Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 8 Season Star Voter, 9 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society GM. 891 posts (947 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 22 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.
Obligation to my community has been what drives me to GM and continue to GM. I try to GM once for every 3-4 times I play and when possible, GM for the local con for at least 2 tables. The rewards (Glyphs, PC Credit) are a motivator to do this more and without having necessarily played the scenario first, but they're not required.
I come from the before times of Living City/Greyhawk/Arcanis. Until later in Arcanis' life, there were no rewards for GMing save RPGA points. A lot of thought was put into making sure the folks who would GM locally got a chance to "Session 0" an adventure, usually run by someone who got to play it at a convention. Sometimes, there were folks who just took turns "eating" an adventure to help the local group get moving on it.
Because there were no tangible rewards (and sometimes you lost the ability to ever play the adventure if you GM'd it first), it was a community norm that we had to take turns GMing if we were regular players with the rules knowledge and skills to do so. We still had folks who really like GMing and would step up regularly, but you'll always have folks who like GMing more than playing.
This isn't me advocating to remove rewards for GMs to motivate folks. GM rewards is one the best and more important differences in Pathfinder Society compared to its predecessors in the d20 Org Play space. I just want to illustrate how we had to make it a community norm that folks take turns GMing or we wouldn't be able to have regular game days/cons at all. The stakes were just higher, because the ask that someone run an adventure cold also meant they would never get to play it and would have nothing tangible to show for it. It was reasonable for people to refuse to do so and we didn't have a game day that week.
At GM "crunch points" in PFS1E and 2E, VOs at the Austin Lodge have had to work hard to impress upon players (especially newer ones), this cultural norm that everyone who can, should GM just a little bit. Most of what I see is them trying to communicate this value that in older campaigns, was much clearer to folks from the get go.
So here's the TL;DR: PFS sometimes fails to communicate to new players that once they are comfortable with the rules and have their footing, it's a community standard they help out GMing, even if they do so only a few times a year. And we often don't step in and reinforce this until we face a shortage of GMs or there are otherwise consequences that keep us from playing regularly because we lack GMs. It's important that Lodges/Cons let folks know as they join that we'd love to help them along to GMing some once they're comfortable, instead of waiting until we're running short to discuss this.
I'll echo a few of the prior comments in that I'd like to see more boons tying back to the campaign. For example, I'd love to see:
Background - Dacilane Academy graduate. These are often the children of Pathfinders. Perhaps even a legacy link to a prior character.
Downtime Boon - Dacilane Academy volunteer. We've seen hints to this in scenarios. Something fun to do with your downtime. Perhaps with checkboxes to earn a minor reward. Or just a way to earn Income differently.
Downtime Boon - Lodge Builder. We've set up new lodges in a handful of scenarios. (Razmir, Qadira, etc) Someone needs to help build these new lodges. Again, maybe a downtime boon with checkboxes. Might be able to do different ones for each lodge.
If might add/build upon the Volunteer idea..
Dacilane Academy Faculty-A vanity boon letting you use a skill/lore to "teach" part time at the academy as a downtime activity, including blank space for what class your PC adds to the curriculum. A fun bit of roleplay to share at the table when discussing downtime.
I'd love to see some of the Rare Backgrounds from a wide array of books get another pass. Here's some candidates that spring to mind as "not too disruptive to the campaign" as they don't call out any planning with the GM or tie your PC up in events/themes inappropriate for PFS play:
Age of Ashes:
Legendary Parents (with modified text to say your parents were legendary Pathfinders and allow you to name a previous PC in 1e as said parent).
Book of the Dead:
Scion of Slayers
Tomb Born
Crown of the Kobold King:
Friendly Darkmoon Kobold
Dark Archive:
Empty Whispers
Firebrands:
Best Blessed
Dauntless
Guns & Gears:
Saved By Clockwork (Choose from pre-determined drawbacks on boon)
Tall Tale
Wished Alive
Knights of Lastwall:
Tyrant Witness
Secrets of Magic:
Genie Blessed
Magical Experiment (Sample Abilities Only)
Seer of the Dead
Time-Traveler (Predetermined origins like New Thassilon only)
Travel Guide:
Astrological Augur
Doomcaller
Nocturnal Navigator
Sign Bound
Starless One
Sun Dancer
Tide Watcher
So upon review of the access for G&G, there's some conflicting statements...
