Pickguy's page

The new Reaper Bone's include a townfolk set. As these are made of plastic they are much cheaper than the metal ones. As the rewards have shipped from their Kickstarter last year I bet you can find tons on Ebay.

If my only option is to buy them and assemble and paint them myself, it seems like there is a real niche to be filled here.

Rulers, nobles, farmers, minstrels, anyone without a weapon would be really awesome. I can't count the number of time bartenders and barmaids have been involved in fights, but I just don't have minis for that situation.

Not sure where else to put this. One thing my gms in the area have been dying for is minis of bartenders, barmaids, dancing girls, and townsfolk in general. The only set I have ever seen is a Reaper metal set. Anyone have any idea if Paizo would do a builder set in the future, similar to a We Be Goblins, but maybe like a We Be Townsfolk? Would there be any support on here for something like that? Who would I contact to get this idea in their collective heads?

So he rolls two attacks total. If he hits with both, for the entire round he deals 2d6+2d8+4 assuming no DR, resistance, etc.

I have to admit that this freaked me out at first, until I remembered that rogues can do this exact same thing at 2nd level with Sneak Attack and TWF. I guess I can just classify Magus as a glass cannon.

DragonKnight03 wrote:

Half of the people say I can only do one attack with the spell and that's it period. No moving or anything. Just one cast and hit with the sword casting the spell through it and no normal attack

Those people are definitely incorrect. Spellcombat means you can cast and make attacks in the same round. Spellstrike means you can do a FREE melee attack in place of the touch attack to deliver an spell. There's nothing in the rules that says anything about losing the other attack that spellstrike explicitly grants you. However, spellcombat is a full round action, so you could either move and spellstrike with no regular attack, or not move and get your regular attack(s) plus your spellstrike attack.

If I am understanding this correctly, it means that a Magus at level 2 with 14 Str and BAB of +1, no MW weapon or Weapon Focus, would be able to make two melee attacks and cast a spell in each round, using Spellstrike. The attacks would be at +1 and +1 for each attack due to the full round action and TWF rules. So a longsword user casting on the second attack would have +1/+1 melee attacks. On a hit, and assuming the Magus cast something like Shocking grasp at caster level 2, he would then damage the target for 2d8 + 2d6 + 4 per round. Is this correct?

Something came up in a recent home game, and I need a clarification on a rule about the Magus. The character in question was a 2nd level Elven Magus who was designed as PFS legal.

The player stated during a dungeon crawl that he cast Shocking Grasp and held it in his hand to be prepared for combat. Once combat started, he used the Magus ability to channel the spell through his sword as a melee attack, rather than taking the ranged touch attack. He stated that this was a free action, and that he also had a standard action to take, so he took a second melee attack, at his same base attack bonus. He hit with both and ended up doing the 1d8 + 2d6 + Str for the weapon and shocking grasp on the free attack, and another 1d8 + Str on the standard attack. I believe he took a -2 on one of the melee attacks because he said it was an off-hand attack.

My question is: Is this the correct interpretation? It seems too much to me to be doing 2d8 + 2d6 + (Str x 2) at 2nd level, with only a -2 on one of the attacks. My interpretation was that the melee attack takes the place of the touch attack, so it would be a standard action to make the attack that channels the held spell. He would still be doing 1d8 + 2d6 + Str, but there's no second attack, or an attack as a free action. It just seems a bit much, and if every single combat will be started with a prepared Magus doing that much damage, I may have to ban the class from my homebrew games. That is a bit excessive for a 2nd level character. Is this right?

These are all really great ideas. Thank you so much to everyone for the help. I am definitely going to start implementing these ideas into my games. Obscuring mist looks great, and now that I think about it, I do tend to set conflicts in open plains. I guess that should have been a no-brainer. This thread definitely saved my game. Thanks everyone!

I've been running games for a few years now. I have one glaring hole in my DM toolkit, and that is simply this: I have no real skill when it comes to making combats against a mostly-ranged party. This is unfortunate, since I keep ending up with ranged characters. At one point, I had a single melee tank, and four ranged characters. I am really having a lot of trouble figuring out how to make this work. My players are usually tactically smart, so they fan out to avoid AoE attacks, and they typically stay at the extreme edge of range so the monsters would have to take at least a double move to get near them. This has been killing me, because, no matter how I up the CR, combat is a joke this way and no one really has fun. Can anyone give me some good tips on managing ranged characters and making combat more challenging for my players?

