Search Posts
This may be a dumb question, but I am not finding an exact answer in the 4.2 Play Guide, the FAQ, or be searching the forums. As long as I am observing the five hour maximum time limit, can I split a single society scenario over multiple sessions and still be legal? Assume that I have the exact same set of players for both sessions. Here is my situation. At the store where I usually run I have a 3.5 hour time slot. I find it difficult to run the Season 3 scenarios in that time and my experience with Season 4 so far shows them to be more difficult. I am just exploring my options to keep PFS going at my store and keep my players happy. Thanks.
I have been discussing this here, on a private email list, and with a few other people IRL. I have also been thinking about it long and hard over the GenghisCon convention weekend. I have finally come to a conclusion. The rules state that the effect ends because it was cast by a PC. That is fine, but it doesn't sit well with me as a player. So, I am going to pay the 660 GP to buy off the spell effect. I know that I don't have to, but it makes more sense to me that I do this. The disconnect between ongoing spell effects as cast by an NPC versus those cast by a PC don't make much sense to me. I guess it fits with the "no PvP" rule, but it is still not quite right. For roleplaying reasons I am spending the gold. I just don't feel right taking advantage of a rules loophole to save a few hundred gold pieces. Thanks everyone for your input.
Thanks for the replies guys! I really appreciate it. So far my VC is saying that I would have to spend the 660 GP. However, that was before the spell expiration rule was brought up. I will see what his official ruling is. I would also like to hear what Mike Brock or one of the other higher-ups has to say about this. The complication that I see is the Song of Discord, which was cast by an NPC. That spell was the start of a chain reaction which ended with my character becoming feebleminded. The PC caster of the Feeblemind wanted to target the NPC bad guy, not my character.
This may be a dumb question, but I am going to ask it anyway just so that I can be clear on how things work. I was playing Scenario Name: tonight with my 10th level Arcane Trickster.
#28: Lyrics of Extinction In the last encounter my character and another character got hit by the Song of Discord spell. The other character is a Wizard, who on his next turn attempted to cast the Feeblemind spell. He rolled for the effect of the Song of Discord and had to target the closest ally, which was my character. The spell text states the following:
The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind. The Organized Play Guide states the following: Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends, the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario. This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent duration, such as continual flame, create undead, or fabricate. I have two questions: 1) Do I need to buy off the effect of the spell, or does the effect end as is stated in the Organized Play guide?2) Can I use Prestige Points to buy it off, and if so how many would it cost? I know that I can buy a scroll of heal for 1650 gold pieces, but I would rather use PP for this assuming that I even need to worry about it. Thanks.
If a copy of the "relevant sections" is going to be required at the table, please provide a PDF of the latest version that is formatted for easy printing. I don't have a smart phone, nor do I have a tablet. Also, one of the shops at which I play doesn't provide WiFi, so bringing a laptop is pointless. I need a convenient method to create a hard copy, and printing web pages from browser windows tends to waste more paper than is really necessary. Thanks.
Up until now I have avoided playing the sanctioned modules. It seemed pointless to me. Yes, I would have fun playing the module, but part of my reason for playing PFS (or any long-term roleplaying event, e.g. a home group) is to see my character evolve. The current rules for sanctioned modules do not fit with that desire. They are just bolted on to the side, not integrated into the whole of the system. There is no real risk to my character and consequently no real reward and the character doesn't evolve. So, I like the proposed changes. It might make playing the modules more difficult if I don't have a character at or below the appropriate level, but that is a minor problem. The changes do make the modules more attractive to me. I do have one concern relating to consistency. In the blog it states that when using a pregen the chronicle sheet must be linked to an existing character. I can accept that. (Heck, I might make a character just to link to and to outright play sanctioned modules. ^_^ ) I even like the idea that the chronicle can't be applied to the linked character until that character reaches the level of the module. It does strike me as inconsistent relating to death, however. If the chronicle cannot be applied positively until the linked character is at the level of the module, then it should not apply negatively until the linked character is at the right level. For example, if I have a 5th level character and I play a 9th level sanctioned module with a pregen while linking to my 5th level character, the chronicle shouldn't apply until that character is 9th level good or bad. Basically once my character reaches 9th level the chronicle applies and he dies. Why should I have to miss out on levels 6-8 of play with that character?
Any update on the BB Adventures being posted?On Dec. 15, the Beginner Box Bash will conclude and the four demos will be released for free downloads. After that date, the PFS boons will no longer be made available. I wanted to make sure I gave a full month notice in case people have not had the opportunity to schedule or participate in the event. Yay! Thanks for posting the update DW.