Character Options wrote:
Gunslingers (and characters with the Gunslinger archetype) gain access to all uncommon weapons, ammunition, and related items from Chapter 3 of this book, with the exception of Beast Guns and any limited or restricted items below, unless the item indicates otherwise.
There are no "uncommon weapons', ammunition, and related items" in Chapter 3; that is all detailed in Chapter 4. At first glance this seems to indicate region determines equipment access for Guns PCs, except...
Character Options wrote:
Characters with a Home Region of Arcadia have access to air guns, beast guns, non-black powder ammunition and accessories; and all archetypes from Chapter 4 with the exception of fireworks technician and demolitionist.
There are no archetypes in Chapter 4; it is all equipment.
The text for confronting Thessekka in area F9 is confusing.
pg. 53 wrote:
If the fight occurs at the Old Forest Tower, the xulgaths at area F8 emerge to defend her as soon as combat begins; three
xulgath arrive at the beginning of the second round, with three more emerging each round thereafter.
Does this mean all the xulgath in F8 emerge in the first round and then three more the second, three more each round after? There's only 5 xulgath in area F8. Do I pull xulgath from elsewhere in the tower? This would be pretty brutal given the ones running around the interior.
She's already a Severe encounter, so that would be kind of mean. Maybe send in 2 xulgath skirmishers at the beginning of the second round, with 1 arriving each round thereafter, and Krarkgekkiss arriving last (or not at all, if the heroes are totally on the ropes).
I did 2 Xulgath skirmishers round 2, another pair in round 3, and then Karkgekkiss in round 4 and it worked really well to add weight to the encounter without overwhelming them.
The text for confronting Thessekka in area F9 is confusing.
pg. 53 wrote:
If the fight occurs at the Old Forest Tower, the xulgaths at area F8 emerge to defend her as soon as combat begins; three
xulgath arrive at the beginning of the second round, with three more emerging each round thereafter.
Does this mean all the xulgath in F8 emerge in the first round and then three more the second, three more each round after? There's only 5 xulgath in area F8. Do I pull xulgath from elsewhere in the tower? This would be pretty brutal given the ones running around the interior.
What is the accurate way to mark down "regular success" for interacting with both families on the chronicles? The boxes seem to only allow for the Critical Success and Critical Failure conditions.
So, I'm really wondering about these rules and if they were influenced by the "Mecha Crusade" mini-campaign in Polyhedron from back when Paizo did Dungeon Magazine. I may have just dug it out of a comics long box to confirm I didn't imagine it.
I was an avid Dragon reader for many years, but my exposure to Dungeon was fairly limited. Neither Amanda nor I (co-authors for the mech rules) were familiar with that article. Maybe there's some inadvertent overlap!
Oh, I figured it was a long shot. I mostly found it a fun sort of "full circle" back to the kind of content Paizo made pre-Pathfinder.
So, I'm really wondering about these rules and if they were influenced by the "Mecha Crusade" mini-campaign in Polyhedron from back when Paizo did Dungeon Magazine. I may have just dug it out of a comics long box to confirm I didn't imagine it.
I have a Google Doc here that contains all of the notes I took, plus double checking them against the fantastic live notes taken by /u/The-Magic-Sword on Reddit.
While "Living" campaigns for other games in the past have done this, PFS and SFS don't. It's generally assumed that the respective Societies cover basic costs of living (housing, food, basic needs, etc.)
I'm pretty concerned about Marcon's statistics in Tier 3-4. Specifically...
Marcon's Tier 3-4 Stats:
He has an AC 35. This is unreachable by attack rolls at level 3. If the party is more powerful than four level 3 characters, it bumps pretty quickly to 37. A character specialized in what they do (i.e. a fighter) with a +1 weapon at level 3 is only going have a +12 to hit at best (+4 STR, +4 Expert, +3 Level, +1 item bonus). They still can't hit the creature short of a natural 20.