Pickguy wrote:

A properly trained PFS Judge would not allow such things at their table.

Creed_of_the_Mantis wrote:

PFS Judges go through training?

Fifteen years, in the Academy of Law, the harshest training programe known to man, before they get their white helmet and half-eagle shoulder pad.

LOL! Okay guys, you got me. What I meant was that a PFS Judge with a strong understanding of the rules, and the sentiment behind them. Trained just sorta came out, since I figured someone, somewhere had to sit them down at some point and say, "Okay, this is why we don't allow PVP..."

Keep in mind that kids - Ages 10 to 14 - tend to pull names from the movies and their favorite characters. I have run a handful of games for about a dozen kids within this age group and they all picked favorite names. We had most of the Lord of the Rings covered along with a few names from Avatar, the Last Airbender, and a few from Video games. My own daughter's picked Zelda and Azula. I could care less as long as they learn the game and have fun. As they get older, they will get more creative.

No name police. I do like the idea of Kneecap Plaza.

We have a young player around here who specifically built his character to be Link. He even named him Link. And while that does sort of pull me out of the immersion experience at times, I realize that I would rather have 5 people at the table with non-setting names, than only one person with a really serious name. A two-person dungeon crawl would be a lot worse to me than playing with Link. New RPers tend to pick unorthodox names as it is (not that seasoned players don't take some time once in a while for a bit of the same fun). Given some time, the person playing Link went on and made a new character, more appropriate to the setting. And you know what? He plays his characters well. I would rather have someone with a goofy name who plays well, than someone serious who is horrible to game with. Lastly, I know plenty of people IRL with horrible names that are hard to take seriously, but we get along just fine.

Im sorry you feel that being able to have total free will in a RPG is a wierd concept but we will just have to agree to disagree in a calm and dignified way.

I see the point you're trying to make, but allowing everyone to have total free will, without restrictions does not work in an organized setting. The problem is simply by definition. Unrestricted behavior, not governed by any preconceived notions of civility, and without respect to law, is actually called anarchy. Anarchy does not work in an organized setting. Basically, what you're describing would actually create more instances of bullying. In turn, people would leave PFS in droves, because their roleplay focused characters are now simply walking targets for PVP min-maxed builds who feel like getting their way.

Faction missions could potentially fall by the wayside, since different factions disagree on missions. Silver Crusade doesn't like the Andoran mission? Silver Crusade barbarian one-shots the Andoran Sorcerer. The only option for the Andoran is to be so secretive that the Silver Crusade person doesn't even realize the Sorcerer is doing a faction mission.

This also opens up the door for all sorts of metagaming. Don't like how the player is acting OOC? Surprise greatsword to the head will take care of that. Don't like that the Szarni character is doing a faction mission, even if your character isn't there? You attack him when he gets back, because he was performing an evil action and you don't like that sort of player.

We have so many different people at the table. Some basic restrictions are a good thing. And, unfortunately, and I mean no disrespect to you, the same arguments you've made for being allowed to PVP are the same arguments I hear from anarchists IRL who say that they should be allowed to use vigilante justice to correct what they feel are problems. It all amounts to a lot of chaos, paranoia, and hurt feelings.

I understand where you're coming from, friend, but it looks like your feelings are different than the feelings of the people running PFS.

Im not quiet following your assessment, "it doesnt make it right" make what right? If you as a player doesnt want one or more players in a game to cheat or totally destroy party and game chemistry by being unrully and your character takes action, in game,to resolve the matter how is that wrong? Yes, you could choose not to play in that group again, which is what I would probably do. However, you guys seem to be defending the concept that other players are immune to being policed just because we should all hold hands and sing camp fire songs, LOL. Im am far from being a "Bully" in fact I always go above and beyond to make all players feel welcome and fully support the game concept of party unity makes for a much better campaign. However, if your definition of being a "Bully" is trying to maintain game balance by not allowing other players and their characters to get out of hand, whether in game or out, then yes I am a "Bully".

The reason PFS Gms are called Judges is because they are expected to mediate and maintain standards at the table. The problems you are talking about are in the realm of Judge power, not Player power. A properly trained PFS Judge would not allow such things at their table. The player would be asked to leave, and would eventually be banned from PFS entirely. The problem takes care of itself, and you can focus on making a roleplay focused character, rather than having to make an optimized PVP build.

