medtec28's page

* Pathfinder Society GM. 246 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 35 Organized Play characters.



1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to jump on here and say that I very much enjoyed the interactive special last night and I very much appreciated how there was no pause to give Paizo their standing ovation like previous years. That had been a complaint of mine for years, so thank you for listening.

1/5 *

8 people marked this as a favorite.

After some bad experiences at this weekend’s Gencon, I wanted to share a simple plea to the future scenario authors and developers. Particularly those designed for low level characters. Warnings, this will be long and will include math. But this can be abstracted down to a few succinct points. I will be using the term author, but please understand that this term is intended to include all levels that the scenario passes through, author, developer, editor and others that I am not aware of. It is not that I dismiss your efforts, but simply for ease of communication.

wall of text:

I understand that writing any creative projects is quite difficult. I also understand that pathfinder is a complex and robust rules system and I do not expect everyone to be familiar with every corner case rule in every book. However, as players we are constrained by these rules. As an author you are as well, but to a lesser extent. I recently played a tier 1-2 scenario where the DC’s for multiple skill challenges as well as combat saving throws were set in the low 20’s. The rulebook has deemed that a standard DC for a level 2 check should be a 16, a “hard” check an 18 and a “very hard” check a 21. It was apparently decided that a tier 1-2 scenario needed to have multiple “very hard” challenges per encounter.

Facing a DC 21, a character at level 2 who is “good” at a given test will have a 65% chance to fail and a 20% chance to critically fail. Given the systems apparent design to encourage specialization, it is difficult to be “good” at too many different activities. It seems the system has decided that a “average” bonus at level 2 would be a +6 bonus. This results in a failure rate of 75% and a critical failure rate of 30%. I would ask you to think about the last heroic journey you experienced, be that in a book, movie or video game, did that hero fail at 75% of what he attempted, even when he started? I think the answer is likely no. We, as players, are constrained by the rules, and must take these challenges as they are presented to us, you as an author have the opportunity not to place the expectations so high. It is not merely that I am saying that these tests are very hard, though I do think that those numbers are too high, the game system has identified them as such. All I ask is that we all follow the same rules.

Also, please keep in mind the types of effects that might be employed in a given scenario. This particular scenario had three out of four encounters which included an effect that caused the loss of character agency. This was particularly distasteful due to the above issue with save DC’s. While I do understand that these effects can create interesting storytelling opportunities, and have a basis in classic heroic literature, my issue is with the frequency and placement thereof. I personally, feel like the loss of agency is more disheartening than character death. I’m sure that I am not alone in this feeling, so I am at a loss as to why it should be included at low levels, especially with such frequency.

Finally, I feel like there is an over-reliance on the “Elite” template in scenario design. Particularly when this is combined with the above points. I understand the excitement and drama of a singular enemy to face, where the entire party must tactically coordinate in order to strike, damage and survive the encounter. But wouldn’t these moments be better served as that climactic encounter. I remember many “boss” fights in first edition, but when every encounter’s response to an elevated challenge point total is to “throw the elite template on it”, do you not think that cheapens the tension of these set-piece encounters? I feel like this just turns everything into an unending slog and makes things overall less fun. Perhaps we can find another way to make the encounter more challenging without making it difficult? “Challenging” is different that “difficult”.

In general, I would simply like to remind every author that your tier 1-4 scenario might be some player’s first encounter with Pathfinder Society. These low-level scenarios are the gateway to draw in new players. While I feel that no level of scenario should be designed to “win” against the players, this is particularly true of ones where we expect the newest of our players to be involved. This past weekend was not the first time I have been at a table for a low-level scenario where the entire party was completely disheartened. If any of those players were brand new, would we expect them to come back next week?

In closing I do want to tell you all that I appreciate all the work you put into this game, but I feel like some of the lower-level material may have lost its way recently. We need to be more encouraging to turn new players into veteran players. This needs to be embraced by all levels of this community. They are the future of Pathfinder Society

1/5 *

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?