I am on the same page with you. I am not asking for the second coming of TSR and their business model. The BB is entirely compatible with the CRB and should remain that way. I like the layout of the BB very much and want more of PFRPG presented using this, or a similar layout. I want to take the BB version of the game to level 20. I also want to see all the races and classes (not to mention all the spells) presented using the BB format. I am not asking for the D&D vs. AD&D split which TSR had. Both of them should use the Golarion setting. That one world is enough. Let the 3PPs make other settings. The various different settings for D&D were cool, but most people only ever played one or two. TSR had too many settings.
+1 I totally agree with you. I play HERO System. I have played Rolemaster before. I am not afraid of rules heavy systems. I have been playing PFRPG regularly (about once a week or so) for over a year now. It is not that I can't or won't play the full game. I would just prefer a lighter version of the game. I am getting interested in Swords & Wizardry for this reason. I am really interested in Savage Worlds right now for this reason. I really like the PF classes (especially the Magus) and I really like Golarion. I just don't want to spend the time to port Golarion to another system and I don't want to spend the time disentangling the rules in order to make the system lighter. Paizo has a good start with the BB. I would like to see a BB #2 which adds classes and bumps the level cap. Paizo has said repeatedly that they won't do this, however. They don't want to split the player base like TSR did with multiple games and numerous settings. I am sure they are also looking at failure of D&D Essentials as an example of what not to do. Evil Lincoln and several others have suggested a middle ground. According to some Paizo representatives the rules are supposed to be modular. I would like to see the CRB (Core Rulebook) reformatted so that modularity is obvious. That way we can easily move beyond the BB, keeping it rules light, without splitting the player base.
Pzizo representatives have said several times that they won't turn the Beginner Box into a separate product line because Paizo doesn't want to split their player base. Yet, this MMO move will by design split their player base. The Pathfinder property is unknown in the video game world, so the only people who are going to be excited by this are existing Pathfinder RPG players, since they know how cool Golarion is. The problem then is that most of those players have very little free time to play. So, this will force a choice on the player base to stick with the tabletop Pathfinder RPG, or to play Pathfinder Online. As someone else I was talking with has already said (thanks, Jeff) this is a total fan-boy maneuver.
+1 to Stickman for the above commentary. I have been thinking how to respond to the PFO announcement since the site came back online yesterday, and I still have to go with my gut feeling. I don't see how this is anything but a bad move and a waste of resources for Paizo and Goblinworks. I would rather see this time, money, and effort put into expanding the Pathfinder RPG. For example, it could go to hiring more staff so that release schedules could go from "will be released sometime in December" to "will be released on December 18." Specific, reliable release schedules would go far towards making Paizo a bigger success. Or it could go towards the development of more Flip-Mats and Map Packs. These resources could also go towards developing mapping tools, or supporting Hero Lab so that they finally get the Mac version out. Some of these resources could possibly go to WizKids to finally get the Pathfinder Battles minis out the door. They have been delayed too many times. The MMO market has a very small number of success stories (WoW, EVE, EQ perhaps, Second Life) and a huge amount of failures and also-rans (RIFT, DDO, Aion, Final Fantasy 14, LotRO, Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, and Hellgate to name a few). The MMO field is overcrowded. I don't see how PFO can be anything more than just another fantasy MMO. I hope that I will be proven wrong, but until then I will remain skeptical. The bottom line for me is that Paizo is a small company that has been successful in a niche market. I work in the computer industry. I have seen what happens when a small company in a niche market tries to make the jump to a new, much larger market. So far I haven't seen it be successful. Even though Goblinworks is a separate company, when the s*** hits the fan there is going to be a temptation to "borrow" resources from Paizo to prop up Goblinworks whether that be money, computers, or staff. If this happens it will damage and possibly deep-six both companies. Again I hope that this doesn't happen, and that I am proven wrong. So please, for the love of Abadar, stick to your core competency. Stick to paper and dice RPGs. You still have room to grow in that market. Finally, I have a question. Why did you guys take the whole Paizo.Com site offline yesterday to make this announcement? I realize it was a PR stunt, but in my opinion it was a amateurish one. As far as I am concerned this announcement didn't warrant taking the entire site offline. Also, I was trying to access the forums while the site was offline, which did nothing but frustrate me. Something else to consider, since you run an online store from your website taking the entire site offline perhaps cost you several sales. Further, Paizo.Com is your main point of presence to the rest of the world. In the Internet age if your website is offline (and it should never be offline), as far as your customers and users are concerned your entire company is offline. For example, during that site outage I had no way to contact customer support if I had needed to do so since I don't have the support email address or phone number memorized.
