Irori

p-sto's page

Organized Play Member. 538 posts. 7 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 15 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 538 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It's not the reprints that bother me, it's the large number of updates which make this thread necessary that makes the Adventurer's Guide a book I will never purchase. It's hard enough running a game when players at your table are referencing third, fourth, and fifth edition core rules and I as GM have sixth edition. Most notable was a confusing disagreement we had over immunity to baleful polymorph. I eventually got to the bottom of the confusion by referring to the errata document.

Without a cross reference document that is much easier to read than the standard errata document purchasing this book invites a slew of confusion for me as GM. It's hard to have confidence in a book that I will have to constantly cross reference online when looking up player choices.


I really wish Pazio would stop trying to simplify things by adding additional rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mass combat in Pathfinder and the troop template are still utterly terrible. This hasn't change since Assault on the Wound was published. I really hope these won't be recurring themes in season 9.


This would be cool as a level 8 evergreen. However, I would settle for just having the chronicle worth two prestige. I'm not sure when it was decided that free modules need to be deadlier than average with less reward in organized play.


Being on the other side of the continent I don't think I'll be making it to PaizoCon but I do hope that those who go enjoy themselves.

And I appreciate the concern you're expressing for accessibility. Participating in a fair number of conventions and other special events over the past couple years, trying to keep on top of the plot points presented in specials and exclusives feels like a losing battle for those that don't attend the major conventions. It's become an exercise in frustration to the point that I no longer want to support these events. I'm looking forward to seeing how implementation plays out this year.


Luke_Parry wrote:

I think it varies from place to place, and year to year...

There have been times when one or more of the local stores haven't gotten it until literally the day before (because it had to go through customs, and the central company warehouse, first), which makes it difficult for people who work 9-5 jobs to pick it up.

Over here there's been at least one experience where the retailer had to drive 12 hours round trip to visit the distributor to get the module the day before. I know there's exclusivity and all that but it would be nice if Paizo could negotiate something with Free RPG Day so people who will be running events for stores who have paid for it could get access to the PDF in a timely fashion.


Because we can't accomplish something as simple as getting the current multitable special within weeks of GenCon. Adding a brand new form of organized play into mix so close to its release compounds the complexity of FanExpo significantly.

And avoiding FanExpo this year was something I had already decided on. I just really hate seeing our local community setting itself up for failure which is why I chimed in.


Paul Jackson wrote:

I'm actually vaguely optimistic that SFS will find an audience beyond the PFS players.

Especially up here. Our biggest convention of the year is Fan Expo (basically the equivalent of ComicCon) which is a couple of weeks after Gencon. That gives us the chance to show off the new shiney to new players and hopefully garner interest.

Edit: Please Please Please Please make sure that all the SFS stuff, especially the Quest Pack, is released for general consumption as of GenCon.

I'm fairly interested in SFS. Suggesting running it at FanExpo increases my desire to shun FanExpo this year by several orders of magnitude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
My one hope for Starfinder Society is that Drendle Dreng is still around handing out missions with no explanation given.
That would definitely be a weird feeling for us who have Seeker characters.
Perhaps that's because he's a deity and he's forgotten he is one? And has so MUCH information crammed inside his head he's also forgotten everything pre-Gap?

I would certainly play a cleric of Drendle Drang.


Is something going to be meaningfully different about how this multi-table is played. It seems strange to have the story told across multiple edits when most players will be lucky if they can play this once a year.


plaidwandering wrote:
blurb info is typically given in the briefing anyway, a good portion of the time you can prep after that

Yes but the times you're given the briefing with no opportunity to prep before the mission is usually when you want the prep the most.


I used to have similar meta-gaming concerns. Would typically have my casters with a set load out of spells that they would have prepared for general purposes and try to avoid purchasing specific items until my character has heard the briefing.