An Elite Ghast, per Bestiary rules, should have an AC of 20 (18 for Ghast, +2 for Elite).
The Tier 1-2 Ogre's equipment lists him as having an "Ogre Hook" (which is 1d10 piercing damage), but his actual melee attack states he has a battle axe with 1d8 slashing damage.
That said, we're expecting the Lost Omens Gods & Magic book sometime in February 2020. There's a chance it MIGHT include Eldest, so you may not have to wait long if you're open to holding off on the concept for now.
I've actually go the same question/concern. It'd be nice to see exactly what some of the boons do before clicking a possibly irreversible button. Or get confirmation you'll view a sample first before there's no going back.
Name: Zeldana Dalcanu, the Harrowed Sage (Moissanite Gem)
Alignment: Neutral Good
Race: Human (Varisian)
Class: Cartomancer Witch 6/Harrower 5
Description:
Zeldana is a young Varisian woman of Ustalavic origins, most often seen wearing a practical traveler's outfit and a silver Pharasmin holy symbol about her neck. The Harrowed Sage has built a reputation within the society in handling restless spirits and otherworldly entities, She's often called upon to utilize her divination magic to better grasp the history of an object or location.
So, I'm wondering if an Expulsionist's Expel Spirit ability can be combined with the Channel Smite feat, or if that counts as "fundamentally altering" vs. "improving". See spoilers below.
I'm looking specifically for "Does RAW support this?" as this would be for a PFS character.
Expel Spirit:
At 1st level, an expulsionist receives Alignment Channel and Turn Undead as bonus feats. She can channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier as per a cleric with an effective level equal to her inquisitor level, but only to harm or turn evil outsiders or undead (treating all evil outsiders as undead creatures for the purpose of determining whether they can be affected by Turn Undead). She can take other feats that add to this ability, such as Extra Channel or Improved Channel, but not other feats that fundamentally alter this ability, such as Elemental Channel, and she cannot select Alignment Channel multiple times. The DC to save against this ability is equal to 10 + 1/2 the expulsionist’s inquisitor level + her Charisma modifier.
At 8th level, an expulsionist can expend one use of her channel energy ability to attempt to force a possessing creature from its host body. The expulsionist must make a melee touch attack against the possessed creature; if successful, the expulsionist deals damage to the possessing creature as if it were targeted by the expulsionist’s channel energy ability (regardless of the possessing creature’s creature type), and the possession effect ceases as the possessing creature is ejected from the host body. A successful Will save (DC = the expulsionist’s channel energy DC) halves the damage taken and negates the expulsion.
This ability replaces domain.
Channel Smite:
Prerequisite: Channel energy class feature.
Benefit: Before you make a melee attack roll, you can choose to spend one use of your channel energy ability as a swift action. If you channel positive energy and you hit an undead creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel positive energy ability. If you channel negative energy and you hit a living creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel negative energy ability. Your target can make a Will save, as normal, to halve this additional damage. If your attack misses, the channel energy ability is still expended with no effect.
The main thing that I would ask, is make sure that significant choices get realized sooner rather than later. In this case the time difference between Where Mammoths Dare Not Tread and Sundered Gate was about 3 months I think. The scope of season 5, with the building toward war, really made this timing feel like our individual play-through's had real time impact on the campaign. This made the campaign feel like a living campaign. This is what I think should be strived for. But in other situations we don't see resolution until a season or two later (Valais anyone?) In some cases, resolution doesn't happen for several seasons.
So my hope is that significant choices have a planned resolution time-frame that is within a window that characters could actually play in that resolution scenario. I have had several characters that were well into seeker levels not able to play in scenarios that would have been impactful for them, because 3 seasons later the follow up was another 1-5 or 3-7.
This.
While I like the "comics continuity" take on how events with one cohort of PCs are impacted by events with another cohort of PCs, it's sad to see plot lines my PC may have a serious investment in (Like Valais or 322) not resolve for years and bounce down to a lower tier than it first showed up in.
