I would like to echo the feelings of other in this thread: any tracking option that uses less than a full page is asking for any mildly disorganized player to lose half their chronicle sheets in the space of five minutes, turn to the organizer and ask for an exception to be made, because he/she "really doesn't know what happened to them" and, "can you help me figure out how much prestige I have so that I can get a raise dead".
Stats: 2d6 + 6 ⇒ (1, 3) + 6 = 10
So 15, 15, 13, 11, 13, 13? I could certainly do worse. I'll start building him up! Do you need backgrounds messaged to you, or posted here, or put in a spoiler in the character's tab? Just as a warning, I like to explore my characters and so I start small with them and let experiences shape what I am. The germ is usually enough to give them flesh beyond being lump #23 though.
So, what are the character creation rules? So far, I've assumed 20-pt buy, standard wealth for a character of 5th level and PFS options are legal. Now, I've been eyeing playing a tiefling variant, on the basis that it would permit a better narrative (specifically when considering the lifespan) than: "This rando 5th level character is stumbling down the road with magical gear! How did he get it? WHO KNOWS! Trolololololol."
I desperately want to make a slayer but I keep hating the options it affords me and keep shifting towards ranger instead. Unless of course there is some way in hell I can flank without having someone else to help out.
So I guess my questions are:
Hello everyone! So I've taken a look at both characters. I'm reluctant to do anything with Granta's character due to the unfortunate circumstances under which he has had to leave PbP.
I am looking at the Stonelord left behind by Faelar. I'm going to have to mull that one over. I will be keeping you updated with what my final verdict is.
One boon I would like to see make an appearance is a complete rebuild boon. I have at least one (possibly two) characters that I started before realizing that they are not only mechanically bad, but are also offensive in some manner. And retraining will only get me a new class; I will be stuck with the statistics I have.
With dwindling play opportunities, being allowed to go "You know what? That was a terrible idea. Let me not waste those chronicle sheets" would be super awesome.
I know there have been some very passionate arguments from people I know on both sides of this. I don't know that I have much to add to this, beyond a desire to alienate as few people as possible while giving everyone a reasonable chance to continue playing PFS1 under difficult scheduling conditions.
I've always been of the mindset that unlimited, or even some limited replay can be harmful. I believe pjrogers and Joe will understand when I speak of a small proportion of players who will take their foreknowledge of a particular scenario and either backseat GM or play everyone else's character, something that will likely drive those new players we are trying to gain away. This should highlight the need to act gingerly, as that is bad gaming. And I believe we have seen how bad gaming is worse than no gaming locally in the past both near and distant.
On the other hand, as a particularly hands-on schedule maker for my little corner of the northeast, the difficulties of making scenarios happen and to serve as many people as possible weight heavily on me. Last Thursday's Red Harvest offering is a prime example of the difficulties of making this geek Sudoku work under current replay rules. While my data indicated there were enough people who could play and make a 6-person table happen, in the end I had to choose to replay to make the table happen with a pregen seated. I was happy to choose to seat myself at the table, and willing enough to make it happen to expend a use of Expanded Narrative. However, I hemmed and hawed until almost the last minute before I joined, as I had played it a little over a year ago, had some memory of the events within and didn't think that the scenario was, in of itself, worth a replay. Now, I did feel like I had a duty to make the table happen as a VA. But what if you don't? Are we always going to depend on the goodwill of strangers? Perhaps that is fine. Perhaps not. Perhaps there could be a more codified "kudos for being a awesome person" offered by OPF. I don't know. But I do feel like we need to find at least something we are begrudgingly willing to accept as the last compromise for this campaign.
Joe Bouchard wrote:
Hey, I still want to run the damn thing!
I'm going to admit, I have recetly been toying with the idea of trying to play a non-binary or trans character. However this discussion makes me feel super nervous about it, as I typically do not do a whole lot of research or have fully fleshed out characters by the time I am done creating the character at level 1. Usually, things organically grow into the initial concept, and personality/behaviors evolve to give the character a more nuanced, multi-layered and multi-dimensional background that we try and strive for in an RPG.
But I feel that if I just go with how I've done it for most of my characters, I might act in a way that is disparaging, insulting... In short, end up acting like a jerk. Should I try and delve further than the piece Rigby linked? Should I work to having a blurb similar to that of our shaman pregen Shardra? How much work should I be putting in to at the very least, not be offensive? Is this something best left alone, because it can be insulting by the tone deafness I could bring to the fore?
