This has escalated pretty far, something I take responsibility for, but I will say this last thing. I would be fine with the feat never being remotely applicable in the first place. But to have a situation where it seems clear, to me at least, that it should apply and being denied is different, or at least feels different to me.
have them roll an Athletics check and a Survival check after encounters A, B, and C. The checks are both DC 14 (DC 16 in Subtier 3–4). This represents how well they move through the mountainous terrain and how they are able to provide for themselves.
So, after reading the relevant check I’m more convinced I was in the right. It seems like athletics to travel, survival to provide for the group.
I will point out that I did NOT push the issue at the table. I did NOT argue with the GM in any way. I came here to vent my frustrations, and now realize this was the wrong forum for this.
You are obviously free to take something from this that no one is saying, if you insist.
granted I was a bit snarky, but that is what people are saying. I wanted to know why my choice was invalidated for a skill-check minigame, and I was told that I took a less optimal feat. As well as told that a feat that, in my opinion was completely applicable, was not allowed to function because the author did not consider it and expressly include it. I have not argued that subsistence should be the centerpiece of all scenarios, but when it is, the feat should work. As I pointed out, would “Quiet Allies” work if the series of skill checks needed everyone to roll stealth? It seems the overall opinion here would be “no”, so the. why do these feats exist as options? It seems that maybe the best outcome is for y’all to list the “Optimal” skill feat choices for PFS play along with the ones that will never be used because when they come up in their particular niches, they are so powerful as to invalidate the scenario.
more to the latter, I just don’t think pointing out all of the more universally “better” options is very helpful. I know this is kind of a niche feat, all the more frustrating for it to be shot down when I felt it should work. My point is, I could have taken battle medicine like literally every other character I have played with, but I tried to be a bit more thematic and unique and was expressly punished for it. I don’t complain when my feat failed to come up in my first 4 scenarios, didn’t care at all, but when the group was told, by the GM, that our collective lack of success resulted in not finding enough food, and that a feat that should have changed that, was not applicable because the writer did not consider it. That was my point. But hey, I get it, battle medicine and assurance for all characters going forward.
Tommi Ketonen wrote:
If this is the opinion of OrgPlay Leadership, perhaps they should compile a list of feats that will NEVER be permitted to have an effect, to help people who are trying to build to a theme feel slighted. Next time I guess I should just take battle medicine like everyone else, right?
Blake's Tiger wrote:
DISCLAIMER: I have not run, nor have I read the scenario.
I think, after being specifically told NOT to take all the food they can carry because the point is to ensure there is enough to forage along the way, any group that chose to bring food or use magic would, in my opinion, be subverting part of the objective. I would tell them they could forgo the rolls, but that it would have an adverse effect on the quality of the reports they will be filing.
Maybe my bigger issue is with secondary success. We have gone from silly random fetch quests to a series of silly skill checks. There must be a more rewarding way...
I much prefer scenarios where secondary success is predicated on “You decided to do X and Y but not Z.” I find the repetitive “skill challenge minigame” overdone, lazy and boring.
I don’t know, it is starting to feel like every scenario is based on the innovative mechanic of “succeed at 101 of 200 skill checks to get your secondary success.” And, to “avoid table variance” interfering is the math is disallowed. Or at least that is how I felt. Hard to say what he was actually thinking, since my long distance detect thoughts spell is not currently in my repertoire.
Robert Hetherington wrote:
spoilers previously omitted:
2-05 Trailblazer’s bounty
I get that having characters with unexpected abilities breaks the minigame of certain adventures, but it left me with a sour taste.
I recently played in a wilderness based scenario where we were told that “your ability to hunt and forage for supplies is part of the objective.” We were asked to make daily Survival checks to find supplies. Most of the group failed, but I succeeded, and I had the Forager feat, which should allow my character to supply food for most of the party, but upon pointing it out, I was told it didn’t matter. So glad I made this “meaningful decision” for my character. I’m wondering if any skill feats matter in society play, bonus from Quiet Allies? (nah, module says everyone must make a stealth check) Why have the feats at all if the published materials don’t acknowledge their use at all?
Mark Stratton wrote:
Actually, lately, they have been very enamored with high tech solutions to problems that do not exist. Data is fleeting, paper is eternal
One might think that in tines that are uncertain sticking with the proven status quo versus forcing a change we are clearly not ready to implement would be the prudent course of action. and I have felt like the org play team have been making excellent calls recently. Guess they were due for a bad one.