I know not all plot threads can get planned follow up right away. Sometime, the devs won't realize a particular NPC or event was so cherished until years after the scenario came out. Others (i.e. Torch) are just too big and too long term by design to ever accomodate this. But for some of the examples given here (Valais & 322), these were pretty clearly setup to be ongoing plots that can be resolved in 4-6 scenarios.
I am hopeful that 9-20 will already give us a chance to make my biggest wish come true.
I would like a check that all the various 'special boons' from scenarios actually saw some use.
** spoiler omitted **
At least one more trip into The Kingdom of the Impossible!
If this occurs, I am excited to see the table where 6 PCs show up with this, and all 6 are running on the narrative that she is their romantic interest.
The Decemvirate have much more concerning methods of containment than a simple Soul Bind at their disposal.
Kinda depends on the story. For the most part we're TOLD that they're incredibly competent but SHOWN that they're a bunch of complete morons. Only complete idiots would have let Torch get away with what he has. And the idiocy required to allow the story of Eyes of the Ten to unfold as it did is of an epic level.
Compare and contrast how difficult it is to get into Aspis HQ as opposed to Pathfinder HQ :-)
I can't disagree with that, but there's no denying that they have a TON of magical artifacts at their disposal and a "hold my beer" mentality for using them.
Eyes of the Ten makes a lot more sense in the status quo of Season 2 than it does now (i.e. Factions are secret/don't operate openly, the Society is still adjusting to a massive wave of new recruits, Shadow Lodge is just starting to spin up, current rules options at the time).
The way this accommodates Quests definitely has me interested! I also like it because it present the opportunity for folks to still earn some degree of XP for scenarios that see a serious mission failure vs. walking away with nothing at all. It would also allow for a non ".5" value to be given for slow track characters more often.
We may also be looking at a time skip in the setting proper (which would accompany a new Inner Sea World Guide/Campaign Setting Book).
No, staff have said that the first adventures in PF2 will occur in 4719.
They specifically said there isn't going to be any kind of strangeness in the timeline.
James Jacobs wrote:
Just as we didn't do any world-sweeping changes when we shifted from 3.5 to Pathfinder 10 years ago, we won't be doing any when we switch from 1st edition to 2nd edition. We will be advancing the world's timeline up to 4719 AR, and will be setting the events of the 1st edition adventure paths and their resolutions into the timeline (just as we did the same for the 3.5 adventure paths when we did the Inner Sea World Guide for Pathfinder), and that means that there will be some changes between the setting—but those changes will be the natural results of over a decade's of adventure paths, not sudden changes out of the blue.
Won't lie, the Onyx Alliance/Blakros stuff is one of the first story arcs I really fell into while doing stuff for Paizo. One of my first memories, from the same PaizoCon as that image, was conspiring with Mark Moreland about all our crazy plans for how that story would pay off. So many years later, and there's still a LOT to be revealed. Some of which, may or may not be showing up in some upcoming products! :)
The Grand Convocation where the Onyx Alliance kicked the door in on the Museum remains one of my favorite memories and I was so happy to see it touched on as Blakros Museum stories continued!
I totally understand the frustration on Race Boons and definitely would like to see some means of recouping that loss. However....
...the PFS team can't guarantee if or when a race will get the Pathfinder 2.0 treatment. Your character could remain in conversion limbo for months or years.
This is a good thread. We already have several big plans for Season 10, but we're interested in revisiting some loose threads overall. More ideas are welcome.
Seeker level play for the last Special for Pathfinder 1e.
It would be really nice and a good full circle. I started this with my -1, have done both seeker arcs with him, etc. It would be fitting to end it with him and look forward to new beginnings.
Personally, I'd love to see more action with the Elemental Lords. There are 3 more of those puppies locked away and if we get them quick enough maybe they can be core or first "Gods Book" viable.
Yes, oh please, please! A Concordance capstone!
A discussion on this very thing with a friend is part of what sparked my idea for this post! I'd love to see the Concordance do big things this next season. Maybe we get to catch up with the pregens we got to play in the "prequel" scenario to the faction's rise?
