Priest of Pharasma

Zexcir's page

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 152 posts (159 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is amazing! Those are some of my favorite adventures. Look forward to this release for PF2e. Will be fun to revisit these adventures and compare them to the originals.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This came up last night and I made a quick decision but still unclear how these two spells interact with each other. A player had true seeing and succeeded a counteract check to see invisible creatures. They then wanted to project that invisible creatures location to the rest of the party through Web of Eyes. Do the other players see the invisible creature?

I quickly ruled they did. I still have doubts because I read Web Eyes is that the players are seeing through the invisible scrying sensor and not through the other players eyes directly. The doubt comes because later in the rule it says: "Each target can use an action to share what it sees with any..." It doesn't reference the sensor but what it sees. I'm still assuming it's through the sensor; else why even mention the sensor to begin with.

Web of Eyes:

You place an invisible scrying sensor on each target just above their eyes. Each sensor looks where that target looks, and all the targets can link their vision briefly to help notice things one target sees but the others might not. Each target can use an action, which has the concentrate trait, to share what it sees with any number of other targets until the start of its next turn. Only one creature can share its vision at a time, so if another target takes this action, the effect ends for any target that was previously sharing its vision.

This improves how well the recipients can perceive anything the sharing creature is looking at. For instance, if a creature is undetected to a recipient but observed by the sharing creature, the creature becomes observed by the recipient as well. Typically, the creature is seen as a glowing outline superimposed on its position. This might allow the recipient to target a creature it couldn't otherwise; however, cover and line of effect still might prevent or impede targeting and attacks. This can only improve the recipient's vision, not reduce it; for example, if an enemy was undetected by the sharing creature and observed by a recipient, the recipient would still clearly observe the enemy.

Once the vision sharing stops, the benefit ends. Whether a creature is hidden or undetected is still based on the last information a target had before the vision sharing ended. For example, that means if a creature is behind a wall but hasn't moved, it's still hidden rather than undetected by a recipient that witnessed its current position.

True Seeing:

You see things within 60 feet as they actually are. The GM rolls a secret counteract check against any illusion or transmutation in the area, but only for the purpose of determining whether you see through it (for instance, if the check succeeds against a polymorph spell, you can see the creature's true form, but you don't end the polymorph spell).

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Congrats, Jim!

Best of luck to Jeff with the health issues.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

While I don't mind the interactive audio, I don't know why paizo doesn't just invest in non-interactive audio. The Batman Unburied Podcast is a phenomenal example on how paizo could use their great storytelling to tell stories in their world.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

These look amazing. Might have to wait and see if my FLGS gets them in though that shipping cost to the US.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

That's the thing: the vibe I've been getting has been "if it's not optimized, it's not worth your time or ours."

TO be honest I wouldn't put too much stock into advice forums.

As a player; I played a caster Herbalist and put all my feats into that dedication until 6th level and then added a dedication into fighter. It created a lot of flavor and actually came in handy. I really enjoyed that character.

As a GM half my players don't even really care to learn the rules and play un-optimally. WE've had a few people create off the wall combinations that are "watered down." We all still have fun and no major deaths.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

That's the thing: the vibe I've been getting has been "if it's not optimized, it's not worth your time or ours."

TO be honest I wouldn't put too much stock into advice forums.

As a player; I played a caster Herbalist and put all my feats into that dedication until 6th level and then added a dedication into fighter. It created a lot of flavor and actually came in handy. I really enjoyed that character.

As a GM half my players don't even really care to learn the rules and play un-optimally. WE've had a few people create off the wall combinations that are "watered down." We all still have fun and no major deaths.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thank you for the strong stance <3

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's a shame that nothing the Leads can do to appease the passionate few. Good try though.

I however have faith in the future and believe people make mistakes and can change. If I didn't have that belief it would be a sad world where people aren't allowed to make mistakes and learn from their pasts. The world would not have a chance to become better.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Congrats

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is nice, but pathfbuilder already has everything for free. But this will be a great selling point for people moving from 5e to PF2e :D

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Huzzah! That was faster than I expected.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Can't wait!

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Carrauntoohil wrote:
Yoshua wrote:
So, it is a grey area.