Basically, it sounds like you're afraid of problems going unchecked. What you need to do is find a GM with a solid backbone, and a healthy understanding of the rules. You should find that your problems disappear.

I have a friend in the Sacramento area who is thinking about joining PFS, anyone have information on the group up there? I'm about 90 miles south, so I don't know the PFSers from that area.

Awesome, thanks :)

I have a friend in the Sacramento area who is thinking about joining PFS, anyone have information on the group up there? I'm about 90 miles south, so I don't know the PFSers from that area.

New to PFS, so thought I'd ask here.

What would be a good choice of faction for a big, dumb, chaotic neutral barbarian who just likes hitting things with his greataxe? We're talking about a guy whose day job is listed as "thug". Seriously, he just likes a good fight, and he's not good enough at math to know (or care) who's the highest bidder. He just wants to work for the faction that's most likely to send him to hit things, rather than asking him to be sneaky or subtle. But he does have intimidate trained as a class skill, just in case he needs to be "personable".

Sounds like Sczarni material to me.

It is ridiculous how awesome this is.

Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond.

Everything on here has been my experience in PFS as well. I have yet to find a player or GM who isn't willing to listen to reason. I would imagine that anyone not willing to listen to reason is most likely quickly removed from the invitation list. We don't have much time to waste around here, while the people in our local PFS group are extremely accommodating, I doubt they would put up with repeated rudeness.

Pickguy wrote:

I'm sure someone has talked about this somewhere, but I just noticed it. The Guide lists Rangers as a d8 Hit Point class, but the Core book lists them at d10. Which are they actually considered for PFS?

d10. Thanks for making light of that error. I'm sure M&M will correct it in v4.1 of the Guide.

Thanks. I was just making a Ranger and happened to spot it. Like I said, I'm sure it has come up somewhere; there are lots of Rangers in PFS. Now I just have to decide whether to give myself the 10, or the 8 listed in the Guide. :P

I'm sure someone has talked about this somewhere, but I just noticed it. The Guide lists Rangers as a d8 Hit Point class, but the Core book lists them at d10. Which are they actually considered for PFS?

I personally don't like the hard line, stifling, creativity killing answers, so I can't say I support what's going on.

It's fair to feel that way, but I hope you acknowledge that they are trying to find a good balance. They opened the conversations up to everyone, to get a feel for what the customer base wants, and they made their decisions from there. Even if some people may not like the decisions, they were made in the interest of protecting the integrity of the game. I tend to agree with most decisions made by these guys; on the off chance that I don't, I just couldn't be mad at them for trying to make things better, and would respect their experience-educated and much-considered views. I don't think anything they do is done lightly.

Glad to see everyone is back on board with a good discussion. :)

I understand the impression that small Cavaliers are a workaround, and that they have been abused at times. However, I look at small Cavaliers much as I look at any other class with options. The player chose to make decent sacrifices to damage so that they could have a more versatile character, mount-wise. It's not as though they're getting it for free. Being small definitely makes a melee class less threatening. I could see how some GMs might get their hackles up when thinking about the potential for breaking the class, but not everyone is doing it to break things.

I see the same problems with this as I've had with other GMs when they encounter something they don't want to have to work around, or feel threatened by.

Cavaliers get enough flak as it is. Taking the penalties for small size so that they are a bit more usable is not a huge issue in my eyes. Just because something can be exploited doesn't mean it should be stomped on. A hammer is an extremely useful tool, but if we apply the same mentality, all hammers should be banned as potentially dangerous.

And, allowing this sort of restriction on Cavaliers opens up the door for GMs to apply wind direction penalties to archers, humidity penalties on scroll use, rust penalties on metal armor, cracking penalties on leather armor, and so on. There's a reason these things are set aside.

And, just remember: If there's ever an issue where a character is ridiculously overpowered, it is likely that enemies will recognize this and focus fire on him. Even if they don't kill him, it should give the player pause. The GM always has a card to play.

The level of communication and transparency going on with these two guys is amazing. You never see that sort of thing in a company. This level of customer service is almost unheard of in this day and age.

Thanks guys for working so hard, and for putting up with so much.

