the new PFS FAQ regarding the Animal Archive raises a question for me:
I appreciate and like that PFS has stuck to a ruling that 'we are sticking with Amulet and Barding' but I am having issues with this line:
[i]animal companions always have access to barding and neck-slot items so long as they have the anatomy. For example, a horse and pig can always have access to barding and neck-slot items. A snake does not have access to either.[/1]
This line takes a nice, consistent ruling and muddies the water with GM ambiguity. I particularly take exception to the fact that Snakes can't wear Amulets (thus preventing them from taking an AMF because 'they have no neck' but they can wear a belt in the Animal Archive despite having no waist). I base this irritation on the fact that growing up in Asia I saw many snakes with collars, but none with belts...
I can get over that. But what I don't like is the term 'as long as it has the anatomy'.
Either we should have a consistent rule that applies across animals, such as 'these are the two slots permitted for fairness and balanc' or we should use official Pathfinder Animal Archive rules.
Frankly I prefer the former due to aforementioned surprise that Snakes get belts, but will settle for the latter.
What we have at present is ambiguity. Now we have precedent for GMs banning items or not permitting them based on personal opinion in the rules for Animal companions when before it was clear.
MacquarieCon is a roleplaying convention run by the Macquarie University Roleplaying Society (MURPS). It runs each year in the second weekend of December at Macquarie University Sydney.
Macquarie university is extremely easy to get to, with it's very own brand new Train station - so transport is a breeze. There is ample (but paid) parking right outside the venue, unpaid parking outside the university, and one of Sydney's biggest Shopping centres (The Macquarie Centre) next door for the usual gaming snacks and miscellaneous junk food..
Sydney Shadowlodge will be hosting a range of PFS Sessions over the course of the con, including some of the new levels of Thornkeep (the kickstarter exclusive) and the latest Pathfinder Module for PFS: Murder's Mark.
There is always a track of games for brand new players, low level PCs, and high level shenanigans!
We will be running two slots Friday and Saturday, and one longer slot on the Sunday. (Catering for Mods we know tend to go overtime)
Registration will be going live shortly, but for more information please check out our Facebook page:
Macquarie University, the venue for MacquarieCon, is located in the suburb of North Ryde in the northern suburbs of Sydney. The University is easily accessible by a variety of transport methods.
Travel by Car
Macquarie University has a large car parking area which you can utilise if you wish to drive to MacquarieCon. As it will be University holidays at the time at which MacquarieCon is held, it will not be difficult to get a parking spot. Please be aware that the fee for parking will be $16 a day. It is possible to prepurchase cheaper casual parking tickets. If you are interested in that send an email to murps.president(at)gmail.com. For more information on parking, please see this website.
Travel by Bus
Buses from the City to Macquarie University depart frequently on both weekdays and weekends. Buses leave from the Queen Victoria Building at Stand C. You will need to catch a 288, 289, 290 or 292. It may also be possible to catch a bus directly from your place of residence to Macquarie University. See 131500.info to find out if this is possible.
Travel by Train
To reach Macquarie University by train take the north shore line via Macquarie Park and Epping. City Rail suburban trains on the Northern Line (North Sydney to Brewora via Strathfield) for Epping depart from Platform 18 at Central Station. Alternatively, travel along the North Shore line to Chatswood and then transfer to the Epping-Chatswood line.
Finding The right Buildings: W5A and W5C on campus
We just came back out of the biggest Con/Pathfinder event run in Australia (Ruby Phoenix) - Which was a great success (more stats to follow), and whilst Pathfinder Society is increasingly growing here there is also an increasing disenfranchisement with Faction missions - specifically how they are written and what has happened to them – I normally don’t weigh in too much with this stuff, but I had enough comments/complaints that I felt that I needed to bring some attention to it.
1.The first issue is that of the innate nature of Faction missions as a flavorful plot hook.
In Season 0, these seemed to be geopolitical. Players enjoyed their singular Faction mission as a ‘hook’ into the world of Golarion, with ties to nations, political issues and what was going on. One of the Key benefits is that missions had clear goals and reasons as to why you were doing your mission. The ‘macguffin’ mission wasn’t that common (unless you were Osiriani, in which case that is all you did). A great example of this is the Cheliaxian Faction mission in Slave Pits of Absalom.
This seems to have changed. Faction heads now seem to send people on arbitrary missions for personal or random reasons. Stereotypes have developed. It has literally got to the point where one player was saying to me ‘what random sexual toy does my supposedly powerful fascist nation wish for me to collect now’ – which is the increasing feel for Paracountess Dralneen. The Faction interplay is something that was initially very well received, but now seems to be just a random task that you have to do with little to no serious explanation. That isn’t that fun, as if it is meant to be a Golarion roleplaying hook – then it should be!
2.The second issue is the PROPHETIC nature of Faction missions.
How is your Faction leader able to know exactly that you will have to veer off course in a storm, arrive at a small island and find a small item for them? Or that you will manage to end up somewhere the venture Captain or you aren't intending on going? Faction missions should be related to the plot of the briefing, and should come in AFTER said plothook to allow PCs to maintain suspension of disbelief. These Faction missions seem lazy and arbitrary, and I had several players refuse to do them at the con out of irritation.