Paizo, including their website, specifically operate within Europe and are, therefore, required to comply with EU data protection requirements, including the General Data Protection Regulation.

This was (at least two instances of) a malicious breach by senior management of the company that went unrectified for at least several weeks in one case and almost two years in the other.

In fact, ast least one such breach was doubled down on by that senior manager, who is the president of the company to this day.

Fines in this instance can stretch up to 5% of global turnover per instance to a maximum of €20m, again per instance.

It is hard to see how deliberate malfeasance would not attract the maximum penalty.

I love a lack of grey areas arising from respect for personal data.

I work in this area and have to deal with GDPR data and it's a very murky murky area. It's so loose that some of the best GDPR lawyers around are unsure to answer some of the "problems" I've ran into. Most of the GDPR stuff has to do with data processing itself. In GDPR for example; Names aren’t always considered personal data. AND it also depends on what you consent to give those companies in their Terms of Service. There are some protections that GDPR gives consumers: the right to be informed, the right of access, the right to rectification, the right to erasure, the right to restrict processing, the right to data portability, the right to object and also rights around automated decision making and profiling... Again most of these are around making sure that algorithms don't go rogue or that information doesn't "leak" in biased ways. Part of the murkiness is that company can store encrypted data about a user as long as it's "necessary to run its business." Also GDPR only offers protection to EU citizens. So if a company was found breaching some GDPR policy it has to apply to the EU; which is why many companies segment their businesses to still do additional things with non-EU data. (GDPR is still somewhat new so I am not an expert. I also believe that every country should have many of the GDPR protections).

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Noven wrote:
Zexcir wrote:
Working in a Union was one of the worst working experiences in my life, so I hope if this goes well, good luck.
I think unions largely depend on where you work. Being a teacher in a teacher union, I have greatly enjoyed the collective bargaining.

Great point! This was manufacturing. They're would be times when we'd have to do an "offsite job." Spend one hour driving there, work for two hours then drive back so that we could "eat lunch" in the cafeteria which was protected by our union rights. I mean I get it, but I'd rather eat my lunch in the truck and finish the job most the time. It always annoys me me when people would pull the union card to do stuff like this....

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Working in a Union was one of the worst working experiences in my life, so I hope if this goes well, good luck.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Love Ron's work. Thanks for the fiction!

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aaron Shanks wrote:

Hello Community,

...

Great to hear from you, but it would be great to see Paizo's voice and leadership practice what it preaches and actively take the day off on any company holiday without feeling pressure to communicate. Especially since the community has several times expressed concerns about the mental well being of overcommited to the amount of work.

Have a wonderful rest of the day

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

These Tales of Lost Omens are Fire. Need more like this one.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aaron Shanks wrote:
Have I complained about feeling overworked and burned out before? Yes, and my manager listened, restructured the department, and things got better. And that happened because the Exec team approved the change.

Awesome for sharing openly and honestly!

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I do want to be fair and acknowledge that Aaron mentions working twelve days in a row as an aside, and we don't know any of the circumstances under which he chose or felt obligated to do so. That said, I do think it's worth talking about here. Working twelve days in a row should be recognized as an aberration.

I think it's weird how people on here are speculating how others are being treated which are causing people to respond on their own personal experiences. I know in my own personal experience I love my company enough to work 12 days in a row especially during large releases. I don't think it should be recognized as a negative thing necessarily. I think as long as the people and the organizations work together as Aaaron shared above. I am privileged enough in my field where I wouldn't work for a company I couldn't passionately engage and work extra hours to make sure a project or launch is successful... I would not want government or people to interfere with that either.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:

Clear policies are good, Paizo should have a clear policy. Even if it's not made available to the customers, the employees should know how things are working. Customers knowing that there is a clear policy will alleviate some of their concern about unfair treatment of people they care about.

Clear policies aren't always clear. My current office has tried to create clearer more inclusive policies; but people keep being alienated in different ways. To help prevent any issues we now have pages of policies that no one really understands to the full extent. One of the things that happened right before the pandemic is that no one can have personal items at their desks. Instead you can only have company approved items for decorations that they have preselected. If you have any decorations on your desk someone will come and talk to you.