...list omitted... Since the APs are meant to be run from 1st to around 15th, you might want to consider that for a new campaign that allows your players access to the entire game from 1st level. Trying to scale an entire AP to suit an existing party could be a ton of work. Also, starting an AP with new characters could also be an opportunity to introduce the APG, UM, and UC to your players.
I like the idea of using random encounters over PFS modules. I am a PFS player and would be hesitant to use PFS modules outside of Society play. (I could see it possibly causing problems if your players ever get interested in joining PFS.) If you do use PFS modules I would suggest looking at retired modules only just to be safe. But, I understand this may not be an issue for you. Don't forget the plot seeds in the BB GM Book for continuing the plot from the intro adventure. Also, there is a short mini dungeon in the GM's Kit PDF which could be expanded upon. Both of those (if scaled correctly) could be used as interludes in the Everflame/Masks/City series to overcome the XP gaps. Also, if you can't find modules from Paizo which are appropriate to your game there are a ton of 3PP modules available. Look at Frog God Games and Super Genius Games, or just look here: http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG. Also you could check out the old 3.x Dungeon Crawl Classics modules from Goodman Games. They are out of print and would take a bit of conversion but they are generic enough setting-wise that they can be dropped into almost any campaign.
I've seen posters on these boards take the position that dense, obtuse rules are a good thing, because they weed out the "fake" gamers. Sad, but true. Wow, that is a crap attitude. I guess those people will never know the joy that are rules-lite systems like Savage Worlds and that is sad. It is also a defeatist attitude. We will not attract new players with attitudes like that. There is nothing wrong for simplifying the rules for new people. I know a bunch of Grognards that appreciate simplification as well. Simplification does not equate to dumbing-down. See the K.I.S.S. principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle) which was coined by one of the guys that created the U-2 spy plane and the SR-71. Albert Einstein was also a fan of simplicity. I agree with EL that the experienced players are familiar enough with the existing layout that they don't notice its problems. I notice it every time I open the CRB. I suppose that in the age of the Internet and the "Old Skool Renaissance" being in-print is less important to some gamers, but I like having a well supported game. But I am not sure how much cred that generates, however. There are plenty of games that are out-of-print with good riddance. I think we just have a nostalgic attraction to the games we started on. For me that is Mentzer Basic.
Thank you Evil Lincoln for starting this thread. I have several points that I would like to add to the conversation. First, one example of things being spread out and hard to find is the rules for tumbling though an enemy occupied square. (Thanks to Drogon for pointing this out to me.) That is the best example that I have heard so far of hard to reference rules in the CRB. Second, put me in the "hell yeah" category. I want a CRB that is more usable than the current one. A drastic reorganization is necessary. This does not require a Pathfinder 1.5. In fact changing the rules to a 1.5 edition would lose me as a Paizo customer. It is unnecessary. I will give an example in Chaosium. The Call of Cthulhu rules are in their sixth edition now. They are still compatible with the first edition as published in the 1980's. The rules have never had a drastic change like 2e->3e->3.5->4e editions have. Guess what, Chaosium is still in business. They still sell product. They even reprint supplements every now-and-then and sell them even though supplements which were published in the 1980's are compatible with sixth edition. They don't require a drastic rewrite every few years to sell more product. They have a sustainable business model built around a stable ruleset. If Chaosium can do it, so can Paizo. Third, I agree with Dwilimir. I didn't play much 3.x and am having a hard time mastering the rules for PFRPG. I even read through the CRB cover to cover and have been playing PFS three to four sessions every month for a year now. I need a book with a more usable layout. Fourth, I would also like a more modular game. I like the Beginner Box. I like the rules-lite presentation. Presenting the rules in a way that makes it easy to create "Pathfinder Basic" using the CRB would be a good thing if Paizo won't turn the BB into its own line. I don't have time or inclination to disentangle the rules. Fifth, I would like to see all the classes in one place, all the feats in one place, all the spells in one place, etc. I don't like having to cart around CRB, APG, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and more. Sixth, there is one thing that I would remove from the CRB completely. Get rid of the Prestige Classes. I am playing an Arcane Trickster in PFS. He is level 10. Compared to other single-class level 9-10 characters he is rather weak. The base classes are so good in Pathfinder (especially once you add in Archetypes) that the Prestige Classes are pointless dead weight. I think they can be dropped completely from the game with nobody shedding a tear. None of the other PFS players that I know here in Colorado use the Pr Classes in the CRB.