3.The third issue is the instruction clarity and occasional rigidity of the missions.
Quest for Perfection Part III is the most obvious example of this, where the players genuinely don’t know how to achieve their Faction goals, and regardless of how smart, clever, or well they roleplay/work together can only achieve them through sheer luck. (See Shadow Lodge Faction mission)
Ideally, it would be nice to reconcile Factions back into golarion, rather than as a mechanical process for item access, and moreover, TIE THE FACTION MISSIONS TO THE PLOT EXPOSITION. There is a lot of opportunity being missed here, and it is obvious Factions are being created as afterthoughts, rather than though being put into how each mission affects each faction, how much each Faction head should know about the mission, and what realistically is a cool plothook to be followed.
I understand this is already being brought up by my VC, Alistair Rigg – but I felt I should have my feedback provided – as we all want to improve this great game we got going here!
Any insight if other people are getting similar feedback would be interesting.
Hi all, I am sure there are other posts like this, but this question keeps popping up locally so I would like to ask it.
Sanctioned Modules give 3 xp, but above tiers 5-6, they give less gold than a PC should get for their Xp.
Why is this? It seems punitive to PCs to get less benefit for the same level than if they had played 3 mods, especially if you are playing through trilogy (Crypt of the Everflame, for example)
Moreover, as the difference is more pronounced at higher levels, higher level Sanctioned mods are more optimally played with a generated PC and then applied to low level PCs than played through with a level appropriate Pathfinder PC.
Why is this the case?
We tend to run these modules as ways of getting people to come to a full few sessions at a con, or as special events (for example, Getting RPG superstar Matt Goodall to come run Cult of the Ebon Destroyers which he wrote)
But it seems odd that we have to justify less rewards to players who could have done other modules. As a DM, buying a Sanctioned module, preparing and running it is as much, if not more work than three individual mods and as a Player it is nearly indistinguishable so why are PCs worse off. I have had one or two players say they won't play such mods with actual PCs for this reason - something that seems to be going against the intent of sanctioning them for play.
I get the reduced Prestige (though I don't agree with it) but reduced gold? I was going to comment on reduced DM rewards which bothered me for a fair while, but this seems to have been changed...
Can I get some clarification on the policy here? I just don't get it really - and couldn't find where it had been asked before.
the other day I had a pathfinder society experience where I wanted to walk away from the table - the DM in my view as a DM, wanted to 'teach the players a lesson' and Allowed the module to essentially be failed - (I checked the mod afterwards and the requisite skill checks had actually been met, the DM had 'adjusted them' and decided that one player had been too boisterous, and as such deserved 'to be shown that he has to have humility'.)
Long story short, the module was failed, the rest of the players (who were innocent regardless of whether the first offending player was too boisterous or not in the social encounter) received a chronicle with +1 xp, no gold, only negative boons and failed the mission.
I personally felt the GM failed in his obligation to:
1. Be an unbiased referee by attempting to 'teach' or impose his style on the player
2. Make sure everyone had fun
3. Work with the players to ensure they still had a chance to do the mission, even after the DM had taught the player his 'lesson'.
4. Work with the spirit of intent of Pathfinder play in allowing characters that may not be appropriate for the region to still have a CHANCE to play the module. (The Table variation rule)
5. Ensure that even if the player had stuffed up, and done something stupid, that one person cannot fail an entire module in the first encounter for the rest of the party.
This is the most important bit that annoyed me as a DM rather than a player, the DM failed to do this:
Pathfinder Guide to play pg 26 wrote:
But what if your players accidentally or intentionally kill an important NPC who was supposed to give them a crucial piece of information in order for the scenario
to progress?
This is a tough one for the GM and requires improvisation. Don’t decide the scenario is over just because the old man with the letter was caught in a magical crossfire and roasted alive, destroying both him and the important letter.
Reveal that the letter survived by some freakish miracle (it was in a fire-proof pouch in his pocket) or maybe that the old man had a lackey who was watching from a nearby alley and knows everything the old man did, and so on. Improvisation will keep your scenario moving forward and will help get you around unforeseen obstacles.
Unfortunately I am in a dilemma as I quite like the DM as a person, and frankly he normally does a good job so I am not sure how I want to deal with it on a personal level - but it raises an important question:
- When is it appropriate to get up and walk away from the table?
I understand that there is a lot of discussion about refusing a cert or getting one for retiring mechanical reasons, but what about just that you felt you needed to leave the table due to a DM or Player?
Pathfinder Society at Winterfest Sydney 13th-14th August 2011
Fellow Pathfinders!
As usual, Blacktown is offering its Annual Winter Convention - Winterfest - and Pathfinder Society is available.
The gaming will be on Saturday and Sunday the 13th-14th August in nicely heated rooms at the usual location of Blacktown North Public School, 1 Bessemer Street, Blacktown (off Sunnyholt Road).