Just because you have "clearer" policies doesn't mean they are clear in every way possible and sometimes can create unintended side effects.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gloom wrote:

As I've mentioned before, they most definitely do. I've seen it happen. I've DONE it. You might not agree with me on that and that's fine. But that doesn't make you right here.

Justification and Legal Justification are two different things, I agree but they're not really that far apart.

I've not quit in solidarity; I've definitely quickly found another job after seeing someone I care about unjustly let go, but that's because I'm selfish and want to keep a roof over my head. I've also seen people unceremoniously let go and they take a few key people with them to their next gig. It actually happens quite often in the tech industry.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Yoshua wrote:


Buhlman's follow up post and all of Mona's posts are great examples on how to take personal accountability even if you don't know in the moment that you are screwing up. Respect for that, and gives me hope for the future of senior management with them on the team. People are people and when we know better we do better.

Both of those statements are personal statements and not company statements. They were also addressing behavior specifically assigned to them that gives them a negative light. WHICH by the way is Slander. I'm wondering if Jessica [Edit: autopilot mistake earlier :|] understands the legal repercussions there (well maybe she does, she's been pretty quiet).

Yoshua wrote:


Jeff appears incapable at this time to accept responsibility on behalf of himself or the company for the missteps in the past, and current issues beyond 'we now clean the rugs regularly'

His responses represent the company not the individual. I understand that it's hard to separate the two, and it's dissatisfying, but organizations do that to protect the entity beyond the individual.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
Aaron, you catch a lot of hell for being the face of all these shipping delays, and I hope you know your hard work is appreciated.

Agreed. I couldn't imagine taking the brunt of customer complaints based on something that is impacting every industry. Thank you for being so stalwart!

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Richard Lowe wrote:

To all the "They can't respond because legally..." comments, they really, really can. It begins with two words. "We're sorry."

"We're sorry so many people have cause to feel we haven't lived up to the standards we aim for, sorry that we may have lost your trust through our actions or inactions, sorry that we didn't do better."

Thats how you start, no legalese or concerns about contracts or employee firings. Just ownership, acceptance that you need to do better, followed by actual actions over time proving your commitment to it.

I still wouldn't. Let's just look at ridiculous examples how statements or art can be used against a company in legal battles... Example: Apple's spent twenty minutes dissecting various Banana related art that Epic has created for their game... A lawyer will twist anything you say in court...

Now, obviously, this was a joke. It was a small lighthearted moment during an antitrust-focused court case. But after Apple criticized Epic for hosting the Itch.io storefront and with it, its “so-called adult games,” Epic’s attorney simply couldn’t let Apple get away with implying that its naked banana was inappropriate.
Two excerpts about the Banana being naked and then in a tux...
“If we could just put on the screen a picture of Peely — is there anything inappropriate about Peely without clothes?” Epic’s attorney asked Weissinger two hours later.
“It’s just a banana man,” Weissinger was forced to respond.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Linda, you are a beacon of insight. Thank you for sharing some of your thoughts on what goes into the hard work that happens behind the scenes.

Scarab Sages

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:
I also see no apology or admission of wrongdoing of any kind, just multiple "Well we had an email about it 3 years ago, so its not our fault!" level sidesteps.

Nor should they. From a legal standpoint they should neither address nor admit anything without consulting a legal team.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Yoshua wrote:
Yeah. Read through this a couple of times. I feel the words are right and I thought that was what I was looking for, but an ominous ambiguous future hope for something better isn't what I signed up for when I bought full into Pathfinder 2e.

That's definitely why I am here too. Paizo has been ahead of its competition on inclusion in its products for many years and it's disheartening to hear that's not the case in every corner of the office at every level. With the release of Mwangi Expanse being so recent it seems like they are still moving in the right direction. My hope is that the PaizoAccountability will help improve the lives of their LGBTQIA+ employees.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RicoTheBold wrote:

An actual HR person again. This is a dumb vacancy. If they empower this person to protect upper management from themselves, it can help a lot (eventually). Although it's also not a magic bullet or anything. Dedicated HR staff aren't going to magically change the company culture, and most of their day-to-day job shouldn't have anything to do with escalating complaints to leadership and dealing with toxic managers.