Also, one good thing our local group is doing is making sure they run First Steps periodically to get new characters into the system. Few people want to make the same character twice. Setting up a new round of characters and encouraging players to branch out with new ideas could solve your issue.

If anything, there seems to be a lack of front line characters running around right now in Atlanta.

Agreed. Here in California we are usually pretty good about having at least 2 melee characters at each table. I try to make a lot of front liners so that we can flesh out the melee a bit, since it isn't the most interesting role for many players. I wouldn't say it's a problem, since our players are usually good enough to compensate for whatever is missing at the time. I would say that our lack of healers is a much bigger problem. Just tried to stagger through one mod with 4 PCs, no healer, everyone too broke to buy potions, and no one able to use a wand of CLW.

It all tends to balance out eventually, as people realize their favorite roles and get themselves comfortable with the system.

Awesome response time, guys. Thanks! Looks like my PFS mentor was right. I'll be glad to report this to both tables at the event.

I started reading this thread with the intention of responding to the OP. After trudging through the personal attacks, sarcasm, and picking away at select parts of the original argument, I just don't have the heart to enter this debate. It's a shame when the boards fall apart into arguing like this. While not everyone has been this way, and a few have even tried to be voices of reason, enough people are throwing out negative posts that it's just a real turn off. I didn't join these boards to watch people pick other people apart, just for describing something they feel is an issue.

I believe the OP gave a whole list of issues he was struggling to come to terms with. I don't remember the OP saying he had an issue with the GM personally, or was looking to browbeat the GM or get them slapped with a penalty of some sort. Actually, the OP didn't even ask how to stop this behavior. He accepted that the GM had the power to run the table, and instead asked if other players were experiencing similar hindrances on their characters. I understand connotation and context, but in reading the OP, he certainly does not come off as an unreasonable guy, like he's been portrayed in some responses.

If people still have the stomach for open and respectful debate, which is the lifeblood of community, I would like to see the OP addressed properly. That would include all of the issues stated, such as, "Ruling the medium sized dog / wolf / pony has to swim in knee high water, but lets the dwarf move along just fine."

Or, descend back into picking each other apart. Your choice.

I haven't seen it specified anywhere, so I just thought I'd put the question out there.

Can a character jump into the First Steps series at any point? If a PFS event is running Part 2, and a new player shows up, can that new player just jump into it at that point with a new character? I wouldn't think that this would foul anything up, since the intro series are self-contained scenarios that give the same XP credit as any other module.

The reason I ask is because one of our tables at an upcoming event is going to run Part 2, and we may not have enough characters who went through Part 1 but haven't yet played Part 2. It's gonna screw things up a bit if a person can't play Part 2 without playing Part 1. Basically, the players who did Part 1 last week will be locked in for a couple of weeks while we complete Part 2, and then Part 3. I played in Part 1 last week, but my wife is joining PFS, and this will be her first session. Either she can join my table, and play Part 2 without playing Part 1, or I can switch to the other table to play the normal module with her. However, if the only people who can play the Part 2 are the ones who have Part 1 credit, I'm locked in at the other table.

My PFS mentor is being really cool about it and working with us, but I wondered what would be the official answer, so I'm not stepping on any toes.

I roll in the open for everything and I prefer those that judge for me do the same.

This.

My PFS GM always rolls in the open. She may not always like the results, but she is always honest about how it comes out, and we all appreciate it. She sets a good example for everyone at the table, and a clear expectation of openness. Plus, it keeps the suspense going. We know she's giving us the true luck of the roll, whether we like the results or not, and not whatever the GM feels like dishing out at the moment. I know everyone at the table appreciates her rolling transparency.

I've had a few GMs roll everything behind a screen, and I've seen it become a problem when characters start dying off, and no one got to verify the rolls that led to their death. A little tension can lead to ugly situations after that sort of thing. Open rolling builds trust, hidden rolling can take trust away.

I would love to buy this book... except that Amazon marketplace lists a used copy at $900.00. I guess I'll pick up the PDF for $7.

I haven't seen anything on these boards that would make me think the book was worth $900.00.

So, I was interested in picking up a copy of Elves of Golarion. I clicked over to Amazon, only to find that the lowest asking price for a used copy appears to be $900.00. I'm not sure who in their right mind would pay nine-hundred dollars for a small book about one specific race in a tabletop RPG. Just thought I would point this out. If this book is out of print, and if people think that charging this much for it is reasonable, it may be a smart idea for Paizo to start printing more of this book.