I can live with anything proposed. I certainly like the direction the OP team is going in currently with a good dose of option 2 mixed with perhaps some option 3.
My personal quibble with starting over is the specials. Special qualifiers are difficult not just in running (which is fine) but also in scheduling (which is the crux of my issue).
Whether in PFS1 or in PFS2, a special has the same challenges IMO. Rules mastery is a component, but the ability to understand a special's tempo, its individual challenges to help those playing at the table make choices with an understanding of how those choices translate, and preparation are what is being tested in a Special.
I'm all for sigils, runes or wafer cookies representing some rules mastery but I think that would be missing some of the key abilities that make a GM a GM whose tables you seek out. And I also feel that those abilities are tested in a special no matter the rules system. So while perhaps a total discount on specials might be a non-starter, perhaps alleviating some of the special requirements that will doubtlessly crop up in the evaluation system put in place for PFS2.
I am most concerned with what the OP team has in mind for the boons obtained via the RSP program. I am also curious about the fate of race boons from PFS1. While I don't have any ideas (and honestly am capable of dealing with whatever resolution the OP team has), I do feel duty-bound to stress that there is a big difference between normal PFS1 boons and race boons.
I like options 2 and 3, am OK with option 5 although it does not excite me at all.
While some might be OK with still being able to play anything given that they had to take time off of work, or had to drive forty minutes, or what have you, I am honestly so unenthused by the replayables I have already played that I am sighing just at the idea of sitting down for Wounded Wisp. And I love Wounded Wisp.
I think a combination of options 2 and 3 would probably be ideal, as they deal with two different types of players, as well as gives an out for people who do not have the capability to GM; they exist, and it's not solely because some people are terrible at it: some people just do not have the volume or the ability to respond well under a lot of pressure or stimuli.
And I'm not really interested in running sceanrios ad nauseum into the ground under option 4.
So you would just remove the option for people to understand that they are doing things that don't fit in with the campaign? Because other than expending resources that you could have used to better your character, that's what atonements are: opportunities for a player to understand what kind of campaign is being run and how they can fit in it. And it still doesn't give anyone a visible line not to cross. Reminders are important, and you don't address that, at least in a manner I find satisfactory.
Yes, people will behave like jerks no matter what the piece of paper says or what I might say, and people will still get banned for behavior that isn't acceptable in our society, but that doesn't mean I need to provide them with a vehicle for their shenanigans. I mean, I can still run over people drunk, but if I only have a bicycle, it becomes more difficult for me to do harm. And that's what I believe we are trying to accomplish, make it difficult for someone to engage in the behavior, or make the endeavor so blatant that we can nip it in the bud.
I can understand that you might be frustrated with the lack of character options this can lead to, but if PF2 ends up with the same spread of options as PF1, I think you have plenty of other options to make up for your loss.
With that said, I'm happy to read that you are capable of roleplaying characters who toe that line. But just because you can do it does not mean everyone else can, and you are looking to enable those options not just for you, but for people who may cause a lot of harm because they aren't capable of operating with that much freedom.
In my humble opinion, it would be because at that point we neuter the alignment's meaning. We complain enough about how Lawful Good Paladins aren't behaving in a very goodly fashion.
Furthermore, if we keep the complete restriction on evil acts that we have, how do we tell someone that they are retired? How do we tell them they need an atonement? Right now the limit is "if you shift to an evil alignment, you atone or you are done". How does that even begin to work with evil alignments allowed?
That isn't to even mention that all my earlier objections still hold true, with people still being given a license to behave like jerks.
And finally, if we keep the same restrictions, how is that "roleplaying freedom" that was pushed as the main reason behind allowing LE going to even work? You want to roleplay evil but you aren't allowed to roleplay evil because of the restrictions. At that point, one would just be a gelded, edgier version of LN.
Scott Mcgroarty wrote:
Very true. But who makes the decision of where we draw the line? Is hurting an NPC who is evil and an obstacle to the PC's progress, without being an enemy combatant, grossly evil? Does Mr or Mrs Commoner 5 who doesn't want to tell you where the McGuffin is deserve to be beaten up? I would argue it is? You might think otherwise. Do you really want to spend half an hour debating me, a random guy at a table you are at for the sake of "expanded roleplaying opportunities", or could we think that Evil alignments are just not worth it?
GM PDK wrote:
The expectations are well known! This is Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and we all know what the status quo is; the expectations have been lain out in every single guide to organized play in very plain language!