HR Doesn't protect the people. HR protects the company. If there was an HR person I bet that as part of the fired person's packet is that any negative publicity would leave them liable for a lawsuit. I know at my company that has a very positive image offers a hard to pass up packet to prevent their image from being smeared.

RicoTheBold wrote:
- No longer mandatory to share hotel rooms (directly addresses one of the complaints)

I agree that this is great since it's archaic to force those to share. I just hope this doesn't come at the cost of fewer cons / travel or employees who choose to share rooms are the ones who go to cons. I've had that happen at a previous company that was a fortune 500.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Great post. There are many of us without pitchforks looking for you to appease us by having people fired or stepped down. Those of us who have worked at any great organization understands that work environments are never perfect and politics happen no matter what you do. With that said it's great to hear that there are actionable and measurable steps being taken.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Seconded is there a way to upgrade the subbed version without canceling then resubbing during that time?

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thod wrote:

Think about it like a coiled up snake. The Gibbering Mouther is a slow moving mass - unless you get too close (20 feet or less) and it suddenly moves a lot quicker to engulf you as hunger propels it to new speeds (ok - 20 still isn't lightning fast but at least dwarven fast).

Awesome, I am going to use this analogy if it comes up in the future! Thanks again.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thanks thod and Castillano for your responses.

Engulf Rules 1st Paragraph:
The monster Strides up to double its Speed and can move through the spaces of any creatures in its path. Any creature of the monster’s size or smaller whose space the monster moves through can attempt a Reflex save with the listed DC to avoid being engulfed. A creature unable to act automatically critically fails this save. If a creature succeeds at its save, it can choose to be either pushed aside (out of the monster’s path) or pushed in front of the monster to the end of the monster’s movement. The monster can attempt to Engulf the same creature only once in a single use of Engulf. The monster can contain as many creatures as can fit in its space.

Thod wrote:
1) The Gibbering Mouther has Base Speed 10

If engulf is one action RAW this creature would never take the Stride action since it doesn't need to actively engulf someone. It could just make the engulf action to move 20 ft. Which might be why it's a base speed of ten!

Thod wrote:

There is a possibility, that this is a mistake in the write-up.

2) Engulf can only be done once per round on each different PC

The engulf ability says `once per engulf action`. This is the biggest reason why I thought that perhaps it was a mistake. I don't mind if it's one action to do engulf, but you could just go back and forth over the same clustered players over and over again which is terrifying.

Thod wrote:

Unless you are a group of sprites - in this case - was nice to have known you.

Great imagery!

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Bump. Does anyone know if this is a typo. This came up in Malevolence.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I love these small no prep characters. Mostly because they get my brain factory spinning on ideas for characters and NPCs

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Filthy Lucre wrote:

I was one of the people that during the play test voiced anti-"+level" sentiments because I prefer grittier games where lower level monsters stay challenge (en masse) for much longer.

What has been people's experiences in terms of power level of play? Do characters feel like 1-in-a-million heroic types? Or do they feel like 1-in-a-billion super heroic types?

Even though I was against "+level" I am not at all excited to implement that variant rule since it's so time consuming and possibly unbalancing. Even if characters are more powerful than I'd like, I was hoping that their height of power is less than that of PF1 or 3.x.

I've played / run four campaigns in 3.5 / PF1e from levels 1 - 20.

PF2e we are only up to level 14 in our current campaign so I can't compare levels 15-20... So far it seems much more balanced overall. The characters don't feel overly powerful and a lot of my gripes of high level play are gone. One of the great things about the new system is we were able to have three combats in our last session of 4.5 hours whereas in 3.5 at the same level it was much more of a slog. The monster levels vary anywhere between 9-15 over levels 13-14 and the weirdly the lower level battle was still a challenge with the unique abilities they had.

We've talked about using the variant rule that takes out the level since it's not too much work next campaign. If we do we'll probably test it in a one - two off first to see how it feels.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Doug Hahn wrote:

I’m sorry you felt called out. But again... if you’re taking the time to check up on GMs with such a busy personal schedule — and you own the material — and you have decades of gaming experience — then lots of the work is already done. Society is always hurting for gms.