I've come to regret playing PFS like that. Read the description, look at the scenario cover, choose your character and load out accordingly. As cheesy as it feels it does save a lot of headaches. Scenarios very much assume that Venture Captains picked the right team for the job.


Paul Jackson wrote:
Serisan wrote:

You cannot escape the eyes of the Ten during standard play. Items can never escape the eyes of the Ten once they are known. The eyes of the Ten are always upon you.

See Eyes of the Ten for more information.

But, of course, there are exceptions. See Eyes of the Ten for more information

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
The villain in Eyes was unnaturally competent for what he was. Outstripped Torch by a wide margin, which doesn't make much sense to me when you compare the two.

With RVC locking on new specials making access to them less predictable I do think that open replay on multi table events would take some of the stress out of last minute schedule changes.

Then again I am hopeful that 2016 does not become the norm for how PFS is conducted.


Mark Seifter wrote:
p-sto wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

I've had a player walk out of a game when I told him that there are no rules for what happens when you cast a lightning bolt underwater. I tried to deflect the problem using the "buuuht magic!" argument, but he was adamant.

Ever since I always bring that up when somebody goes 120% realism in D&D.

With Aquatic Adventures, your buddy can finally have what he's been searching for all those years!

Though sadly for him, it basically works the same in this case, as you told him, but there's a rule now to tell him that just like he wanted!

When I ran Plunder and Peril I decided that rays should refract under water and even came up with probably less than scientific rules for it. Players never decided test out them however.

I do sympathize the OP's point to a degree. Ultimate Intrigue feels like a book that codified aspects of the game that I feel never needed to be that mechanical. And it can always be said if you don't like it don't buy it and ban it from it from your table. But once it is out there someone is going to see it and use it. And some of these people are people I want to play with.

Last night I was running a PFS game and a player attempted to utilize the infamous cease fire feat during the surprise round of combat. After a moment of pause I decided the party could use the minute for buffing because I really didn't see the hostile NPC standing down to diplomacy but the player bought the book and took feat so it should probably be good for something shouldn't it.

Going further off topic, but just to let you know for next time, the moment you attack, buff, debuff, etc, you violate the truce of the Call Truce feat and combat continues straight off (they also automatically will never accept a truce that will remove an advantage such as running down their short duration buffs, leading to PCs going around or bypassing a terrain advantage, etc; basically, they'll listen, but they...

I could have easily run the feat as written, however,

No Plunder, No Pay:
The player had just proposed peacefully discussing a prison break with a Chelish naval captain stationed at the prison. And of course his character was completely broken at diplomacy.

I decided to give them the minute because there were no NPC buffs on the line and I assumed the NPC in question was simply stunned by the brazenness of the attempt.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

I've had a player walk out of a game when I told him that there are no rules for what happens when you cast a lightning bolt underwater. I tried to deflect the problem using the "buuuht magic!" argument, but he was adamant.

Ever since I always bring that up when somebody goes 120% realism in D&D.

With Aquatic Adventures, your buddy can finally have what he's been searching for all those years!

Though sadly for him, it basically works the same in this case, as you told him, but there's a rule now to tell him that just like he wanted!

When I ran Plunder and Peril I decided that rays should refract under water and even came up with probably less than scientific rules for it. Players never decided test out them however.

I do sympathize the OP's point to a degree. Ultimate Intrigue feels like a book that codified aspects of the game that I feel never needed to be that mechanical. And it can always be said if you don't like it don't buy it and ban it from it from your table. But once it is out there someone is going to see it and use it. And some of these people are people I want to play with.

Last night I was running a PFS game and a player attempted to utilize the infamous cease fire feat during the surprise round of combat. After a moment of pause I decided the party could use the minute for buffing because I really didn't see the hostile NPC standing down to diplomacy but the player bought the book and took feat so it should probably be good for something shouldn't it.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
There has yet to be a game based movie... especially a movie incorprating the title of a game, that did not suck.