If the expectations we hold under PFSOP are still unclear in a system that allows only for a minimum of moral ambiguity from the players, what happens when someone says "Evil is cool"?
Do we end up with situations where a character is left behind? "I didn't harm him/her, he/she just missed the boat, I'm not their minder" right mister lawful evil? Except there is at least one scenario where you get penalized for missing your extraction time. Enjoy paying gold and PP! Guess it sucks to be a goody two shoes working with Evil Mc Lawfulstein, Esquire where your philosophies clashed on the field.
This is just one example, and I don't care to think of all the devious ways in which someone could mess with another character in the 200+ scenarios we hqve available. And of course, we're just "playing our character, that's how he acts, I didn't do anything evil". The debates, the irritation and the drama aren't worth it IMO.
Your argument that it will allow for some more frank and honest use of all the alignments are quite frankly unconvincing.
As someone who has had to issue alignment warnings to players, let me tell you what happens, since you seem to be blessed with players who do not have issues like that.
I've had to tell a player playing a paladin on at least two seperate occasions that he was risking his alignment, and not acting in a manner I believed befits a Pathfinder. On both occasions, this thankfully only turned into a five minute discussion where the player ultimately relented, but each interaction left tension around the table.
Another player also had to be told that his actions merited an alignment warning, and those took twenty minutes of back and forth, of a debate about morality, why his actions made perfect sense and weren't going to totally wreck everyone's experience at the table. I do not care to enable further debates on morals during my game time, nor do I care to enable people who believe themselves to "just be playing the character" to do things that at best compromise the table's chances of success, and at worst devolve into some of the worst manure we sometimes read about on these forums; roleplayed sexual assault being the only one I can stomach mentioning at this time.
I do not care to have to explain how captain lawful evil is being a jerk specifically, especially since the entire evil alignment is predicated on being a jerk towards people who surround you. And let's not forget that the guide to the roleplaying guild, up to two guides ago, used to spell out "don't be a jerk". If that philosophy of gameplay holds, why the heck do we want to enable the jerk alignment? Do we not get enough stories of people leaving their tables, or quitting PFS of late, that we need to enable another avenue for that?
I hear what you are saying Blake's Tiger, and I do understand it conceptually. But as an organizer, I find the idea of not offering one campaign because "you gotta go with the new stuff" silly, overly consumeristic and personally abhorrent. Sessions should be offered with an eye towards the demand. If there is still demand for PFS1, offer PFS1. Until my little spreadsheet where I track all my minio... I mean regular players' adventures is filled, I am going to have PFS1 on offer. I might even expand over two nights to accommodate PFS1 and 2. Or alternate. Haven't really thought that far, since we have another year and a half.
Insofar as People doing stupid s~+! because "it don't matter no more"; I can tell anyone who cares that you can absolutely do that, but if you wonder why I won't play at a table with you or why I won't GM for a table with you, I'll be pointing you at your nonsense from the end days of PFS1.
Online Play has just seen it's first ban for someone acting very selfishly. Acting in a rash,inconsiderate manner because "idgaf, PFS1 B ded lol" will entail me taking steps to see the same sort of punishment met out to those who spoil organized play for those who do care.
As much as I dislike the idea of some of my characters never getting to the end of their PFS careers, I think that while a blank may hurt, like a band-aid being ripped off, the pain will be momentary and you and I will get over it.
I think that there are plenty of ways to keep playing those characters you have since none of PFS1.0 is being shelved away. If pjrogers wants to keep on playing Lady Ayr Hed, he can! But he will have to keep in mind that the number of scenarios he can play her in is now finite.
I personally think you can get up to 20-25 characters played, with varying amounts of GM credit, GM replays and other promotional boons.
I think that converting characters, considering the plethora of material currently available compared to the limited amount of material that will be initially available will turn any attempt into a logistical nightmare. Better to start fresh.
Insofar as long-time players who wish a "Hey, thank you for participating" boon, I believe the OPF will need to figure that out. A small boon might be cool but I won't shed tears if it doesn't happen.
Insofar as stars translating to something cool for PFS2.0, I will channel Dave Chapelle by saying "S%&% MAN, I JUST GOT MY STARS!", and hope you can take a minute and appreciate the humor. But on a more serious note, I would appreciate a benefit that has nothing to do with getting a character.