And many of them, like you, are super busy with kids, jobs, real-life problems, etc (which means a little kindness / appreciation / empathy go a long way, even if the game isn’t run perfectly).

And going forward at least expand your sample size of eight games and listen to what people in this thread are saying about what the “norm” is.

:) I meant called out on whether or not I `paid` for the material. The problem isn't finding time to read material. The problem is getting 4 - 6 hours of straight alone time (e.g. screaming toddler in the background which happens at work when I run meetings :o ) . Even when I've played I keep myself on mute to prevent any of the noises in the background which have been mostly great

I didn't judge nor question any of the GMs and thanked each and everyone of them for their time and truly appreciate them for taking the time to run the games. Every single society GM has been incredibly kind, and my only complaint about the games is that in 75% of the games at least once there was this awkward skill failure where either GM was unprepared for how to proceed with failure or didn't want the party to fail and has been an unsatisfactory experience for me. I don't include combat because every GM had open rolls and there were tons of failures and people even got knocked out (no kills or TPKs), but it's only been skill points. The two better experiences I had tended to be the ones that allowed failure. Thinking back on it (and the purpose of starting this thread getting other's input) is because the game flowed more organically.

I'm also grateful for everyone here who answered and took the time to give their perspective. Part of the reason I asked is because I know my 8 games since April is a limited sample size. Part of the reason I started looking through the past scenarios I played (mostly the last three since those were more recent in my mind) was based on one of the author's responses and I wanted to see "was there a failure condition? if so what is it?"

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Doug Hahn wrote:


Running things as written is the norm. This thread should make that pretty clear from a variety of perspectives that include a well-regarded author, GMs, players, and VOs.
Doug Hahn wrote:


If you’re already going so far as to “check” on scenario adjudication (which means you’re purchasing the PDFs and reading them in detail, right?), you might even be able to give back to vtt communities and gm some games yourself. You're already halfway there.

A) WOW I feel called out here! Luckily; I subscribe to all their hardcover books for both lines and get free PFS scenarios even though I don't run them. I have supported Paizo since Dungeon / Dragon Magazine was in their preview. I have purchased almost every hard cover book that they have come out with at full price, not because I need them, but because I want Paizo to stay in business.

B.) I've thought about signing up to run some, but it's very hard with my current schedule and two little ones that love interrupting :). In the past I've only ever played society games at cons, (Gen Con + some local cons). I've never run a society scenario so that would be completely new to me.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think I found one of "those people." ;) Ironically you get upset at my BadWrongFun in favor of what you perceive as BadWrongFun. Remember that when you stomp on someone else's BadWrongFun in the future. :)

CrystalSeas wrote:


Second, claiming that other people are having BadWrongFun because they play the game differently than you do is pretty arrogant. There are lots of different people playing Pathfinder. Your way is not the only way.

A.) I didn't say that it was wrongBadFun. I said that people who aren't okay with failure shouldn't play games with chance; because there is inherently failure in those games. They should understand that there are failure conditions. If they can't, they shouldn't play. My best friends doesn't play TTRPG or even most video games for this reason. It's not a judgement on their character.

B.) It's ironic that you bring up "BadWrongFun," My complaint is that the scenarios as written (I've read three of the 8 in my complaint now) have failure conditions and failures happened, but we kept rolling until succeeding. I embrace the failures as they are in the scenario as written. Now I'm not saying my fun is more important than other's fun, but expected to play the mechanics and scenario as written. No matter what it's unfair if there are people at the table with differing expectations. I don't know what the other player's expectations were, but my assumption going into this post was that most people are aware that failure can and will happen and the penalties are probably treasure or "successfully completing the primary objective"

CrystalSeas wrote:


Third, PFS GMs would be remiss if they let a party skip treasure bundles that some players wanted just because other players felt like they were "wasting minutes rolling".

You may need to adjust your expectations about how other people (both players and GMs) want to experience PFS games.

If no one else at the table complained about those wasted minutes, then it's likely that the GM was meeting everyone's expectations except yours.

