rather than see it suffer. You gentlemen are truly inspirational, I hope to one day mirror your excellence. :)

I very much like this new rule.

Based on the original wording and definitions of "named" gear leaves for different interpretations, one strictly based on the logic of the sentence and the one based on intent. The intent of the proposed rule I fully agree with.

Thus as was pointed out..

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

So I would propose saying that Named Generic Items can be upgraded, while Named Special Items cannot be. Basically, anything you could duplicate exactly by building it from scratch and have the cost come out the same should be upgradeable.

I completely agree with this, I would define the rule to be Named Special Items... then define "Special Items" as those having specific magical properties that do not have a pricing scheme in the core books.

If that is the proposed rule. 100% in favor of it.

Boom. This is perfect. +1.

I think the animal choices that are currently presented are perfectly fine, and anyone wanting to "reskin" them into something else is obviously not really wanting the organized play experience.

I know that I am new here and all, but I've recently become a store coordinator under Russell here in Cincinnati. The people that play in my store seem to have a pretty loose attitude to the rules in general, meaning that they aren't that bothered by any of them. I haven't had any issues with tables being over 7 people, but I dislike the idea that I might have to turn someone away if we have 7 show up to a game night. Then again, I guess I'd have to do that if we had 8 show up and only one GM.

Anyone interested? Already have possibly two players looking for at least 2 more.

Looking to run a scenario today in the next 10-15 minutes. Let me now if you can play, we're kinda short on players. Have a few scenario options available.

SirGuido wrote:

Are there any restrictions within Pathfinder Society as to which spells can and cannot be made into wands or potions? I had a GM once tell me that a potion or wand cannot be made from any spell with the target being "self" or "personal" etc. Is this the case?

It's not a Society restriction perse. The magic item creation rules still apply (even though PCs can't take the feats), and as such you cannot create potions with the range of personal. This is as per the Core Rule book page 551 under 'Creating Potions.' As per page 553 under the heading 'Creating Wands' there do not appear to be any such restrictions.

Hope that helps!

Ok, that reflects my own research, I just wanted a clarification.

Are there any restrictions within Pathfinder Society as to which spells can and cannot be made into wands or potions? I had a GM once tell me that a potion or wand cannot be made from any spell with the target being "self" or "personal" etc. Is this the case?