According to your list, you have 28 items in your backpack, in addition to the handaxe. I'm going to assume the handaxe is roughly the same size as a normal hatchet, which is not huge. According to your list, you also have a tent inside your backpack.

I recall in high school having a monstrously heavy backpack. It was easy to pull out what I was looking for, but I certainly did not have 29 items in it. I also recall that, when I got something new that I had to make room for, I had to rearrange things quickly to find a new place for the item. Just placing it on top would have left my backpack unbalanced, and caused the items to jostle around.

Something like a handaxe, presumably with an extremely sharp blade (as a weapon, it would have to be kept almost razor-sharp), would need special attention. This is exactly why most weapons are kept on a belt, or on the back, or some other place which is easy to reach quickly.

Your statement that you expected to be using the item quickly only causes me to think that it would have been better to tuck it into your belt, as most handaxes are shown in pictures depicting people carrying them.

As to the problem of your GM springing the ruling on you... that is the very nature of running a game. It sounds like an unusual situation came up, your GM made the best ruling that could be had with the knowledge on hand, and you disagreed with that ruling. Interpretation is part of this game, and is certainly allowable. However, it is the GM's right and responsibility to make calls like this, and to make them quickly, and move on. Players don't always like them, and battle can make tensions run high, but it is not fair to undermine someone's decision when they're forced to make a call on the fly. Your GM sounds like he did his job, however heavy-handed he may or may not have been in implementing his ruling.

One other thought: You said that this was an issue at character creation, but you had just picked up the handaxe very shortly before the issue occurred. It looks like you had been methodical about placing items on your person, but the specifics about this one item were overlooked. It sounds to me like you had been very thorough throughout the game. I notice that it wasn't an item that had been specifically named to a spot, but an item that was not accounted for. If you're this concerned about where things are, I suggest that you start a packing list for your backpack describing in what order things are stored away. Several times in this conversation, you have complained that people are trying to put too much realism into the argument, but you spent this much time justifying your complaint with realism. You are trying to use habit and physics to explain why you should be able to get to the item quickly, but when people point out alternate reasons why it would be difficult, you complain about too much realism.

My advice would be to just accept that you had a difference of opinion on something that was unclear, and to get over it. These things happen. I probably would have made the same call. 29 items in one backpack is pretty packed, especially when it includes a whole tent and two separate sets of block and tackle. I can't think of many backpacks which would hold those 3 things, plus so many others.

A standard action isn't completely unreasonable. I understand it can be frustrating to be so hobbled in the first round of combat, and it sounds like your GM was being a little tough on you with the battle, but one round without an attack is not the worst thing in the world. If I made an issue of every standard action I've lost to something like your situation, it would ruin the game for me. Instead, I just make a note to keep the situation in mind next time I'm preparing myself, and then I move on with my character.

If you have a total party wipe because one of round not spent attacking, then your GM wasn't running correctly. If your party made it through the combat alright, then it's just something you'll have to learn from, and move on. Don't let it stop you from enjoying playing. It is, after all, just a game.

I use index cards to track initiative and I have come to ask the players to pre-roll six checks each for perception and sense motive. Then I can randomly use one if it is required during gameplay without tempting meta-gaming. Works well and keeps the game moving.

I had a GM use the index card thing last session, I thought it was really awesome. He didn't once have to ask us for skills or stats, and he had everything in front of him. I thought it was a pretty good idea.

This may seem like an odd post, but with all the division on the boards about rules, and the occasional bitter word between well-intentioned communicants, I thought it would be nice to have a unifying topic.

Playing PFS has honestly increased my understanding of RP games in general, and has given me chances to spread the enjoyment of gaming in general. It is wonderful to add a more social aspect to a gaming genre that suffers from a negative social stereotype.

Keep in mind when reading these posts, I am not saying that PFS has replaced homebrew games for me. Rather, PFS is a completely different sort of game to me. And, public games are not better than private games. I just got out from playing a public game, so I may be slightly more upbeat on public games just now. Anyway, that's the spirit of this post.

