It occurred to me a couple days ago why this infiltration has been bothering me so much. In addition to having either omitted instructions to only run a subset of obstacles rather than all OR wildly misunderstanding the relationship between Awareness Points and Infiltration Points (and an appropriate balance point between the two), the designer seems to fundamentally misunderstand the concept of individual and group obstacles in the infiltration subsystem. Every single obstacle should have been listed as an individual obstacle rather than group obstacle, as they are things that each PC has to overcome (though they might need/receive help, I discuss this later). There are no obstacles like a door needing unlocked or a trap needing disarmed, which are examples of group obstacles.
Group obstacles are things that only have to be overcome once by anyone in the group. The obstacles in this scenario are all things requiring EACH PC to do things (swim across a rushing river, climb up or down things, sneak from here to there). In the framework of the Infiltration subsystem, these are individual obstacles. The infiltration system does make allowances for team members helping each other with the Smooth the Path opportunity (pg 198 GMC):
Smooth The Path
Opportunity
Requirements The PC has successfully completed an individual objective and some other PCs have not.
Having completed your objective, you help an ally who is still trying to reach that goal. Describe how you are helping. This gives the ally the benefits of Following the Expert (Player Core 438). In unusual cases, the GM might allow you to attempt a relevant skill check to overcome the obstacle on behalf of the other PC instead.
You might say, “why can’t successes at a group obstacle represent the efforts of the entire group to get everyone in the group through the obstacle, after all that’s how chase obstacles work”, and you wouldn’t be wrong. I have two responses to that, firstly hold that thought for a paragraph or two, and secondly anytime you reference a preexisting game mechanic, but then utilize it in ways not consistent with that mechanic, you encourage misunderstanding of the mechanic and cause confusion down the road. I can’t imagine Paizo wants to encourage that sort of thing.
The infiltration subsystem really is an extremely versatile system. The possible addition of PC preparations, edge points, varied types of complications and awareness thresholds, not to mention the option to choose from different paths to accomplish the same goal, can make for a robust and interesting set piece. However, it is understandable that the designer of a PFS scenario might not want to make full use of all the options offered by the infiltration system. It is understandable that they might want to make the skill challenges more cooperative without having to add the complexity of the Smooth the Path opportunity or other means of a PC assisting other PCs. PFS scenarios need to be succinct due to the nature of many store and convention venues and teamwork should be encouraged. A simpler skill subsystem that measures the group’s progress rather than individual already exists…the chase subsystem.
I suspect the designer looked at the names of these two subsystems and decided infiltration seemed like a better fit for the theme of the “quiet” path, and so used it without fully understanding how it works. However, the framework of the chase subsystem comes much closer to what the designer seems to have been trying to accomplish. And just because the NAME of the subsystem implies haste and bluster doesn’t mean it can’t be flavored as a quiet and deliberate process.
I’m not saying that the designer was wrong to use infiltration, it certainly could have worked with some tweaks. But, as presented, the skill challenge poses problems. The overall difficulty of the challenge is way too high (26 IP to succeed while failing at 10 AP), which is what started this discussion in the first place, and the mislabeling of group/individual obstacles will only foster more confusion down the road for GMs, especially inexperienced ones.
I'm considering scheduling 2 Series 2 quests in one of our store slots, and if I'm going to do that, I definitely don't want to schedule 2 long ones together. I'd like to get community opinions on ranking of adventure length so that I at least have a chance to get 2 done in a slot.
I've played or run all of these, some only once, but from what I recall this might be a rough order of longest to shortest. I'd love to get other inputs.
#20 The Dacilane Academy's Show Must Go On
#15 In the Footsteps of Horror
#16 The Winter Queen's Dollhouse
#18 Student Exchange
#17 Escorting a Mirage
#19 The Elsewhere Feast
#14 The Swordlord's Challenge
It's in the book itself. The Character Options tells you everything is Standard availability (unless otherwise noted on that page, and those options aren't noted), the book tells you it's Uncommon, but tells you what you need to access it.
I’m similarly unsure what would be an obvious error to fix vs a change that increases difficulty, which is prohibited. A recent scenario in season 5 had a printed weak version of a creature. Base creature, also printed in the scenario, had 60 hp, while the weak one was printed with 15. It seemed clear to me that the weak template hit point value (45 according to the weak template chart) was subtracted from the base hit point value rather than replacing it. But that’s a big difficulty increase. Allowed to change?
In the same scenario there were 4 hazards. 2 of the hazards had stealth DCs in the low to mid 20s, while the other 2 had stealth BONUSES in the low to mid 20s. Seems clear to me there was an error on the last 2, but is that an “obvious typo or error”?