I understand that no new material will be published for PFS with PF1 as the underlying system, leaving PFS players interested in playing seasons 0 through 10 to delve through the material at their own pace, with games dying out in their own time.
I would ask though that consideration be made not to retire the Expanded Narrative boon for use in those seasons (without any crossover from season 10 to season 11). It would serve as a carrot to continue to offer games for those who still wish to play the old scenarios and just can't find a GM, and would allow prolific GMs to perhaps close the book on certain favorite characters.
As an example, if I ran games from season 2,5,6 and got some of the tiers completed I could replay anything from season 0 to season 10.
I have no particular wants or desires for any Expanded Narrative boons for season 11 and beyond, save perhaps that it exist. In any case I hope that this request can garner some support from the OPF.
Remember how in early scenarios we would get a "limit 3" flaming arrow or something like that? I though I saw either a blogpost or a clarification that said, essentially "from here on out any of those special items can be bought for any projectile". As in, my season 2 chronicle that has a limit 2 "+3 Merfolk-bane sling bullet" can be purchased as a "+3 Merfolk-bane crossbow bolt" or "firearm bullet" per that clarification.
Did I dream that? Or misunderstand something? Thank you!
Yes it is. PFS has given me a great deal of system mastery in a very short amount of time and now it gives me a chance to "practice" should I ever decide to run another homebrew, or an AP; It has exposed me to good behavior, bad behavior and every behavior in between and has helped me understand how to respond to each. It has shown me how to deal with situations that weren't in the book, how to present situations for the enjoyment of all, and how to deal with passages that could have been written better. I have gotten to meet old friends whom I never thought I'd see again, get to make new friends, meet exciting new people, give newcomers their first taste of a role playing game, or a d20 game. It has enabled me to learn how to assess people and make decisions based on these people with the goal of pleasing as many people as I can with the material I have available.
But the thing that makes it the most worthwhile for me? It's that I get to employ these ridiculous voices that I could never otherwise bring to bear, such as my ASMR Bob Ross/Ashasar, or my shrill and strident/every Taldane Ever, my sultry vixen/Zarta and my really, really bad eastern/Old Pak. When I GM PbP, its the challenge of painting a story better than the boxed text, imbuing the NPCs with more than the few seeds of personality that are gifted to us by the scenario writers to bring the story into bloom. It's the work with punctuation, the hours spent wrestling with google translate for foreign looking fonts, sometimes even the time spent finding the correct music track on YouTube to perhaps enhance the scene I am describing. That's what makes the work worth it.
Sometimes I mess up. Sometimes I try and do things that really don't work. Sometimes I futz a rule. And while I don't exactly relish messing up and possibly looking like a fool, I take some solace in knowing that I can do better next time, because I won't make that mistake again (hopefully).
I mean, I know Hmm said not to engage, but this thread just keeps on giving.
Also, I suspect that ChaosTicket wants to mold PFS into his style of game because he can't get into a home game where he could play his style of game.
Random thought, so as to contribute to the discussion: Have you tried getting into a home game via PbP? Maybe they will allow you to thrive under the conditions you have imposed for yourself.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
I won't be there this year for other reasons, but I find myself echoing that sentiment.
I realize that as it was my first time, I probably made a lot of mistakes in prepping what I would do, even with Jen McTeague's coaching beforehand and Mark Stratton's help getting some groceries. And I know that it was supposed to be intense.
But man, let me tell you, after all that, I barely remember some of the things I did with how tired I was. After the con, I felt like I could have used a vacation. And also, while I understand the constraints of hotel room availability, it did feel a little tight in those rooms.
I know others were in the same situation as myself, and since, having no reasonable solution of my own, I cannot be part of the solution I do not expect any changes; to be honest, I feel a little pedantic bringing this up; rooms that close to the convention are a generous gift. But I do believe that it deserves to be mentioned.
I too will likely return for 2019, and I hope you rock the house in 2018!
Also, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank Patrick Sterns for helping me make it to Gen Con 50 and putting up with my ass after I was almost an hour late getting down to the car on Monday. You made it happen you filthy animal.
Speaking of creative solutions. In
Scenario name here:the climax comes from having to choose between two factions. One that has just appeared the other which has accompanied you all along.
Tyranny of the Winds, Part 1
My players didn't see it as a choice, but more of a "Hey, let's try and make nice with both of them". So at that point, I thought it over. What mattered for
Scenario name here:was each individual's choice, as that would be reflected on their sheet. As for the reporting condition, it was built so that you could have neither faction come out a winner. So, after instead substituting a few difficult diplomacy checks, we left the script, but ended within the parameters of Society play.