My complaint is that the scenarios had failure conditions and we failed (this has happened in 6/8 games I've played) the rolls and the failure condition was ignored. In the latest scenario, the failure condition that happened didn't impact treasure or secondary goals. The three scenarios I've read most of the failure conditions that I recall prevent a treasure bundle, which is no big deal IMO. I've only talked to one other player about this because it was the one game I had known someone in and they agreed. But I didn't and wasn't going to poll everyone.

I haven't said anything to the GMs either. The first few scenarios I brushed off as edge cases and only came to the forums to see how common this is or if I was missing something. I read through scenarios to see how they were written after my initial post. I am grateful for the GMs who ran the game and didn't know them so didn't provide unsolicited feedback. I will check ahead of time if I can about how they run scenarios though because as someone who enjoys games the games as written I'd prefer that if I failed a roll to move forward in the scenario as written. I'm more than happy to not play with people who feel entitled to every treasure bundle regardless of failing. I don't wish those people ill will or want to stop their fun. Part of the reason I was asking on the forum wasn't to complain, but to see how common it was and gauge the community.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:
Zexcir wrote:
it wouldn't have mattered overall other than maybe a treasure bundle or two.

And that is precisely where the problem is.

Some players are very upset if they miss treasure bundles, especially in a PFS game.

Those people shouldn't play games where there is a chance of failure.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Saashaa wrote:
Zexcir, your experience is not inharent to the PF2 system or Society play. That said, what is inharent to Society play is a randomization of other people at the table, from the GM to other players. When you join a Society game, the chance of playing with others that...have a conflicting styles of play is part of the deal.

My experience in Society is pretty limited. Probably 10 different sessions all different GMs. From what I've seen here it seems its' more on the GMs than on the Scenarios where there are no failure modes.

I'm fine with different plays; however, I don't think I would continue with society scenarios if most GMs run them when they don't let player's fail (even when the two scenarios I checked had failure conditions that weren't terrible). Personally it feels like a waste of minutes of rolling that interfere with the experience when we clearly failed 9/10 checks and still "succeeded." I understand if a GM wants everything to be copesetic, but TBH it would have been better to just let the failures be failures instead of forced awkward `success.` The stories could have moved forward during those checks of failure and it wouldn't have mattered overall other than maybe a treasure bundle or two.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GM Blake wrote:

I assure you that if you fail a skill check, I won’t hand wave it into a success.

However, there are skills without penalties for failing. Or situations where failure has no mechanical effect (e.g. climbing a 5 foot barricade).

What skills were being failed but repeated until success?

This happened in 6 out of 8 games. So the number of skills were pretty vast. In the last two game examples:

1.) Three separate diplomacy encounters in one of the games. Only two people had diplomacy and the GM allowed us to roll other skills to compensate. At least 10 checks were made before one success happened. (This one I went back and read the adventure and there were clear failure modes).
2.) Another example was a game with several nature checks. This one didn't seem to impact anything.

My problem was more: If there is no impact why have us roll at all?

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jared Thaler wrote:

I am amused by the assertion that hero points equals auto success, because I was in a game a few days ago where a player hero pointed from simple failure into a nat 1. Twice. In a row.

We came within one failure of needing a humiliating rescue...

Agreed. I've seen it happen quite a few times myself. Same in other systems like savage worlds.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:


Adventure Paths ARE Society games. Your use of Society Game appears to claim that they are not.

Either you don't understand what counts as a Pathfinder Society game, or you are using some definition of the word that is highly unusual, since it appears to exclude a great many Society games and gamers.

So you are just being pedantic. I know the difference. I didn't use enough words in my posts for you to understand what I understand. Your statement added no value to the overall thread and I didn't need your input to understand.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:
Zexcir wrote:
where adventures / adventure paths you are playing with the same group of people (e.g. need to sync schedules ;) ).

That's still a "Society game". It's sanctioned; GMs and players get Society credit.

The length of the game, and whether it is play asynchronously or simultaneously doesn't have any bearing on whether it's a "Society game".

I still don't know what point you are making.

Zexcir wrote:

So far these society games have been online and I haven't sought out a continuous group of society gamers. If I did find a specific group, I would prefer to do a campaign versus society since society is really geared towards single session play with limited connections between each other than the meta-plot.