Fees are $3 a day and there will be a BBQ for people to buy lunch at the venue. Drinks and Chips/Choccies are available as well as Tea and Coffee making facilities.
This year we have a plethora of interesting games on offer - including two Adapted modules thus far not offered at any other Sydney Conventions! In Particular we are offering the Cult of the Ebon Destroyers written by one of Blacktown's former regulars when he lived in Sydney and current Paizo RPG superstar - Matt Goodall (who was kind enough to fly up and slot zero it for Sydney GMs. so we would be faithful to it)
Session 1: PF#2-23 Shadow's Last Stand Part 1 (Lvl 1-7)
Session 2:PF#2-24, Shadow's Last Stand Part 2 (Lvl 1-7)
Session 1: YEAR 3 MODULE PF Intro 2: First Steps—Part II: To Delve the Dungeon Deep (Lvl 1)
Session 2: YEAR 3 MODULE PF Intro 3: First Steps—Part III: A Vision of Betrayal (Lvl 1)
Ok, first of all I'd like to state a disclaimer, I haven't had time to read through all the play-test threads, so if others have made similar observations, then I apologise, I felt it was better to air my 'findings' in what time I had, rather than checked to see if others noticed it too.
The first concern I have is the basis of comparison between Cavalier and Paladin. The Cavalier, as a class that has NO SPELLS and is FULL BAB should be compared to both the Fighter and the Barbarian first and foremost. Let’s not forget that Smite evil, albeit situational; is considered by many to be far too good.
In comparing the Cavalier to the BBQ, we see the power creep occurring.
1. Firstly, let’s look at damage output. Barbarian rage offers a small increase in to hit and damage, which lasts for a small amount of time, and has consequences for not running the whole ‘combat’. The corresponding damage produced, as well as the ‘orders’ that go along with it, outweighs the Barbarian, a class that is SUPPOSED to sacrifice Armour and utility for sheer damage output. The Cavalier on the other hand, has both AC and Damage potential, which immediately seems to break that underlying concept.
2. Let’s look at the fact that the Barbarian, again, has 4 skill points. Why was this the case in 3.5? Because it was a lightly armed fighter, the game designers felt that extra skill options were an offset, as abilities like jump and climb became more important, to offset the fact it couldn’t just walk into the middle of a fight. The Cavalier on the other hand retains all the ‘good’ proficiencies (face it, the Tower shield remains suboptimal, and as such is not exactly a major loss, particularly with the compulsory nature of power attack)
3. Class skills. The Cavalier gets ALL the Face skills, Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Intimidate, and can add Perception by choosing an order that is quite worthwhile. This is FAR too good when combined with 4 skill points a level!
4. Rage is limited in application, the Challenge is not. It should have been a ‘rounds’ per day if it was to be kept in line with Bardsong and Rage, which are similar morale self buffs. The consistency already being thrown out the window is worrying, as is the language that mirrors 4e’s “End of Encounter” ambiguity.
5. The ‘flavour’ of the challenge doesn’t match its game effects. (I notice others have already commented on this, so won’t bring it up)
6. The Mount is too good!!! It should be Ranger equivalency, at BEST not Druid.
7. The Oath’s downsides are arbitrary at best, and unlike the Oracle’s downsides, aren’t actually an impediment. This should be altered; otherwise they are random role-playing penalties (which are often ignored/glossed over) for mechanical benefits. (Tome of Magic Binder BS anyone?)
8. Bonus Feats. This is where we draw a comparison to the fighter, not only does the Cavalier get a Druid companion, greater damage output EVERY COMBAT than a Barbarian, but it also gets almost as many feats as a Fighter! This again is excessive power creep.
In fact, the only thing I think is bad for the Cavalier is ‘opponents always flank him’ – this should be a static -2 penalty to AC, as flank has other connotations that may compound issues as the rules set develops .
Essentially, the Cavalier has me VERY worried. A lot of people here are talking about the comparisons with individual abilities such as smite evil or sneak attack, but few are noticing than the sum of these abilities are greater than what they should be in a base class, compared to the other ‘full BaB’ non-spell casting classes.
I guess that’s what play testing is for though! :)
One thing that I have noticed is a great deal of rebuking clerics in Pathfinder (more than I am used to)
(I have also seen a LN Cleric of Asmodeus, don't get me wrong, I know the rules allow it, but if you receive divine power from that guy your PC would have to be evil, just by endorsing his worship...)
Anyways, I digress.
From the GPSP (Guide to Pathfinder Society Play) wrote:
Step 6: Alignment
No evil-aligned PCs are allowed in Pathfinder Society
Organized Play. You may select any of the good or neutral
alignments
Seems straightforward enough.
From the PHB page 160 wrote:
Even if a Cleric is neutral, Channelling Negative Energy (Rebuking Undead) is evil.
Now I have a player who regularly rebukes undead in Pathfinder Society. IN LG this would have been deemed evil, the controlling of Undead, and seeking to permanently have them not being frowned upon lightly in most places.
This is of course not LG.
Any ideas on the Pathfinder Society policy on this?
