Thanks Sara - but it appears to be Too Late. (I should have saved the screen clip!)
There's really very little left. I blinked, and everything filled up. Honestly, if I had known everything would be filled - (except the High-Level COREs - because how many folks HAVE 7+ CORE's anyway?) - I dunno... it's frustrating to have committed to 4 days and vacation time and then find there's nothing left. Mostly I'm bummed about missing the Friday Evening event.
Are there any plans to recycle unused slots?
If you're normally accessing wirelessly anyways, you should have the PDF to print out the necessary pages from. 30 minutes at Kinko's and a couple bucks makes a great permanent resource that doesn't require charging.
I do that anyway. But there are always things to look up, and hyperlinked documents are so much easier to work with.But it is what it is , he said profoundly...
Jeff Alvarez wrote:
Oookay... I could ask why not, but I'm sure it costs money.Is there NOT-free WiFi available?
FWIW, the suggestion/solution appears simple. Swap 6-14 on Saturday with 6-13 on Sunday. No conflicts, and the whole trilogy is available. But evidently changing the numbering scheme will make the logistics of mustering untenable, and have a cascade effect across the entire convention. So never mind.
I never dreamed this would be as big an issue as it turned out to be - I had assumed it was an oversight in the bustle to organize everything, and would be fairly simple to adjust once the oversight was evident. My bad. At this point, I am just giving up trying to get the trilogy in at this event, as there are plenty of other scenarios to play in.
Duncan, let me know which of the three you need to fill out your schedule and what day. I only have one locked in slot other than the two specials, so I am sure I can fit you in somewhere. I'm unfortunately running Part 3 in the 3rd slot, so that will make it slightly more difficult, but there will be open slots to take advantage of.
Well, thank you sir. I appreciate the offer. I guess I would have looked to run Part I in the Friday (not scheduled) or Saturday (already scheduled) PFS slot, Part II on the Saturday (already scheduled) or Sunday (not scheduled) PFS slot, and Part III on the Sunday (not scheduled) or Monday (already scheduled) PFS slot.
Beyond that, I expected to organize the rest of my activities around whatever time remains.
But let me say - this shouldn't be about ME. I mean, come on, I can find a way to get this in before the Con without anyone making special considerations for duncan. Not the point. The point is the schedule does not appear to be thought out. As Michael points out above, the assignments were made based on the numbering of the scenarios - odd/even. Not the story - not the flow or relationships between the scenarios. Pretty much randomly. That seems...rushed. Hasty. And while with most scenarios the relationships are fuzzy at best, in the trilogies (and every season has at least one trilogy), the sequence, and dependency, are very evident. I don't feel the convenience of randomly assigning the schedule should trump the playability of the season.
I think the schedule - or at least parts of it - should be reconsidered. But that probably won't happen, and I will adjust and I'm sure have a fine time anyway. :)
Michael Brock wrote:
So, shall I take it from this response that the existing schedule will remain unchanged? I admit disappointment. My PaizoCon experiences have been 2012: Quest for Perfection I,II,III (missed 2013) and 2014 Destiny of Sands I,II,III. I was really looking forward to Scions of the Sky Key I,II,III. It just seems really ill-conceived to make that completely impossible.Doing a series back to back is great draw. If it's not gonna happen, it's not gonna happen, but I admit disappointment. Sorry to be critical, but I kinda feel like the growth of the Con has not necessarily resulted in ... something better.
Sara Marie wrote:
I've alerted Mike Brock to the thread to maybe shed some light on this.
That is very much appreciated. I am sure with the overwhelming volume of Stuff on your plate, this must seem like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. But I've actually turned down sessions in order to save this series for my Paizocon run, so I guess I'm a bit invested.
Thanks for your attention!
Sara Marie wrote:
All of the PFS events have been entered. Data entry for events is not the most user friendly (though its a lot better this year after some improvements) and if something seems amiss with events, I am more than happy to double check if its intended or a typo. In this case, the PFS schedule from Mike does have all 3 Sky Key scenarios on Monday.
Yes, I can see that, as I mentioned in my initial post. But these 3 scenarios are a SERIES. Having them all at the same time means you cannot play the series. As it stands now, I can play one on Saturday, and one on Monday. I cannot get all three.This is the first Paizocon I have been to where this has happened - and it seems to be a scheduling issue. Why isn't the series being run on Friday or Sunday? Or the sessions spread out over the weekend instead of all being at the same time?
This just makes it unnecessarily impossible to play the series at Paizocon.
Please reconsider this schedule.
Pat Luther wrote:
I looked there. Part of my concern was that Friday was "finished" - and no Scions
OK, so I have very carefully been preserving the 3 SkyKey scenarios for Paizocon, with the idea of taking my character-du-jour through all three back to back to back.
One would hope these scenarios showed up on Friday and/or Sunday, so that one could play through the series.
So, it is my understanding that PFS scenarios will NOT be run during the mid-day sessions. I get that PFS is still running the same number of sessions they always have, just spread out over 4 days instead of 3.