My favorite thing about PFS so far has been getting out to games at stores. Even when I play with the exact same GM as I do at private games, it feels completely different. Ten PFS players sitting down at different tables, gathering just to enjoy a fun activity together, and knowing that all of us are genuinely sharing in the enjoyment, is a feeling that just can't be gained from home games. Where private games allow a tremendous amount of roleplaying, public games really open a player up to the wider world. It is wonderful sitting down at a table, looking around, and being forced to think, "Okay, where do I fit into this group? What can I do to help us succeed?" Private games just don't provide this sort of thing, since you plan out way in advance what you'll be doing and when. PFS has really helped my improvisation in terms of combat, skills, and roleplay.

One other thing I really enjoy about PFS is that it gives a solid framework to build upon, with set limitations. I know that some people thrive on a completely limitless world, but I enjoy knowing exactly where the boundaries are, so that I can plan accordingly. PFS gives me a chance to be confident in my balanced characters, knowing I probably won't be completely blindsided by some super min/maxer with a PVP bloodlust who built himself using only vaguely worded and esoteric abilities.

Even in private games, PFS gives me a solid framework for my characters to live within. It is great being able to kick back at home and read about the campaign setting in huge detail.

It is even nicer being able to participate in the community here. Being part of this community really makes the world seem bigger and better. Reading someone's post and then meeting them later for a game is just awesome. Maybe my inner nerd is showing, but having a solid community built around this just cements the awesomeness in my mind. As brutal as the commentary can get on here sometimes, it really makes a huge difference knowing that people are constantly building and rebuilding the world. It makes the game feel more alive.

I would be interested to know what some of the people on these boards feel are the best and/or most enjoyable aspects of PFS.

The four remaining Chronicle Sheets will be released at the same time in the near future. I'm working on those and they are coming along quickly.

Michael, I am so excited, I could hug you. Instead, I will continue to sign my paychecks over to the Paizo store. :)

This is mostly answered in the FAQ:

And while it is not also in the FAQ, I am pretty sure that Mark Moreland has posted that you can choose a faction and faction trait on character creation even if you are starting with the First Steps series.

Thanks for that, I missed that. As I am fond of saying, I didn't go to college to have to read now. In this case, I didn't join PFS to have to read. :)

I suddenly feel immensely better about moving to Tennessee. I grew up in the center valley of California, and am used to being more or less surrounded by gamer culture. I'm glad to know I won't be giving that up when I move.

So, always kill old ladies who run orphanages, then loot them. Got it. I guess my sociopath Magus companion was right.

Having played the first Intro mod about a month ago, and then again tonight, here is my take on this situation:

Our first GM ran a decidedly easier scenario. This was a combination of: A) Her dice hated her that night; B) Our group prepared in advance and had the most balanced party imaginable; C) We had a heal-bot cleric; and D) She limited herself slightly since we had mostly new PFS players at the table that night. All of these factors combined to make a relatively easy, though still highly enjoyable, playthrough. We had a great time, and all the new PFS players thoroughly enjoyed it. Only one fight really challenged us decently, and we hung on fairly easily in my opinion. The memorable parts of this playthrough I remember are the excellent roleplay on the part of the GM, and the great party dynamics that we got to play with. We had an absolute blast, with very little threat of mortal peril.

Our second GM ran it tonight, and wailed on us. This was a combination of: A) His dice hated us with a passion; B) Our group was the least balanced group in the history of gaming, leading most of us to wander around senselessly until he took pity on us (not one of us had Sense Motive, Knowledge (local), or any of the other most basic and useful skills); C) We had absolutely no healer, no one capable of casting any healing spells, no potions, found no potions, and had no CLW wands at our disposal, and were generally a low hp party; and D) He not only didn't limit himself, but threw everything at us that he could get his hands on. Having played through it so recently, I thought I knew what he could hit us with, but he surprised me by stomping thoroughly on all of our expectations. Through it all, we had a great time. He kept us alert and on our toes the entire time, and we were all prepared to sacrifice our PC for the pleasure of a real challenge.

With two vastly different experiences, and two different GMs, I cannot say that I enjoyed either one more than the other. I absolutely loved the first one with the roleplaying; we had a fantastic time and thoroughly enjoyed hamming it up. The second game was great too, because we overcame massive challenges. We earned the right to brag that, not only did we play it, we survived it.