1/5 *

Did the playtest points expire at some point. I logged on today and it seems I no longer have any, and I never spent any?

Dark Archive **

You got my hopes up that there was another con coming to Sacramento. Alas, I'm pretty sure CogCon is in Rolla, MO. You might want to check your plane tickets?

1/5 *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to say an honest thank you to the organized play team for The most enjoyable multi-table specials I have participated in. In the past I have been openly and voiciferously critical of the way the specials have been managed, but this time I truly felt like the emphasis was on the players and you gave me, and probably all of us, an amazing experience.

If this ends up being my fairwell to PFS, at least I can say it was fittingly awesome!


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Alright everyone, I'm done. I'm out. PF2 may go on to become an excellent game, but from what I have seen, I don't have much faith, so I'm done with this playtest and I have been encouraged, by my gaming group, to detail why on the forums. In the unlikely event anyone is interested, my reasons are detailed below

1) The curse of sameness:
The character creation system is needlessly rigid. The ABC character creation restricts the variations of characters that can be created. The first character I tried to build was a druid who was focused on Melee with wild shape and a Strength score of 18. Were any of you aware that this is impossible? The only ability score that can be an 18 for a druid at level 1 is Wisdom. Additionally, if I wanted to play a Constitution 18 “I block it with my chest” Barbarian, this is also impossible. Neither of these concepts seems so overpowered or abusive as to be made fundamentally impossible. This, along with the incredible paucity of options makes for, in my own opinion, an uninspired character creation system. PF classic has gotten to the point where I can easily transition from idea to character. PF2 was already telling me don’t play a shift or a slayer, play another fighter with a longsword. I’ve been playing for years, I’m done with playing fighters with longswords, and now you are restricting how different I can make my fighter with a longsword.

2) The Surveys are un-necessarily daunting:
The recent surveys take way too long to complete, and you cannot save and come back. This makes it difficult for someone like me to actually provide adequate feedback by survey. I had originally likened the PF2 playtest as a PCA pump reaction to the Shifter fiasco. I figured, based on the rigid way they wanted to received feedback, and the unrealistic schedule, that the idea was to convince us all that they were making changes, while they rushed everything to the printers. The willingness to make changes may have improved my opinion on this, but the surveys seem like they are trying to discourage people from providing feedback. If Paizo is truly trying to playtest this system, and they are as committed to getting data by survey, they need to make these surveys quicker and easier, and if that is not possible, they need to let you pause in the middle and come back to complete it

3) Playtesting isn't fun:
Above, I touched on the idea that the playtest period is super accelerated. I’m about to be starting Doomsday Dawn part 3. I’ve done a little PFS in between, but I’ll tell you, this is not a fun adventure to play. I get to play once or twice a month, and if I’m going to pick what I want to spend that brief respite from real life on, they could have at least given me an engaging fun experience. I get that the intention is to stress test the rules, but I have to believe that they could have done a better job of making it fun.

4) MY GAME IS NOT BROKEN:
The more I see of PF2, the more I feel like I’m not the target audience. I like PF classic. PF2 has changed things that I never saw as a problem in a way to make things needlessly simplistic and rigid. I want my game to give me complexity and flexibility. I took the time to learn the system because I wanted to be able to create whichever character
I can picture in my minds eye. PF2 makes that impossible. PF classic has finally reached the point where everything is possible, but now they need to reboot it. I understand that the company cannot survive if they cannot sell me the next book. While I understand this, I do not have to support it.

TLDR I’m tapping out on the playtest. I’ll keep playing PF classic as long as I have people to play with. I’ll also secretly harbor the hope that some other company will rob the bank on PF classic the way Paizo did to WOTC

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So far, in my limitted SFS play, I find myself ambivalent towards Starfinder as a whole, and I have yet to have a fun experience with ship to ship combat. My experiences are as follows.