I was simply saying that since Covid I have started playing Society games due to unavailability to play an ongoing game with my previous group and if I did find a more consistent ongoing game it wouldn't be a society game.... Part of the reason is there is an appeal to play society games where I can drop in and out of a game without needing a consistent storyline thread that "Adventure Paths" have; however, I have seen issues with the inconsistencies where GMs essentially don't let player's fail (6 / 8 games. I know not a huge sample, but most of the games I have play)..

Not to sound rude, but your comment had zero relevance to what I was saying other than it was being pedantic towards my response.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:
Zexcir wrote:
since society is really geared towards single session play with limited connections between each other than the meta-plot.

PFS (the official Pathfinder society) games can include years' long campaigns. Paizo puts out many kinds of adventures that you can get official PFS credit for

Bounties
Scenarios
Adventures
Adventure Paths

While Bounties and Scenarios are intended to be played over a very short time-frame, an Adventure Path is designed to take a character from level 1 to level 20 over the course of the game.

Adventures are shorter, and often only allow the character to advance 3 or 4 levels during the story, they may take as many as 6 or 8 sessions to complete.

Yeah I understand that, I think my point was more that society games are quick drop in games over a single session where adventures / adventure paths you are playing with the same group of people (e.g. need to sync schedules ;) ).

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
andreww wrote:

Just tonight I had a group fail two of the goup skill checks required in King in Thorns.

Success is definately not assured. This is likely to become more common at higher levels as DCs scale and groups cannot cover all of the required skills at expert/master/legendary proficiency.

This was the last scenario I played. Pretty much the game I played in all the diplomacy / intimidation type checks were non-fails for the GMing running it. Like we totally bombed the last skill encounter before the final set piece. I'm not sure if it was the GM felt bad about our low rolls or if they didn't know how to fail forward. Sounds like I needed someone more like you as a GM. Our GM did a great job for the most part, but letting us fail, not so much.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kate Baker wrote:

I'll try to balance my author hat on top of my GM hat for this one!

Thanks for your unique perspective! It was good to hear it from an author's standpoint.

Kate Baker wrote:


First, for some skill checks, there may have been a consequence for failing before succeeding that you didn't know about or the GM needed to know how long it took you to complete the task. Or, perhaps more frequently, there's no consequence for failure, but there is a consequence for a critical failure, so you need to keep rolling to see if you get a success or a critical failure first. I know I've written at least one skill check like that.

If there is only failure on critical failure then the check should be fail succeed with a very low DC. Narratively feels sloppy. In all the scenarios we received full treasure and full rewards so they didn't seem to matter. I only checked two scenarios so far and neither of them had a time based or critical fail only scenario.

Kate Baker wrote:


Second, sometimes there is a skill check with no consequences for failure and no limitations on re-trying, so you really can just keep trying until you succeed. It's honestly ideal if everything with a DC on it has something interesting happen either way, but word count can make that tough! One could also just leave the DC off in this case, but then that could lead to more table variation as GMs start adding one. This might be the DC to find a secret door, the DC to climb over a fence, or the DC to break open a crate. Personally, I tend to just hand wave the actual rolling in this case, but some GMs may want everyone to roll.

Personally I'd prefer it just happens. To me when a dice check comes into play failure may or may not happen and if there is no chance of failure, don't make me roll it feels very disingenuous. I wonder if the authors could use more of the TEML system in this case for these auto-successes so it's still specific to that character that put points into an ability "Oh you are an expert in nature, no skill check required you just get the thing". It's still interesting but without the roll and drives the story forward.

Kate Baker wrote:


There is a definitely a third case where GMs throw the players a bone to avoid a negative result. I don't think that what you describe here is the norm (allowing everyone to re-roll every failed check), but it is common for GMs to occasionally prompt something like, "well, you didn't find anything in the bandits' hideout, but it sure seems like they would have some treasure somewhere. Do you want to keep searching and try again? Okay, great, you find a secret compartment with two treasure bundles." This shouldn't be overused, but it is something that happens.

This is fine to throw a bone especially prompting player's what skills they can roll (esp for very introverted players). I also see the argument for ensuring new / young players have lots of opportunity for success, but for experienced players (e.g. higher levels of play it doesn't feel good to auto-win).