I guess what I've realized is that either style would get boring after a while, or wear thin, if I played nothing but that style for months and months on end. I am fortunate enough to have several GMs in the area, so we can change things up. So far, I have not become tired of any of my GMs, and can honestly look forward to playing with any of them.

If a person feels a system is getting stale, often what is called for is a change of routine. Get a new GM with a different style. If you want a challenge, look for that person with murder in their eyes. Don't look to the person who enjoys carefully crafting the intricacies of their NPCs' personal lives. Likewise, don't look at the GM who sits down at the table and starts making throat-slitting motions at you while laughing, and expect him/her to run an intensely roleplay-heavy session.

In the end, the problem is this: There are people who treasure their characters and may be deeply upset to see them dropping like flies, and then there are people who enjoy seeing a believable mortality rate in brutal medieval combat. Trying to hit the center is like trying to hit a moving target. It isn't that the modules are too easy, or too hard. The problem is that players aren't being appropriately matched to the GM style they want to play with. The best idea is to find someone whose playing style more closely matches your own, and then harass them until they agree to DM for you. And, if you want a truly brutal challenge, maybe egg their car a bit first.

if I already know which faction I want, can I go ahead and select it (and a faction trait along with it)?

I had wondered about the traits, I started off with a faction trait for the faction I chose. It was pretty unclear if that was acceptable, so my GM handwaved it since there was no clear ruling on it. It seems like it should be acceptable, since I could just play a different level 1 mod and have a faction already. It would really be miserable to have to take the feat later to get extra traits, just to get a faction trait.

I'm getting ready to move to Kingsport, Tennessee for a job, and was hoping to continue playing PFS when I get there. Does anyone know of any local games? I'd rather not go all the way to Johnson City, but I could if I have to.

I have no idea how heavy Tennessee is into roleplaying. I am gonna be moving to Nashville before long, so I was checking out the region. I have heard that Nashville has a huge renaissance festival that goes on, and that sort of thing usually goes hand in hand with RP stuff. Unfortunately, I know most of the gaming stores I checked out in Nashville were shut down, so I really hope there are at least a few people playing PFS in the area.

Wow, thanks everyone! This makes me feel tremendously better about GMing for PFS. Most of the players around here are extremely reasonable and laid back, so I am hopeful that there won't be any major issues.

In my previous home games, I usually have done my best to remember most rules, but typically I rely on having a few walking rulebooks at the table with me, so I won't have to worry too much. If there's a question, I generally open it up to the table and let people quote the rule for me. In this way, it's like the old story about a group of people killing a man by each taking a bite, so no one would shoulder the blame. I guess that's a bit gruesome, but if the table can settle their own disputes, it prevents hurt feelings, and encourages players to learn from one another. If there's a direct call that needs to be made, I usually make it and move on. If there's an opposing view, articulate it quickly and the table will rule on it. I guess I'm a bit more of a democratic GM in that respect.

It sounds like a lot of the rulings are less life-or-death than believed. The boards here tend to make things sound dire, but I try to take everything with the idea that this is where rules are made or broken. The boards are for community and clarification; the table is for relaxing. I haven't experienced any brutal rule wars in any games around here, but it's reassuring to know I have the support of 99% of players in the event of an argument. It is also comforting to know that I can play one scenario with things slightly out of whack, and fix it afterward with the player.

Thank you everyone for your encouraging replies. :)

I've been running games for several years now, on a few different systems. I've never run in PFS before, but I am planning to start soon. I've noticed a trend here, and thought I would ask for opinions on it.

It seems like being a PFS GM requires a much stronger backbone than being a GM at a homebrew game.

The reason I say this is because, in a homebrew game, a GM is free to handwave things in or out of the system. All of the arguments lately about reskinning animal companions aren't an issue so much in homebrew games. "Can I reskin my cat to a snow leopard?" "Sure, as long as it doesn't break things later. We'll see how it goes."

In PFS, the law is set down (mostly) in stone. A GM puts their back against it, and makes calls from there. It seems like a PFS GM has to be able eat nails for breakfast, to withstand the onslaught of people dancing (accidentally or intentionally) around the rules. I know my local GM always does a great job of handling situations where people try to step outside of the rules. I usually tend to be a much more accommodating GM and try to use a gentle hand when guiding players, and am a bit nervous about having to put on that steel gauntlet.