Tyranny of the Winds, Part 2
My point is that creative solutions and off the beaten track solutions can be used, but we still need to make sure that they work within the frame of the campaign. For instance, had they decided to take over the leadership of one group to continue on their primary objective, that would not have been a solution I could implement within that framework, and would have probably resulted in me pointing out that there were a lot of people in either of these groups. Enough to tilt the action economy scale in my favor so much that I would dispense with combat.
With that said, I think we might be rehashing things here. I believe you can understand our point. Now, while it certainly bothers me that you do not care so much for the constraint of Organized Play so much so that you'd rather not play, that is certainly your prerogative. However, I would like you to take another look and perhaps try again.
Yeah. Sorry I'm not answering, I need to completely reassess what character I'm playing. On the plus side I have two super solid concepts and builds I can play with now!
I'm not sure what race I'm going with but it'll be either some sort of cavalier archetype without a mount, a medium, a vigilante or a slayer. So someone to help in the front, possibly with some utility.
PJP, are you planning on grabbing some way of getting trap spotter?
Investigators are pretty damn awesome, but your instinct might be on point with a bard.
I do have some knowledge skills covered. Arcana, Planes, Local and Religion are the ones I plan on focusing on.
I've only seen one ninja in my PFS career, and the player quickly retrained out of it (I think he was going for some sort of dark tapestry oracle that sneaks around and touches you to make you see the infinite void and the despair therein. Ok, I might have embellished things but that was the concept and he eventually retrained out of ninja.
Bard's selection of illusion spells isn't half-bad.
When I was futzing around with my character I was contemplating bard, but I can't wrap my head around it. Voice of the Wild seems cool, in spite of what others might say.
Faith-Singer might be interesting, if there is a god whose domain spells would compliment your selection.
Duettist might be worthwhile, as familiars are another set of "hands". Maybe Lingering Performance might lessen the hit to your performances.
Impervious messenger might also be worthwhile. And Lotus Geisha might be interesting.
I'd suggest either Yours is Mined, Dien, DebugAMP. I'm going to go with my initial idea: Spellslinger with a secondary focus on Necromancy. The plan is to take a level in Spellslinger and then go on with levels of Sorcerer using the Wildblooded Sage bloodline. I'm going to be behind on spells, and I do not know if that would result in me being more of a damage dealer than someone who supports their party by making the other guys deal with debilitating spells. But it's been touted about on the boards, and I'm curious as to how this pans out. I'll be playing a sylph, and I have a name, but I need to flesh out who this person is.
Any suggestions for the actual build?
Batpony, are you hoping to combine Cleave and Vital strike?
Well, I'm happy to have broadened your horizons Batpony! However if that's too meta for anyone involved, I'm happy to never bring it up again.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I certainly can avoid using the terminology; furthermore I would like to point out that the arm/hammer/anvil methaphor isn't MMO-ish at all, being brought up by TarkXT in his thread about group balance. Having been in situations where absolutely no though was put into what characters were going into an adventure, I would prefer to at least avoid the consequences thereof. With that said, I am more than happy to move on and avoid speaking of any of those concepts.
With regards to the inquisitor; I think that if you can move past the initial joke and define the character by more than it, it should be fine. Though an Atticus Finch gunslinger/inquisitor might be a better character in the long run.
Do we want darkvision as a thing? I couldn't say. It's certainly one of the first pitfalls one comes across in a Pathfinder's career, soon followed by exotic DR (she's got DR 15/Wedge of Gouda) and flight.
Witches are always solid choices, but I am curious to see a shaman in action.
Before I get started on doors, new room SoPs and progression down a corridor, I think we should start talking characters.
By my poor math skills, 0 or 1 XP characters should be fine through and through, but 2 XP characters are going to need to look into slow progression a lot sooner or they will be out of tier come Sub-level 10.
I plan on using my 9-00 boon, a GM baby with 1 XP and create a Sylph spellslinger. I don't have a whole lot about it thought out yet, but I do think that I might be diverging into sorcerer. In short, expect a blaster/hammer (depending on the terminology/methaphor you are using). Now that is what I'm thinking of now, but I can move onto something else as group composition emerges.
Also, i have been told that the Emerald Spire isn't kind, but then again, the same was said of Thornkeep and it didn't feel that way at all.