What I am not understanding is why not do the phase out and roll out simultaneously? Why do we need a year of naked sheets before they can roll out the online system? I am not excited about the new way of doing things, but resigned to it. But it seems to me like the right course would be to go with paper until it’s time to go with not paper.
this year PFS, and SFS, leadership has seen me go from incredibly critical, to content, to optimistic when they rolled out the APG sanctioning early. Now this decision is a head-scratcher. I don’t understand why they fix non-problems and ignore bigger issues. Not that they care about my opinion, but I think this is a dumb move.
I am definitely in the camp of people believing starship combat is a blackhole of fun, and should be avoided whenever possible. The whole table takes actions, then the gunner misses and the whole round was a waste. Can’t imagine a more exciting way to play. To my mind, the answer is simple, the line developers can make all starship combat encounters optional encounters. That way groups who enjoy it can have it, and I can continue to avoid it like a rabbit squirrel on amphetamines.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
So it seems you are right, but without the boons, there is nothing to do with them. Was hoping to play something not-level-one at GenCon online. “However into each life a little rain must fall”, and after the past few months I’m happy to be playing at all. Thank you both for the swift responses. Stay safe everyone.
Red Griffyn wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly. I might even have to buy this on day one to support this action!
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Seems legit to me, instead of being all in on a technology that seems to be failing them.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
So there is no way to make you happy for now.
Not true, I’d just like them to keep to their timelines, or give a candid explanation as to why th8ngs are delayed. Sanction was “a few weeks away” in September. Then over the past few months it’s been “SOON”, then beginning of the month it was “by the end of the month”, and nothing since then. How about a simple, “This is the roadblock, and we expect it to last until X, if not, this is our next best work-around.”
Dead faced serious responses with actual information, absolutely they would.
Agreed, once a month until they can manage to stay caught up, preferably on a fixed schedule, ie the third week of the month will be the “State of the Campaign Address.”
Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:
The First rule of sanctioning is you don’t ask any questions about sanctioning.
The second rule of sanctioning is you don’t ask any questions about sanctionsing
The third rule is no lies
The fourth rule is no excuses
The fifth rule is trust in Tonya.
Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:
Man we here you, and some of us agree, but railing against this is gonna accomplish nothing, trust me, I was very vocal a few months back. i got shouted down by the “Better PFS Fans” same as you. Getting angry here will accomplish nothing. you have two options1) Be thankful for the efforts being made and be patient
2) find a different game to play
At my shop, I think we have irreversibly moved on at that point, and I’m saddened by that. It might be time for you to move on too.
Either way, getting this angry here will not gain you any ground. I speak from recent personal experience.
Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:
My understanding is that the plan is to migrate most or all of the information to the main Paizo site. The OPF wasn’t ever intended to be the home for it.
Respectfully, I disagree. If I want to disseminate information to my team, I can send e-mail(Twitter posts in this case), post notices in the breakroom(Facebook and dischord), or even on the office bulletin board(forum posts), but unless I discuss it in the pre-shift huddle(I would call this the blog), it hasn’t been officially mentioned.(I don’t check work e-mail, I just go straight to the department, I go out to lunch etc.) Pointing me in the direction of where to go and get it is fine, and no, I don’t expect everything to be crossposted everywhere, but there should be one place to solicit information where it is all available, not just catch as catch can. Getting information from leadership should not be the reward for performing a scavenger hunt.
Michael Sayre wrote:
I actually said nothing of the sort. We've had numerous blogs and participated in social media, even while we were burned out and recovering from an intense release. I just pointed at the highest profile communications that were primarily about the topic at hand to note that "radio silence" was a gross mischaracterization of fact.
Well Micheal, we are not Facebook friends, and I don’t follow you on Twitter. I read your blogs and forum posts, and those have been very limitted.
Once again, my bad, always seem to assume GenCon in July, but 3 posts over 4 1/2 months isn’t a whole lot more though. And, by Micheal’s admission, there was nothing before late October.
But further, I thought no I’m allowed some impatience at this point. PFS hasn’t had an AR update in 8 months, and SFS has’t had one in 53 weeks. How much more patience would you like?
Maybe the groups gaining ground can share some notes with those of us who are slowly, or not so slowly, dying out?
Michael Sayre wrote:
Okay Micheal, maybe “Radio Silence” is too strong a term, but allow me to retort.
You pointed out 3 blog posts over the course of what, 6 months as being what you consider to be transparent? Wow, just wow. This is something I cannot even find the words to respond to. And that came after 3 months of telling us absolutely nothing, there was no communication at all. So you are right, 3 posts in 3 months isnot silent, but not transparent either. And I will point out that that communication started after fans like myself begged for it for months. Maybe it was planned from the beginning, but maybe it wasn’t.