As we've gotten news that Season 10 will be the last "Pathfinder 1st Edition" Season for Organized Play, it's gotten me wondering about what kinds of things I'd love to see in terms of story beats for the season. I'm not certain how far things are in development, but I imagine it may still be helpful for John, Linda, etc. to hear as things get finalized.
So, to start...(and if there IS a scenario that already does one of these, point me at it!)
Sequel to King Xeros of Old Azlant. Pretty self explanatory. But I'm even more eager for this as I realized today this ship could easily have been a very early incarnation of the Drift Drive (uses another plane to travel through space!).
Zarta Gets Her Comeuppance. We saw some of this in Faithless & Forgotten, but I'd really love to see her start to really begin moving & shaking around those revelations.
Serpents Trilogy We've already got Rise & Ire. Why not a third part to round things out, close up some of those NPC stories, etc. Maybe even reference <redacted>, which might have changed the Consortium's view on the Society.
That said, there are more and more Scenario Chronicles coming out with "non standard" versions of unique and named weapons. Keep an eye out, I've seen some REALLY neat ones.
You first step is to review Additional Resources and do a quick Find function for each source book this character utilizes and then check to see if a given trait/archetype/spell is legal. Campaign Clarifications is also the document of "house rules" which explains how to handle corner cases and other weird ways Pathfinder content interacts with PFS.
Most of it looks good from a quick skim, however....
So, Cautious Warrior is actually Aldori Caution. Which is the one trait from Weapon Master's Handbook not allowed. d20pfsrd strips away any setting specific things from content. While d20pfsrd is a great resource, be aware you are expected to use the actual source book at PFS tables (either physical or watermarked PDF copy) and to be able to present it as your rules reference for anything on your character.
So rather than having an actual award for people aren't male and aren't white (that being what such a thing obviously is, but truth-in-labeling must be avoided at all costs when virtue-signaling), we'll instead send the names of people aren't male and aren't white to Tonya for ballot-stuff consideration for Volunteer of the Year awards.
...said awards having then been successfully hijacked into an award for people aren't male and aren't white, because that's what now important to this game company.
I have a better idea: Get rid of all awards. Every single one of them. And keep them gone for each and every year that anybody proposes (to an immediate slew of "likes") handing one out with special consideration for "the color of their skin" (or what you see when you look down their pants) as opposed to "the content of their character."
Then maybe the company can focus on GAMES instead of being a massaged political football.
Not one place did someone say "nominate women and minorities just for being a woman and/or other minority". Folks are arguing to just keep the one award, as it is...and if you know women and/or minority volunteers who are making great contributions worthy of said award, make sure you actually nominate them for it.
I have zero desire for any sort of "separate but equal" award. It would only serve to encourage the sort of "white boys only" club attitude that needs to die.
Send the names of women and minorities to Tonya for consideration for Volunteer of the Year awards.
This. Don't make a separate award. Nominate women and minority volunteers making important contributions for the actual award.
I think we missed the new alignment restriction in our review, and this falls into similar category as the mantis zealot archetype (which gained a more restrictive alignment criterion in Adventurer's Guide). Likely that means we'd waive the new alignment restriction in the updated tempest druid archetype, as we did with the mantis zealot.
We've noted this and should have an update in the next Additional Resources/Campaign Clarifications documents, which should land before Adventurer's Guide appears on the PRD.
Thank you for your swift response and flexibility re: alignment.
So, I've put off asking this again until the Lore Warden was resolved, since the thread it went up originally got locked due to that debate.
bdk86 wrote:
What Changed: The Tempest Druid (AG pg. 183) now has an Alignment Requirement (Chaotic Neutral), where none existed before (per its Inner Sea Magic printing, pg 41).
What's the problem: The current Role-playing Guild Guide only allows limited rebuilds due to changes in a class/PrC/archetype to an ability-score-dependent feature or weapon/armor proficiency. There are a host of corner cases for the aforementioned changes this does not cover: [list]
Gear with an alignment requirement (i.e. Axiomatic Weapons)
Feats with an alignment requirement, if not a Deity requirement that does not allow one to worship them while Chaotic Neutral. (i.e. Deific Obedience [Irori])
Characters multiclassed into another class with an alignment requirement (i.e. My Tempest Druid/Unchained Monk*) At present, the character MUST change alignment at PRD update to become legal or they lose their druid powers.