These are just two of the many, many errors in recent scenarios. While I think that the loosening of GM guidelines is indeed a good thing, correcting errors in scenarios as well would go a long way to improving quality of life for your GMs and providing a more even play experience across the program.
The current half-measure of publishing changes to the Foundry modules in an out of the way location is simply not satisfactory, if you ask me. Add to that the Metamorphic team (who produce the Foundry modules) are likely only to catch errors that directly impact the creation of the module. They are unlikely to catch errors or inconsistencies buried in a block of text that they simply cut and paste into the module.
For my online games, I've begun requiring that players import their character to my Foundry table at least 24 hours before game time. People who take the effort to sign on to the table and import/build their character there are much more likely to be serious about playing.
If it passes 24 hours I'll send a discord message to anyone who doesn't have a character on my table yet. If they don't reply I drop them and get a waitlisted player in immediately and message them, asking them to import their character. Tends to weed out the people who aren't serious about showing up.
I get that it would be a great if Alex or someone else makes an official announcement of the errata location, but I don’t understand the hesitation to accept Andrew’s posts as legitimate. He has the official title of Digital Products Lead, and the information is posted in a read only forum.
And as to the errata itself, it is posted in the official, read only Updates and Patch Notes subforum that you linked to.
I’m far too exhausted after running 10 slots at Origins to get into this too much, but this has been a source of much frustration for me for some time.
The poor editing of scenarios this season exacerbates the issue, there are simply more problems to fix. The fact that the Foundry module team has access to get answers to the problems that make it through development and editing, while users of the PDFs do not, means more and larger discrepancies between the two.
I'll be running it at Origins as well. I'm printing the wheel out also. I think it will be a nice prop to let the players try to figure out where they're going next. It's too bad there's not more to it, but I think it may help with the feeling of the ride at least.
There are other problems of course, the unwieldiness of the underwater combat and the potential deadliness of the end combat, if they choose or are forced into it. Luckily GMs have a lot of flexibility in this regard. But really...any GM could turn the last combat into a TPK if they wanted to, unless the party has very very strong ranged characters.
And I'm hoping that playing the thieves as much more sympathetic and true robin hood types will help make the choices at the end more palatable.
It's the single most commonly used skill, I believe. So if I don't have a better diplomacy modifier for the PC (no training and/or low charisma) I think it's a good investment to have on the hireling.
Clarifications/corrections for this scenario have been added to the Foundry modules. I've posted those in the GM discussion thread.
I have to say, it's doubly frustrating that the devs/writers seem to have stopped answering questions here and the GM Discussion forum, but they are giving info to the Foundry team which the users of the PDF are never likely to see.
It seems that clarifications and corrections are being given to the team creating the Foundry modules. That's great, but it makes it all the more frustrating that devs/writers have basically stopped responding to questions here and on the product pages.
Anyway, I thought it would be helpful to pass along the changes included in the foundry modules that GMs using only the PDF will never see.
The scaling for the influence encounter on high tier was changed to the following:
SCALING ENCOUNTER A (3–4)
To adjust for the PCs’ overall strength, use the following Challenge Point adjustments. These adjustments are not cumulative.
19–22 Challenge Points: Add 1 to each Influence Point threshold.
23–27 Challenge Points: Add 2 to each Influence Point threshold.
28–32 Challenge Points: Add 3 to each Influence Point threshold.
33+ Challenge Points: Add 4 to each Influence Point threshold.
And the following clarification was given for encounter D:
creatures that appear are separate from the scaling changes. I know it's confusing, but we needed a way to keep the fight going while the ritual happened. This got lost in the body text. I'd replace the initial statement with "When the ritual begins, two weak cosmic amoeba and one weak hound echo appear (two cosmic amoeba and a weak cacophonous hound echo for levels 3–4), adjusted as appropriate for scaling as given in the Challenge Point Sidebars for the encounter." The rest can be unchanged, as scaling won't impact those additions, just whether or not there are 6 PCs
I'm talking about, for example, a party of 6 in a 1-4 with levels 2,2,2,2,2,3. That's 19 challenge points and high tier. Compare to a part of 6 level 4s. 36 challenge points and of course high tier. These 2 parties face the exact same challenge on any scaling based on number of players.
Those are the 2 extreme ends of the spectrum of course, but that's the point, it's a spectrum, and a fairly wide one at that. That's exactly what the challenge point system is meant for. Just seems like we're seeing more skill encounters scaling by number of players rather than challenge points. I'd prefer to see more scaling by challenge points.
However, as I'm typing this, my thoughts go to how bad the editing has been lately, I don't think I want any more burden on them. So yeah, guess it's fine compared to what could happen with more on their shoulders.