Additionally, let’s agree that your launch was quite ambitious, no doubt, and nobody will begrudge you of the time to get your feet under you, but let’s also look at some other facts if you will. Starfinder Society Additiona resources last updated December 7, 2018, Pathfinder Society “Classic” addition resources last updated April 4, 2019. “New” Pathfinder society additional resources posted at launch and never updated. So I think my frustrations are at least somewhat warranted?
You wanted to make sure your GM’s could run this game? Okay, let us put aside the contention that this is proported to be easier than PF “Classic”, now your GM’s are staring at nearly 6 months of new material. Are you going to drop it all on them at once now, I wouldn’t envy them if you did, but more likely it’ll be released in penny packets over time, preventing anything from ever catching up to the release schedule.
Pathfinder excitement locally has gone from
You guys had a gas can in one hand, but decided to use the fire extinguisher instead. The technological issues prevented you from rolling things out the way you wanted, any consideration of the low tech fallback, get up to speed when you can? I get that you are all likely more frustrated than I/we are, after all, this is a game to us and a career to you. I thought New Pathfinder Society had a great opportunity to improve upon the way things were done in “Classic”. Thus far, it’s all the same, just with the number 2.
Even the forums have changed, I used to come on here and see threads about different topics, lately majority are people wondering about sanctioning.
TLDR You have not been silent, and it was unfair for me to say so. But neither have you been transparent, neither in word nor in deed.
I think most of us understand all of this, but are just asking for more transparency. unfortunately it seems like PFS leadership has adopted “Radio Silence” as a default communication strategy. At this point, I’ve given up asking anymore, there are no updates forthcoming, and asking draws the ire of the militants on the boards. For what it is worth, PFS is basically now dead at my FLGS, nobody wants to wait a year to play with the new and shiny toys.
Steven Lau wrote:
Wow, ok he is not saying you have less of a voice due to lack of stars, he is saying your account is not memorable because it is mostly blank... You have no avatar to remember you by (which many use to remember posters), you have no subscriptions or stars/novas. Due to that he has no memories of ever responded to you. it is hard to distinguish from others.
With all due respect, that is not at all how this response read to me, however, I will admit it has been colored by our previous interactions. I still definitely feel as though the intention of pointing out my lack of “distinguish” was to belittle me and my opinions. If that is in fact sincerely not the case, then I apologize.
I believe they have made mention of retroactive chronicles in this case, so that would be an option in this case. Someone with more insider knowledge than I should confirm though.
I’m sorry, what is the minimum number of glyphs, novas and stars required to express an opinion again, I can’t find it listed anywhere?
I recognize you, but not because of those credentials, but rather your tactic of shouting down discordant opinions. We have had several interactions, and not once will you discourse, instead you tell me repeatedly that I am wrong, without ever lowering yourself to explain why. So you can shout me down, congrats.
So you have more time in the seat than I do, won’t even argue that. You’re a more loyal fan than I am, won’t even argue that. So ask, why does this insignificant 0 star, 0 nova, 0 glyph person challenge the all knowing better PFS fans?
I have a different opinion, and think things can be better. Maybe you think things are perfect, and that’s fine, but I don’t, and therefore, until someone with real cache tells me to stop, I will keep pushing to make things better.
Respond if you like, or don’t, don’t care.
All I have left to say about this thread is leadership is trying
As others have pointed out, they don’t NEED to sanction anything at all. But that wasn’t the point of my post, and I do believe that was understood.
Nefertiti, I’m starting to feel there is some personal animosity here. Every time I post, you seem to look for some opportunity to tell me I’m wrong and my opinion is invalid and unwanted. If this is the case, I will be happy to hash this out somewhere other than these boards. This does not seem to be the proper venue.
My intent was to simply ask for transparency. In losing John, they lost not only their most experienced team member, but their most community facing one as well, neither Tonya nor Linda engage with us as much as he did. That isn’t their style, and that is okay. On her last blog Tonya gave us some transparency, and I think it was hands down her best move since taking over. I am simply asking for more of that. Maybe roll it into one of the weekly blogs.
I think most of us know they are overwhelmed, and want to be understanding, but the radio silence and overprotective fan faction make it hard for us to be as understanding as we want to be.
I actually don’t see a posting about that, not that I remotely qualify. I know we all want the work done, and I’m sure campaign leadership wants it done almost as much as we do. What would help, is a little more transparency about the effort. Once a month, just tell us where they are in the backlog. Tonya did this once, but other than that it’s been near-complete radio silence. I’d be happy with a once-a-month “Hey fans, we’re still struggling, but this is where we are, bear with us.” The sound of crickets and “Better” fans calling for us to be patient doesn’t help.