That being said... do any of you experienced GMs have any advice on how to handle this? I'm sure it's something that can be learned; growing a GM spine is a skill that needs to be cultivated. Any advice on the mindset you adopt when going in?

Well, what if we did neither? What if we made a rule stating that if you wanted to alter the appearance of an otherwise legal [whatever], you had to consult with the GM of your table. If the GM feels it would be a problem (either due to animal types mattering more than usual in the scenario, or because they think it's too much of a stretch, or whatever) then they have a right to veto the reskinning for that scenario.

The problem I see with this is that it turns every GM who disagrees with reskinning into an unreasonable jerk. Potentially, this sort of ruling would create a situation where the GM was required to show up even earlier before the game in order to hear arguments about the reskinning. At worst, a whole group of rangers/druids shows up, all with reskinned animals, and the GM has to spend the first 10-20 minutes arguing about reskins. Placing all of the responsibility on the shoulders of the GM could lead to some hurt feelings. It would be better to have a standard to point to, so the GM doesn't feel the need to capitulate simply to avoid hurt feelings, or to get the game started.

That being said, I do enjoy some fluff reskinning in the players at my table. Completely snuffing it out could really hurt the creative aspect of this game. First, we ban reskinning animals. Next, reskinning outfits, or cloaks, or boots, or waterskins.

This is a really tough call, and I absolutely do not envy the people having to make it. Best of luck.

No matter how well you prep them, they will learn most by doing.

That was much the same thought as my GM had with me. I've been running games in other systems for years now, but never in PFS. I am a little nervous about learning to color inside the lines, and I've never run a pre-made before, but my GM assures me that it's not too tough.

Great responses! I was talking with my home GM, and she told me pretty much the same thing. I am more used to 3.5, and the Drow Sign there, so I was under the impression this was the same sort of thing. It makes a lot more sense, rules-wise, why they would have it be so limited. Thanks for getting back to me :)

I know I came pretty late to this discussion... but have you tried splitting it down to just a few players? Have two separate game nights for a while. Dealing with an entire group of new people can be exhausting, but running 3 players through is manageable. Might cut down on the explaining.

Excellent, thanks for the responses guys! I wasn't sure if this would be allowed, since it doesn't exactly give specific rules or limitations on it. Glad to know I can use it. :)

So, Seekers of Secrets was replaced in the Core Assumption by the Field Guide. However, important bits and pieces are still only present in Seekers of Secrets. This isn't a complaint, since the book has a fairly tiny price tag. However, I have noticed that things such as generic wayfinders, rules for Pathfinder training, layout and information about the Grand Lodge, etc seem to be reserved for this book. The Field Guide, while a good resource, doesn't really touch on a lot of these topics.

That being said, my question is this... exactly how much of Seekers of Secrets is still legal? I ask this for a specific reason. I saw posted recently a question about learning the handsign language in the Pathfinder Tales book Prince of Wolves. Someone mentioned that it might be a usable language later on, via a chronicle sheet for the book. However, in Seekers of Secrets, it says that handsign is a universal Pathfinder skill, and that, "...every Pathfinder picks up a handful during training, often relating to combat, directions, and hazards..." (Seekers of Secrets, pg. 25).

Is it safe to assume that all of the Pathfinder PCs in my PFS games should be able to communicate this way? The same passage provides context for dialect issues with handsigns, but suggests that most should be easily translated. The assumption with PCs is that every PFS character has gone through the training, and the book states that every person who goes through the training picks up at least a few basic signs. Is this still legal and accepted?

Further than that, how much is legal for my character to understand? One of my fellow players is a deaf Oracle, who has taken the extra skill point in Linguistics to read lips (as approved in a post on these boards). However, could we both assume that we are able to communicate effectively via the Pathfinder handsign language? He would still need to read lips to communicate with non-Pathfinders (ie, most NPCs in modules once the scenario gets off the ground). Would we be able to safely assume that our characters could communicate effectively in the handsign language?

I can't wait to play this. Now I just need to inveigle one of my local GMs into running it for me...

Paizo.com does not accept paypal at this time, but you can get a paypal debit card that should allow you to make transactions here or anywhere mastercard is accepted.

Paypal is great, but my family runs an online business through Paypal, and they sure eat up the money. I was disappointed to see I couldn't use it here, but it really does make sense. They're convenient, but pretty hard on the pocketbook.