I trust you folks to coordinate this stuff, but sometime logistics are such that things fall through the cracks. So, if I may, let me suggest that you at LEAST publish the time-slots that WILL have some PFS in them, so we know what the open slots are when the Lottery comes out.
The Lottery IS time-slot specific, right?
We have finally made it to Book Four, and after a couple of sessions, I am a bit mystified as to what the anticipated flow is designed to be for the story around the Chelish Fort. Perhaps I do not fully grasp the whole picture, but with so much going on there, I wanted to get an idea how others have handled this part of the scenario.
Chelish Fort Questions:
So, as I understand it, Bikendi is in the basement of the tower, and Paetra the Phase Spider is in the upper stories. Bikndi apparently "hides" in a column or something. This IMPLIES that Paetra doesn't know he exists. Is this correct? If so, then the Phase Spiders and their Living Dream allies are just waiting here in the fort for ... what? For Ederleigh to spill the beans (divulge where the Stone is)? It is unclear if Ederleigh even knows. I know he knows Bikendi was doing something related to immortality, but does he actually understand what happened? Does he know what Bikendi did, or was trying to do?
How confrontational did you make the Phase Spiders and the Dreams? My PCs have been to the fort three times now, and each time I drove them away with ethereal/incorporeal tactics. This could get dry. But without understanding what the ethereals are expecting to accomplish, I don't really have a picture of what their strategy is. I'm inclined to move on toward a more conclusive fight, but I don't want to miss some significant impact they are supposed to have on the way the story resolves. It doesn't seem like the PCs can safely move in - or even spend the night - until the Phase Spiders and the Dreams are eliminated. When did you confront them in your campaign?
Does the Sister Hag (whose name escapes me) ever show up? I haven't found her in the module except where she is referenced as the one who 'sent" Paetra and her gang to find the stone. If we kill off the Phase Spiders and Dreams, does that wrap up that plot-line? I have seen nothing that implies the Hag does anything about it. Have I missed something, or is this just a dangling plotline?
And what did your Bikendi share with the PCs? Certainly he has an agenda - but does he tell the PCs what actually happened - or does he try to spin it in some way? What happened in your game?
Basically - what happened in the Fort in your game?
The Grim MacKay
As my group (finally!) is about to enter Book 3, I am curious what those who have already run this campaign did with Tidewater Rock. While a bit forced, the crew of the Bloody Bones "broke the Rock" and the Captain "married" the Lady.
I have some thoughts (heh, heh) about how to wrap up the Tidewater Rock subplot, but I'm curious what, if anything, other GMs did with this dangling plot-hook.
My group is in the midst of Raiders of the Fevered Sea, and have stashed a couple of ships throughout the Shackles with an eye to selling them later. They finally decided to move one of the captured ships, and I needed to go look up the mechanics for that, and this is what I found:
"they must ... sail it to Bloodcove or Senghor, the two closest cities in which they can sell a ship"
Really? Why couldn't a ship be sold at one of the ports in the Shackles? Quent is three times the size of Bloodcove - is there some reason why a ship couldn't be sold there? For that matter, it seems like you could potentially sell a ship at almost any reasonably-sized port in the Shackles - you just might not get as much plunder for it.
And then I saw that the same thing was laid out for selling plunder!
"The best options...are...Bloodcove or Senghor...or...Crown's End..."
Again, really? We can't unload plunder - perhaps at a loss - in ports throughout the Shackles? If Quent is 3x the size of Bloodcove, I would expect you would stand a better chance of unloading plunder there at greater profit.
Perhaps there is some reason why Shackles ports are not viable for unloading plunder and ships. How are others playing this?
I got mine this week. It is nice enough - what you would expect having seen the beginners box. Where there are multiples of a single type, I have seen no more than three, which might be problematic for encounters with larger numbers. It's great to have stand-ins for some of the more obtuse monsters that you could never get a figure for anyway. The art is pretty much the art from the Bestiary itself - no surprises there.
I have a full schedule of naught but PFS. Between it all, I hope to advance Yhamir al'Kayyam to 3rd...
Friday, July 6
Saturday, July 7
Sunday, July 8
... Greetings, good sirs. I am your humble servant, Yhamir al'Khayyam - but a poor poet and philosopher - oh, and I dabble in archery...
I have been trying since 2:00 (again) mto get in, and all I get is:
Sorry, there was a problem handling your request. The system administrator has been notified.
Please contact email@example.com if you continue to have difficulties.
I sure hope I don't lose out on signing up after trying hard for 2 days!!
I understand what you are saying. I find that approach... saddening...
Let me preface this by saying we are all different, and different things appeal to different folks. I can only speak for myself. Some may agree - some may not...
I do not game for mechanics sake. I see the mechanics as a way to express, in a playable manner, the "reality" of the world in which we game. The "fluff" as you call it is The Thing. It is WHAT we game. The mechanics are a just that - a mechanism for expressing the fluff.