Nothing is sold back IN SOCIETY. It's ONLY treasure bundles from what I've ever seen and played. So all your variation goes out the window. It's practically standardized gold for everyone to level the playing field.
And you didn't seem to understand the equation. It was Starting Gold (15g) + Lvl 1 scenario gold (42g) = 57g TOTAL at the end of lvl 1 when you level up. So a lvl 2 character would have had a total of 57g to spend if they are calculating up item worth and seeing if they are still under.
Let me put this simply: I'm not going to waste my time tracking dozens of character sheets each per multiple characters. I just don't give a damn. I only play Society at conventions 2-3x a year. And I've got a life outside gaming. So I'm either going to play "close enough" with a wealth by level table, or I'm going to say "screw it" and do whatever. I'd like to play "close enough" to try to keep things as fair as possible. But if all people are going to do is lecture on stupid crap instead of help, I'll just wing it and not care. I'm not going to invest time into maintaining paperwork for a game. I do that 8 hr a day at work already. I'm not bringing that stress into my gaming life as well.
Holy moly, batman, talk about disrespectful. PFS is built on the honor system, with the assumption you are adding the gold, xp, and reputation earned on your valid chronicle sheets to progress your character. That takes paperwork. I don't know what to tell you if you don't want to do that small bit of work. I hope you don't get audited. Actually, I kind of do.
So today, over 3 weeks after the PF society subscription order was generated on 2/27, the order was finally charged and fulfilled. This after I already purchased the same product manually. And also after I requested the subscription be cancelled last month.
I know you folks are trying...but it's trying my patience too!
Yes, I've submitted a CS ticket. Hopefully they can cancel the 2nd charge quickly.
I'm not clear on why having a little extra gold is considered "jail."
For one, it’s annoying to some to have a few extraneous xp hanging around all the time. For second, if for some reason you correct it at a later level (e.g. a Dark archive adventure on slow mode) to even out your xp, then you actually have less gold than another pc who played only scenarios (at 4xp apiece). Tomppa explains this in the spoilered portion of their post.
After running this scenario, doing normal interactions/RP plus investigation and still having to do 4 higher level combats for a 7 - 10 is ludacris and certainly will never fit into a 4 hour time block, and took us over 6 hours to complete. It has been the trend that I've noted to have 4 combats in most scenarios this season and so everything runs long. That really needs to get fixed as many of these could never be run in a live instore game environment given our usual timing restraints.
Agreed. And none of the combats are even marked optional.
My initial reading of the Fastening Leap ability is that it does allow grabbing automatically (no action), but that it doesn't make the target flat footed. I've always played bloodseeker's attach as not making the target flat-footed, and the dig-widget uses the same language. But it makes more sense for a tiny creature not to bog someone down than it does for a small one.
Sooo.....Anything good in elemental master's handbook?
There's a feat, available at 7th level, that lets you move half your speed while gathering power. I'm going to have to hold off taking my Kinetic Knight to 7th until AR gets updated.
I'll also point out that a Scabbard of Vigor doesn't take up a slot, so there's no reason to be concerned about a Belt of Strength, if that was the only concern.
Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.
See the part I bolded. The ONLY spells that get a ranged touch attack are spells that require melee touch attacks. Cure X Wounds does not require a melee touch attack when used to heal an ally, so it doesn't require a ranged touch attack when modified by Reach Spell.
Just jumping on the bandwagon here, DM Blake's post here really should have ended the discussion. No touch attack roll, therefore no ranged attack roll (assuming a willing target).
I use HeroLab on a Surface Pro. I also have PDFs of all of my sources used for my character on the Surface. I take notes with the stylus and OneNote during play. I have a hand-painted mini for my character and I roll dice hand picked to represent said character. I also print out a copy ONCE per character level and leave it in my folder along with my chronicle sheets.
If asked to provide a paper copy, which is the current rule, I can and will. But under no circumstances am I going to use scratch paper and pen to track my spells, buffs (I run a cleric and a bard), hit points, temp mods, or my character as a whole. I use HeroLab because it's a good product and does what it claims to do, and is licensed by Paizo. I don't try to use it in place of a rules referrence (I have those separately, in PDFs) and I'm not using it as a "crutch". It's a time saving convenience. Refusing to seat me because of a program on a device smaller than my core rulebook is a dealbreaker. THAT most assuredly falls under the "don't be a jerk" clause.