Into the unknown:
I honestly don't remember hating this one, maybe because the GM soft balled it, maybe because the dice were in our favor, but I don't recall much other than we fought in space

Cries from the drift:
This one went quickly because we were able to put the enemy ship into our rear arc so they couldn't fire, and the gunner hit often enough. Since it wasn't a duel to the death it wasn't terribly long, and it wasn't terrible

Yesteryears's truth:
This was enough to make me consider quitting SFS. We played the initial space combat for nearly 2 hours. The gunners could not seem to hit the mothership with any regularity. Eventually the GM just moved on.

Skittershot:
This was today, and it was a frustrating end to an enjoyable game. The only pregen with a pilot skill is easily outclassed by the enemy vessel. This time I was in the Gunner's chair, and I could not ever seem to roll well enough to hit this thing. I had to roll a 13 or better to hit, unless the pilot made the near automatic evade check, and that made it a 15 or better

Basically it all boils dow to " If the gunner misses, nothing else for the round matters." And "If the gunner hits, all the previous actions are irrelevant."

I know someone is going to mention the tactics of putting your ship in an unmanned firing arc, but every ship we fight is either more maneuverable, or can shoot in every direction. And it seems like ships never seem to be out of range no matter what happens.

The other roles are support or reactive, but cannot meaningfully effect combat if the gunner misses.

I've gotten to the point that when the hex map comes out, I want to pack up and go home.

So, I'm asking all of you, how do I have fun with what seems to be a funless black hole of a minigame?

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish I had posted this before everyone headed down to Gencon, but I have a request for the management of the Gencon special. Every year Paizo continues to produce excellent products, and the PFS crew produces amazing adventures. However, Ennies announcement at the Gencon special puts these two at odds. Every year the Sagamore is filled with people who love pathfinder, all enjoying a game with a story narative that gets interrupted by the Ennies announcement. My suggestion, and request, is to hold that announcement until after the special is concluded. I think we will still be there waiting to share your triumph.
In conclusion, Pathfinder is awesome, Pathfinder society is amazing and I'm looking forward to Starfinder. Keep doing what you are all doing, it's greatly appreciated.

1/5 *

Registering by tier, and if I don't have a character in tier(such as if my character gets killed earlier in the weekend) I have to play a pregen at that tier! This is not cool guys, I do not like this.


I don't see any reason why this should not work, but I'm going to ask. I have been saving towards purchasing at greater talisman of life's breath. I can now afford it, but I had a thought. i need to die >10 times for the greater talisman to have any benefit over multiple lesser ones. Is there any reason I couldn't buy say 3 lessers, wear one on my neck and carry the other two? If one goes off, I replace it asap. Seems like this would also get arround the once per day limitation. Seems like good economics to me.
Cant find a reason to consider this illegal and/or abusive.

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just need a clarification about the level range for scenarios. I was under the impression that a tier 1-5 adventure could only be played by levels 1-5 and a tier 3-7 could only be played by levels 3-7.

other people I play with are insisting that as long as the APL is in the 3-7 range, we can run level 1 and 2 characters. This just doesn't seem right to me?

1/5 *

Just tried to play through is with a 3-4 party. What the heck?

spoiler:
we'll start with the initial encounter, 10 hardness is a little steep for a 3rd level character. we figured it out, if you spend on nothing else, you can get a single adamantine item at level 3. We only had one at the beginning, retreat, re-equip. More adamantine, pass encounters 1 and 2, only to encounter 3 hungry fleshes. There is only so much fire/acid damage. We cut and ran at that point.

I can't imagine what the rest of this season is going to be like. I may just swear off pfs until they get their heads straight. What do they expect players to handle at each given tier? I'm okay with surviving each encounter by a small margin, but this one each encounter seemed insurmountable. Not fun at all. You can lose and still have fun, but I want my $6 and 4 hours back.