I perceive that you envision things the other way around. The game is fundamentally mechanical - the mechanics are what matters, and the "fluff" is a mere drapery over the beauty of the mechanics. If the Fluff disagrees with the mechanics, it is the Fluff that need to change.
I just don't think this way. I'm not a simulationist, but I do believe that the story being told is more important than the mechanics used to tell it. To echo your sentiment, this is not an attack - just an observation that the question I raise is, or is not, an issue, depending on which side of the Mechanic Rule fence you sit on.
Forgive me if I do not take your response as gospel. It is internally consistent, and makes sense from the perspective from which it is given. But I question whether it is representative of the entirety of the gaming community, and I wonder if this is, again, what the Designers intended.
I appreciate your continued willingness to pursue this line of inquiry - no offense is intended.
OK, I'll easily concede the targeting issue. That's clean.
The fluff vs rules thing. Well, yeah, obviously. But there is a level of inconsistency here that causes me to raise the question.
Consider this (completely hypothetical) supernatural ability:
Kareoke Inspiration (su) - the character sings a well-known inspirational song that grants everyone with 30' a +2 morale bonus to Will saves
OK, so by the rules, this works in silence. Because it doesn't say it doesn't, and the standard rules interpretation applies.
But if that is what was INTENDED, why would you make it a sonic "fluff"? If all trapping is without value, why bother? It should just be:
+2 Will bonus (su) - the character grants everyone within 30' a +2 morale bonus to Will Saves.
But we don't do that. We build a "real-world" (and I use the term VERY loosely) justification for it. This is, after all, a roleplaying game, not a mathematical exercise. And if I have included the flavor, I would probably add something along the lines of : this is a sonic effect. Because I defined it as one in the fluff.
So when I see this, I question - did we leave that out? Why? How could Cackle NOT be sonic fluff?
I have no doubt about how to interpret the rule as written. I am questioning whether there is errata here.
Believe it or not, I actually understand all of the logic described here - and there is no question in my mind that this is how the rule is written. Not really my question...
I'm asking if this is what was INTENDED. (Obviously only a designer could really answer that). I'm suggesting that by its very nature, Cackle appears to be a sonic effect. It is not that the rule states that it is, or that it is NOT affected by sonic suppression like silence. It simply says nothing beyond (su), and I am asking if this is what was intended aka errata.
There's a couple of things like this in the witches repetoire that makes me question this kind of interpretation. Take for instance, Charm. It is also listed as (su).
A witch can charm an animal or humanoid creature within 30 feet by beckoning and speaking soothing words.
Yes, but do the words have to be heard?
Or how about:
Misfortune (Su): The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round.
Yes, but does the Witch have to have line of effect to the creature? In theory, they could target an invisible creature, because it doesn't specifically say they DON'T have to be able to see them, or even really know where they are. They could be on another floor, as long as it was within 30'.
The same is true of my personal favorite for unbalancing, slumber.
All in all, I'm not enamored of interpreting rules based on their lack of specificity. I can obviously understand why you don't want to call things out over and over again, but I suspect this may be one of those cases where the specifics should override the generality.
My point being this - if this is what the designers intended, then so be it. I don't want to deprive my players of the perks of choosing a class as written - no matter how unbalanced I might think it is. But if these are oversights and mistakes, then I feel justified in calling down a little house-ruling on them.
I had hoped that the Principals might weigh in on this, as the rest of us are just interpreting what was written. And I'm not disputing anyone's interpretation! I begrudgingly admit I have little choice but to interpret these rules in the same way. But they really feel like they are incomplete, and would love to hear why that is not the case...
I understand that the designation of Cackle as (su) means that it is not subject to normal spell-constraints. But, House Rulings aside, was it really the intention of the designers to have Cackle - a blatantly sonic effect - work in the area of a Silence effect?
(Actually, I wonder what they were thinking with a number of capabilities in the APG, but that's a different story :) )
I'm an enthusiastic adopter of Pathfinder, currently running a PF/Eberron campaign on a weekly basis. But I also want to be a player, and I wanted to get involved with the PFS. So...I put in my zip code - which is pretty much the same as Paizo's (I live in Redmond as well)- in the Find Events in Your Area - and came up with...nothing!
Really? No PFS in Paizo's home town? Or is there a problem with the search feature?
Now, I know the next step is - well, YOU be the guy. Well, sure, but FIRST I'd like to play in the context of PFS, so I can get a feel for it, then I'd be happy to contribute.
So - Eastside, Western Washington? Anybody?
James Jacobs wrote:
OK. But... really? I mean, why wait? I can't see there's any downside to getting the PDF income rolling in sooner rather than later. I seriously doubt anyone who would be motivated to buy the retail hardcover would not do so because they bought the PDF. I know I wouldn't - and I'd love to at least get the PDF this month, instead of waiting till November.
Com'on - consider it anyway!