In the 6 / 8 games I've played all different GMs it was essentially rerolling skill checks like diplomacy until you succeed.

Kate Baker wrote:


Scenarios in general do have consequences for failed checks (though there usually needs to be a way for the group to "fail forward" even if no one has a particular skill). If these games were with the same GM, you may want to seek out different Society GMs to play with, and see if someone else has a style that you prefer.

1. It does seem maybe the GMs may not have been prepared enough on how to fail forward.

2. So far these society games have been online and I haven't sought out a continuous group of society gamers. If I did find a specific group, I would prefer to do a campaign versus society since society is really geared towards single session play with limited connections between each other than the meta-plot.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Evilgm wrote:
TwilightKnight wrote:
At most of the tables I play at everyone starts with at least two HP, and more often than not, start with three.
That is absolutely not the common experience. Most players in most games start with one, and scenarios need to be written from that point of view.

Even if that's the case. Everyone would need to use all their HP on skill checks, which is unrealistic. If they do then that's fine because they won't have them when they get knocked or in a combat fight.

I'd have to run some random trials, but I did basic math on 4 players and if everyone had 2 HP and used of them on skill checks, and there were 4 encounters of skill checks there is still a ~5% of failing at least one of the skill check DCs assuming the whole party had that skill and were at the highest rank with the highest stat point in the skill. That's maximum.

During my game two people used a HP in one "skill encounter" and still failed. The GM allowed us to roll till succeeding even though there was a failure condition (WHICH wasn't even that bad once I read it).

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

TwilightKnight, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

TwilightKnight wrote:
With the proliferation of Hero Points most skill challenges have become near-automatic success. At most of the tables I play at everyone starts with at least two HP, and more often than not, start with three. Add to that the Hero Points earned during play and I almost never see a failed skill challenge. Plus, since most challenges involved everyone rolling towards a combined result odds are you are going to succeed. Generally successes count once and critical successes twice with critical failures only offsetting a single success. So the math is heavily in favor of success. I think scenarios could generally be written a bit harder, but its a challenge to balance skill checks such that it is reasonable, but possible for those untrained while not being trivial for those trained.

I went through the latest scenario and though I don' know the exact bonuses of my fellow players, I went ahead and did some calculations. I know that not everyone was trained in the skills required for 2 of the checks, but the probability of failure is much higher than auto-success even with HP. Assuming we used at minimum 1 HP and a party of 4 with 1 person maxed out on bonus. In this scenario only 2 people had skills to even complete the encounter so the math here is much more optimistic than reality. But in an optimal party the chances of success was around 87% with a hero point. On average if you have 4 different challenges with an 87% success rate the probability to succeed on all 4 of them is 60%. So losing out on one treasure bundle isn't an auto success when you actually do the math. Knowing that one of the PF2 Designers has a CS degree with Statistics knowledge I'm betting that they know this probability curve and expect it. In our party the probability curve was much lower AND I'm completely fine with that. Especially given that we failed and then it was really awkward to succeed felt dirty.

TwilightKnight wrote:


OTOH, there are also some GMs who never fail players for fear of conflict. Players have been known to get very aggressive if they lose a treasure bundle or a point of prestige, and don't even think about killing their character. I've seen a player throw their pencil and dice across the table, get up and storm off never to return after their character was dropped. I've also seen a player tear up a chronicle in a GM's face and tell them they were the worst GM in the history of gaming and they would either just replay the scenario or get their VC to reissue the chronicle with all rewards. Pretty disgusting really.

IF this is the case then I should probably be up front at the beginning of the game and say: "I embrace failure and if we auto-succeed at things, then don't make us roll or roll till we succeed. Or else there is no point for me to play."

I couldn't imagine seeing a player throw stuff or tear up a chronicle sheet. If they exist they shouldn't be playing the game. I'd never want to play with a someone who acted like that. This comment makes me not want to play society play even more, but I'll hold off till I actually see it.

To be honest if my games continue to go this way I won't play society any more and just look for continuation games. The whole appeal of society is that I don't have to wait for Covid to be over and have the opportunity to do pick up games online.

1 to 50 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>