I am in love with the layout of the books. I like the solo adventure at the beginning of the Hero Book. It all reminds me of Basic D&D. The BB is definitely not an OSR product, but the presentation harkens back to those old boxed sets. I agree that we are lucky. Paizo is a responsive company that puts out a high quality product. I hope you have a ton of great adventures using the Box.
The rules standardization that Sean talked about in his rant serves to make the GM beholden to the rules as much as the players. There is now an expectation on the part of the players that the GM not just run the game well, but also run it correctly. This means following the letter of the rules. So, if I want to exclude something like AOOs from my game, it needs to be officially excluded somehow. We are all colored by our experiences. Let's turn this back to the positive and the PF BB. As I have said I like the Box. The layout is great and as usual I love the art. I like treating the game as a modular system. I like that the CRB products are compatible with it. I hope it sells well and I hope that there is enough interest that Paizo will produce boxes for higher levels. I like Golarion and want to run games in it using a lighter system than that presented in the CRB. I don't want Paizo to become TSR with a million different games (don't forget Boothill, Top Secret, and others) and a bazillion different settings. I like the lighter, but compatible system.
The "just ignore rule x" mentality doesn't work in my experience. All it take is one player not buying-in to the reduced rule-set to ruin a gaming session. Whether it is at a Con, or at a home game, or a one-shot at a game store, there will often be one ultra rules-lawyer of a player that points to the rule book and claims that because the rule exists the GM can't stop the player from using it.No amount of rules can prevent certain players from being jerks. It is true that no amount of rules, or lack of them can stop people from being jerks. Perhaps I should restate to make my point more clear. The rules standardization that Sean talked about in his rant serves to make the GM beholden to the rules as much as the players. There is now an expectation on the part of the players that the GM not just run the game well, but also run it correctly. This means following the letter of the rules. So, if I want to exclude something like AOOs from my game, it needs to be officially excluded somehow.
The "just ignore rule x" mentality doesn't work in my experience. All it take is one player not buying-in to the reduced rule-set to ruin a gaming session. Whether it is at a Con, or at a home game, or a one-shot at a game store, there will often be one ultra rules-lawyer of a player that points to the rule book and claims that because the rule exists the GM can't stop the player from using it. This undermines the GM and causes more rules disputes than it solves. This is why many of us want an official product that leaves out the things we don't want. It makes our lives easier. We spend more time gaming and less time arguing. In a rules-heavy system the GM is not the final arbiter of the rules, the published material is. The "rules, not rulings" mentality that makes 3.x and PFRPG better to write for than 2e works against the GM in these situations. Now on to other topics... I like the layout of the BB and would enjoy a better laid out CRB. The current CRB is not clear and concise. So, if Paizo were to come out with a new edition that didn't change the rules, but simply presented them in a better manner I would buy it. I would still like to have the PFB go to level 20 or so, but if the CRB were presented in a modular way using the lessons of PFB I would call it a win. I still wouldn't be able to sell my home group on PFRPG, but I would be a happier PFS player.
I read through the book upfront. I have been playing PFRPG regularly for over a year. I have a college degree and I work in IT. I read computer programming books for fun. I also like reading 300+ page novels. Perhaps I am strange in that I like to read through and attempt to understand the rules of a game before I play that game. That being said, I still feel like I don't have the gist of the rules for PFRPG. Perhaps I need to read the Core Rulebook again to get a firmer understanding?