I very deliberately closed my browser when I first read this thread yesterday when it was still 1 page. After catching up, I'm no more likely to post something non-offensive. So I'll just +1 TwoWolves' post, and add that in addition I also carry around 2 backup portable chargers to ensure I never have power problems. If someone tries to turn me away from a table merely for using HL to play from...well, I promised myself I wouldn't post nasty things, so I'll stop there.
The reason for the difficulty isn't the location - it's that hour doing the seance and random encounters (being disturbed).
that's it...
You're spot on. That's why no one plays wizards, clerics, druids, magi or any other class that needs an hour every day to prepare their class features.
I always assumed Teles could use rubble, loose pebbles, coins, etc for their attacks. There's no lower mass limit on the object used, after all. Are Teles really expected to micromanage like that? You don't track the contents of a spell component pouch either, after all.
That's true (or at least that's how I read it and hope the PFS GMs I encounter read it).
However, my question was regarding kinetic blast/whip. To use them (with the aether element) you MUST be holding an object. To use ranged kinetic blasts optimally you must NOT be holding an object. This conflict only exists for aether.
I wondered if this was intentional or if the held object for blade/whip was perhaps only flavor and meant to be handwaved from a mechanics perspective.
All that said, it's not a HUGE problem. Spring loaded wrist sheaths solve it. Quickdraw solves it. Having to move into position (and drawing a weapon for free at the same time) can solve it, depending on the situation. It's however annoying to have to deal with it at all, given that the other elements don't.
Mark, I'm loving the kineticist, especially aether.
I'm wondering about the intent of the extra requirement on kinetic blade and kinetic whip to be holding an object if used with aether. This means that any blade/whip focused aetherkineticist has to either carry an object around for use with those abilities and drop it if he wants to gather energy for a ranged blast, or else he walks around with free hands and then has to waste a move action to draw an object to use with blade/whip.
The other elements don't have this complication. Is this intended or is the extra requirement for blade/whip supposed to be merely flavor?
"The object held by a telekineticist for this form infusion doesn’t prevent her from using gather power."
Does that include gathering power for a ranged blast? My reading was that the clause you quoted would only be in effect while the kinetic blade was actually being used.
True. You could potentially drop that object and then throw it as your unattended object with the ranged blast, if you want to keep with the theme and not look silly dropping things.
Yeah, I think the answer is a pair of spring loaded wrist sheaths for swift action objects for use with whip/blade when needed. It's just a clunky interaction that is frustrating, made more so by the fact that the other elements don't have to deal with it.
Mark, I'm loving the kineticist, especially aether.
I'm wondering about the intent of the extra requirement on kinetic blade and kinetic whip to be holding an object if used with aether. This means that any blade/whip focused aetherkineticist has to either carry an object around for use with those abilities and drop it if he wants to gather energy for a ranged blast, or else he walks around with free hands and then has to waste a move action to draw an object to use with blade/whip.
The other elements don't have this complication. Is this intended or is the extra requirement for blade/whip supposed to be merely flavor?
"The object held by a telekineticist for this form infusion doesn’t prevent her from using gather power."
Does that include gathering power for a ranged blast? My reading was that the clause you quoted would only be in effect while the kinetic blade was actually being used.
One of the first things I did when I started building my playtest kineticist was enter all of the wild talents in a spreadsheet, so I could sort and filter as desired. It's quite a useful tool.
I don't suppose you could post this awesome spreadsheet? Because I just started a lvl 1 telekin/psychic in a Kingmaker game...
Haha, the table I was playing at went something like this
Spoiler:
After dealing with the Harbingers nonviolently:
My slayer, acting first in the round: "I'll delay, see what the rest of the party wants to do, I'm fine killing her or talking to her."
2nd player to act: "Yeah, I'll delay too, I'm fine talking to her."
Goblin barbarian: "I'll hold too...(player pauses, looks thoughtful, then shakes his head) Nope, can't do it, I charge and leap over the pit. Bite attack!"
Are there any PFS guidelines for what or how you're assumed to prep before you show up for a mission?
I specifically want to know about Mediums now that they're legal. Are you assumed to have channeled a spirit for the day, with the other PCs at the table around for the Seance Boon? Does it matter if you have a potentially weird place you need to channel (I'm looking at you Kami Medium Champion Spirit "Storms")?
It seems like daily spell prep and similar things is assumed, and that you're expected to have been working as a team for at least a bit before the mission, but I want to make sure before I try to make a Medium who either can't use their groupd buff or can't use their chosen spirit without an extended table discussion with the GM.
This concerns me as well, and is why I've held off on making a PFS medium yet. Some of the favored locations are rather rare. I could see a GM saying you can't channel your chosen spirit for lack of an appropriate location.
There were plenty of people who disagreed, judging by the table variation that I see in PFS games. No more though. I'm going to pull a wand every time I move in every PFS game from here out, just because I can!!