In the case of multiclassing, you've got a character that must choose between losing Druid powers or losing powers/being unable to progress further in their second class (in this case, I'd become an ex-monk and just have to figure it out from there).
So, because eventually the PRD will update and I will have a character that is caught between keeping one class/archetype or the other....what do I do with this character? There are no provisions in the Guide for rebuilds due to an alignment requirement change. If I've missed something somewhere, please let me know.
I also imagine once the Starfinder Reference Document goes up this may shift a little. A Core Rulebook is definitely necessary for everyone prior to a public, open source core rules reference point.
Gonna +1 "this is a good thing". There's also a lot of complications in a private, for profit company using a large volunteer workforce for something. As pH said, this inevitably makes it easier for PFS/SFS to thrive as it removes a lot of complications.
I've never had to previously engage in the errata based rebuild rules save the cases where we were allowed to "sell back" items, so if I've missed something please let me know (and link your source!)
What Changed: The Tempest Druid (AG pg. 183) now has an Alignment Requirement (Chaotic Neutral), where none existed before (per its Inner Sea Magic printing, pg 41).
What's the problem: The current Role-playing Guild Guide only allows limited rebuilds due to changes in a class/PrC/archetype to an ability-score-dependent feature or weapon/armor proficiency. There are a host of corner cases for the aforementioned changes this does not cover:
Gear with an alignment requirement (i.e. Axiomatic Weapons)
Feats with an alignment requirement, if not a Deity requirement that does not allow one to worship them while Chaotic Neutral. (i.e. Deific Obedience [Irori])
Characters multiclassed into another class with an alignment requirement (i.e. My Tempest Druid/Unchained Monk*)
*This is the only listed example that impacts me, but in thinking on the issue I realized the Feat/Gear conundrum is present as well. Before anyone even tries: I absolutely have a role-play oriented basis for this and it fit with printed material pre-AG. No, I'm not discussing it in this thread. Sure, you can ask via PM.
At present, the character MUST change alignment at PRD update to become legal or they lose their druid powers.
In the case of multiclassing, you've got a character that must choose between losing Druid powers or losing powers/being unable to progress further in their second class (in this case, I'd become an ex-monk and just have to figure it out from there).
What I'd like to see: There needs to be an addendum for what to do when errata includes an alignment requirement change. While the Tempest Druid change is the first time I know of this happening, it's a pretty tough situation to be in with current RAW. I would like this to allow the PC to retrain impacted feats, sell back gear with an alignment requirement of some kind, and retrain affected class levels/archetypes/etc.
By RAW, no new Summoner spells that don't explicitly name themselves as for the Unchained Version of the class are accessible to it.
I am not so sure that there is a RAW. Where is that indicated?
Pathfinder Unchained: Summoner PFD wrote:
Summoners gain access to the following spells. Because they aren't always allowed for every type of character, spells from Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Monster Codex, and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Mythic Adventures aren't included in these lists. Such spells are cast at the levels indicated in those sources.
Because of the lack of comment by leadership, I think spells from other sources are available as indicated, even sources that have come out after the publication of Pathfinder Unchained. The only spells not available, because of the blog post, is the spell list contained in APG.
Because products after Unchained continue to say "Summoner" AND "Unchained Summoner" on spells (with some only naming the latter in a fairly inconsistent fashion). That list also only covers those books. While the core RPG hardcover books since Unchained have been good about managing this, Campaign Setting specific ones have not.
Some examples are the spell Snowball from People of the North (published before Pathfinder Unchained) or Shackle from Path of the Hellknight (which lists as a Summoner spell, with no mention of Unchained Summoner).
Given a VO commented that there was working group trying to sort this out, it sounds like a knownissue but there's still no clarification on the matter. PFS, sadly, always defaults to "rules as written" in the absence of appropriate clarifications. I'd prefer not to roll up with a PC whose spell list is declared illegal at one table but allowed at another.