I have never worked at Paizo or WotC or TSR and have no direct knowledge of what caused TSR's downfall. So, as an outsider, I would say that supporting too many lines definitely caused TSR to go under. That was totally obvious at the time. I am definitely not advocating that Paizo get into that same situation. I don't want them to have multiple settings and a ton of game lines. (Don't forget that TSR produced more than D&D, they also had BootHill, Top Secret!, the Indiana Jones RPG, and probably a few more which I am forgetting they produced over the years.) TSR tried to be all things to all gamers. They wanted to have a game or a setting for everyone. That was a bad plan. Golarion is enough setting and PFRPG with the PFBB are enough game lines for me. I also don't want to see a ton of new material for the PFBB. Perhaps one or two BB specific modules, but that is just a "nice to have" since (as Drogon mentioned) the existing Gamemastery modules and Adventure Paths can be easily adapted to the BB. I would just like to see the "lite" version of PF go to level 20. It is a worthwhile product with its own merits. I am not asking for anything outrageous here. I have looked through the box which I purchased. It is loud and clear from reading those materials what the goal of the BB is, as far as Paizo is concerned. They have made it impossible not to see that the BB is an meant to be a gateway to the Core Rulebook and the full game. I understand the company's motivation. I don't know how a person could miss it. However, I think the BB is a good product and think it could stand on its own as a parallel product. I am a Paizo customer. If I want them to do something to make me a happier customer and want to give them more of my money, I need to tell them. This is me telling Paizo that I want more Beginner Box. I understand that they might not listen to me. Maybe it doesn't make business sense to the powers that be, but nothing will happen if I don't make my interests known. Sometimes I like to tilt at windmills. Drogon:
I am a "mature" gamer (i.e. I am in the over-30 age bracket). I like PFS and don't mind the tons of crunch that PFRPG has. (Note, I don't necessarily like it either.) I am willing to wade through the rules because I like the PFS system and like Golarion. However, my homegroup (all of us are 30+) won't touch Pathfinder due to the rules-heavy nature of the game. They want something lite and fast. I think they would love Golarion, but the rules are a deal-breaker. The Beginner Box is perfect for my situation. I think I can get them to play it and like it. They liked Castles & Crusades, so I think the Beginner Box is an easy sell. So, put me in the "I Want More" category. I want to see it kept rules-lite and have progression above 5th level. There is no need to produce a ton of Beginner Box specific material, since the modules and Adventure Paths can be easily adapted. (However, a few Beginner Box specific modules here and there wouldn't hurt.) Just give me the ability to get to level 20 using the "lite" rules.
The BBB was lots of fun. I am glad that I participated. I played at Enchanted Grounds here in Denver. We had enough players to have four four-player tables running. Everyone that I talked to had a good time. The four scenarios were a blast. Although the "Tomes" and "Ruins" encounters were brutal. There was even a TPK at one of the "Tomes" tables. I would love to see the four scenarios released to the Beginner Box page for download. I also heard a suggestion at the Bash that they be combined and published as an adventure module. That would be great to have and I would buy it, but I would be happy just to be able to run those four scenarios for my home group. I really like the "lite" version of PFRPG. (I failed my Will Save so I am now the owner of a box.) I think it is something that I will have fun GMing. Also, the only time I get to play Pathfinder is in PFS because Pathfinder is too rules heavy for my home group. This is a shame because Golarion is a great setting that I think my players would like. The Beginner Box is something that I think I could get my home group to play. Hopefully there is more Beginner Box material to come. I would actually like to see Paizo do something like the old Mentzer BECMI sets for D&D. Keep it more rules-lite than standard Pathfinder, but have it go higher than 5th level. Also, I like the production quality of the materials in the box. I think it is well done. If Paizo keeps producing materials for the Beginner Box, I hope they are of equal quality. I know that there are paper minis available for some of the Adventure Paths and that WizKids is doing plastic minis for Pathfinder. However, I like the cardboard minis in the Box. Perhaps more of those could be produced as part of the Beginner Box line?
I have been playing PFS in Denver, Colorado for just over one year now. I really enjoy it. One of the things that makes it great is the 4-hour slots. This allows me, a 30-something IT professional, to fit PFS into my work schedule. I play most of the time at the Wednesday night sessions at the shop closest to my home. I also play at Drogon's store (Enchanted Grounds) on the third Saturday of the month. If the slots are extended to 5-hour slots, I won't be able to play as much. Wednesday nights would certainly be out, since making the current 6:00 PM start time for the sessions is just barely workable with my work schedule. If the start time had to be moved to 5:00 PM to allow for a 5-hour slot, I couldn't play. Also, the 4-hour slots work for the games at Enchanted Grounds. This allows for 2 4-hour sessions on a Saturday before the "Open Mike" night starts up. I like to play both, since it is about a 40-50 minute drive for me to get to the store. Having two sessions in a day really makes it worthwhile for me. I would have a hard time justifying the money for gas if there were not two slots offered. Not to mention that the 4-hour slots at the local conventions allow me to get in 3 games in a day rather than 2. I also have a problem with the content of the Season 3 modules. They drag at the end. Even when trying to fit 5 hours worth of roleplaying into 4, the modules lose my interest after a bit. I just played #3-03: The Ghenett Manor Gauntlet yesterday. By the time we completed the two main objectives of module, I was thinking "screw the faction mission, I just want this to end." The bottom line for me is that 4-hour slots work for me as a PFS player. I don't ever want to get into a situation like dartnet described. If that ever happens to me in PFS I will stop playing PFS. |