Restarting the day count back to 0 is not the same as fulfilling the ' 'died within 1 round' requirement of Breath of Life. This would not work by the rules.
The subject gains resist energy 10 against the energy type chosen, meaning that each time the creature is subjected to such damage (whether from a natural or magical source), that damage is reduced by 10 points before being applied to the creature's hit points.
Energy Resistance wrote:
A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack
Chill Touch can make Undead flee. Just came up in a game I'm in last night. I didn't know that. 8^)
I regularly prepare Chill Touch with my PFS magus for those pesky undead who are immune to my boosted Frostbite spells. I can't tell you how many GMs have looked at me and said, "It's undead, chill touch will just heal them", follow by me saying "au contraire, give me 3 will saves or be frightened", and then they say, "this is undead, it's immune", then I smile and say, "wanna bet?"
I would recommend the Scions of the Sky Key 1, 2, 3, From Under Ice, Test of Tar Kuata, Returned to Sky, and Tapesty's Toil. Those seven scenarios relate directly or indirectly to the Sky Key.
I would invite someone with the appropriate Herolab material to test to see how Lone Wolf implemented the feat.
Herolab migrates the bonus slot (or 2 slots) up as you level. While that is also my interpretation, I will admit that just because Herolab does it that way isn't really a strong argument either way.
My impression wasn't that a successful check could you get you around the net, simply that it could get you to stop short of getting entangled in the net. The passable portion of the river would still be blocked. Remember you're far enough up river that there are rapids blocking all but a "narrow channel". 30 feet should be plenty of width to block that channel. The scenario also says the boat passes 10 feet from the shore, so the channel can't be very wide. The PCs are sailing against the flow of the river as well, the ship isn't going to be moving very quickly.
Granted, resourceful PCs could cut the lines holding the net and sail on through, but they would likely still have to deal with the border guards since they have ranged and reach weapons and grappling hooks/ropes.
I'm prepping this for tomorrow, and am eagerly awaiting what sort of party we'll have. This is a very interestingly structured scenario with a lot of possible variation. Me likey.
There should not be an expectation of table variation on this issue.
Campaign leadership has stated that paper chronicle sheets are required so I print my online chronicles and bring my face to face copies with me. I have zero problem with this. They only ever have to be printed once so this isn't a big deal.
I have every rule book I own in cloud storage for access from any of my devices and also stored directly on my tablet. No issues there. I do not use sources I do not own. So far so good.
If someone doesn't do one or more of these things and it gets caught in an audit I have no problem with them being barred from a game (worst case, hopefully it can be fixed another way). If that audit was instigated SOLELY because they use Hero Lab then I think the GM is being a jerk, but that's a bigger issue.
I do NOT however print my characters because that would be more pages being printed multiple times unnecessarily (as I see it). Hence an answer to the originally posted question would be helpful to put this matter to rest.
If you only brought a character built with HeroLab, I have every right to not allow that character at my table.
I'd like to see some backup for this. I play with Herolab. I know every single feat, trait, spell, every single bonus, every penalty applied to my characters. And yes have every PDF for every book Paizo sells on the same tablet that runs Herolab, also purchased with hard earned cash.
If I pay good money to be in a convention slot, and you say I cannot play at the table because my choice of tool is different from yours, we're having words.
If the GM says he can't he can't, not sure what the issue is. Its kind of a GM fiat area anyway and different GM's rule it differently. Unless your running it in PFS mode, in which case he should let you take 10 barring danger (maybe he considers the rigging dangerous)
My house rule is taking 10 gets you 7 and taking 20 gets you 15. Not a fan of the take 10 rules so I limit them some. People still use them when success is certain, but much less often.
I'm not sure what your hostility to take ten is. Especially if there is no time pressure, and you don't forbid retrying, then all you are doing is short handing the intervening rounds in exchange for the player giving up the chance at doing really well. You can't fumble skill checks. So if failing it has no consequences and they are going to succeed eventually, and they have the time, what is wrong with just saying they succeed instead of rolling the dice 10 times?
Just a clarification, negative consequences of failure and inability to retry do not prohibit taking 10. Those are restrictions for taking 20, not for taking 10.
Though I had only recently met him, I was greatly saddened by Biscuit's passing. Shortly afterwards my blade found its mark in the evil doer's vital organs. (To the tune of around 120 damage I believe)
I too am underwhelmed by the race changes. None of them appeal to me from an aesthetic or mechanical perspective, while Tieflings and Aasimar both did. That's just one person's opinion of course.
I completely understand the rationale, but for me it's very disappointing.