Mortal Kombat was hardly high art but it was fun to watch while incorporating familiar elements of the game which is about all you would expect from a game based movie.

But yes, for the most part most game based movies were not worth the time spent watching and actually charging people money for the privilege is salt in the wound.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

And APs do include the continuing the campaign section in the final installment. Not that I've purchased a huge number of APs but from what I've seen these entries are thought out quite well. And really if you are playing a party up to level 20 you probably should be designing your own encounters at that point given the huge potential variation in power.


andygal wrote:
I'm confused why some people are apparently surprised about aboleths being in an AP connected with Azlant, given the fact the aboleths have been connected with Azlant from the start.

Not surprised, so much as I am disappointed. PFS scenarios have done a fairly good job of exploring the Darklands without involving Drow. There was brief hope that this adventure might opt for a less tedious villain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
p-sto wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
p-sto wrote:


Will the prestige class be opened just to the character with the chronicle or all characters that belong to that player? Are all the prestige classes eventually going to be given on chronicle sheets or just some? Will they all be this season or spread out over the next few years?
To answer your first question its typically opens up to all characters with the option to retrain into it with that character.
Which doesn't really help if the character you built for the PrC is now level 10 because you were waiting over a year for it and the chronicle is on another character.
Why did you build a character off of content that you had no clue as of the legality of? Especially when it's common enough knowledge that they do this all the time.

I realized a while ago that this isn't the campaign for me. Personally I would prefer something where the rules were less kafkaesque and more apparent. I have become rather attached to the local community however which is why I try to find reasons to stay involved.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's entirely possible that the number of interesting improved familiars never landing on a character that could plausibly use them or spare the feats have left me distrustful.


MadScientistWorking wrote:
p-sto wrote:


Will the prestige class be opened just to the character with the chronicle or all characters that belong to that player? Are all the prestige classes eventually going to be given on chronicle sheets or just some? Will they all be this season or spread out over the next few years?
To answer your first question its typically opens up to all characters with the option to retrain into it with that character.

Which doesn't really help if the character you built for the PrC is now level 10 because you were waiting over a year for it and the chronicle is on another character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a really interesting idea to have players actually earn access to prestige classes in PFS but I do wonder if the way PFS is typically executed might dampen some of the enjoyment.

Will the prestige class be opened just to the character with the chronicle or all characters that belong to that player? Are all the prestige classes eventually going to be given on chronicle sheets or just some? Will they all be this season or spread out over the next few years?

In my opinion the tendency for PFS to be tight lipped on such matters doesn't help the campaign. Nobody would play with a GM who upon hearing your proposed character build wouldn't confirm that you'd be able to enter the prestige class you desire only to grant access to another character that isn't even suited for the PrC well past the ideal level for entry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems like a silly suggestion at first glance. However, the thought of a possible Starfinder organized play being set up and the additional work load finally pushing campaign management to the point where they can't keep up any more seems fairly plausible.

Sanctioning, VO appointments and event support PFS is already lagging on all fronts in my opinion and at least based on what I've seen on the forum I don't see signs of things getting any better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I'm kinda curious, why some people lose their interest instantly upon hearing word "aboleth"? Were those over used back in D&D days? .-.

Aboleths are great in terms of the history and flavour of Golarion. My main objection to them is that with their abilities, quite over powered for their CR, they make terrible villains. Either the party expects the aboleth, prepares appropriately, and it becomes effectively useless in combat or they don't and PCs will probably end up dying with no chance to resist.

In terms of stat blocks I consider them one of the worst monsters in all the bestiaries. Can't say I want to go anywhere near an adventure where it looks like there's a good chance an aboleth will be a major if not the major villain of the adventure. Unless of course the authors are clever enough to find a way to have an aboleth themed adventure where PCs never actually meet an aboleth.


Xethik wrote:
Huh, interesting premise. Very intrigued by the aboleth section.

Odd, the mention of aboleths dissipated any interest I had in this AP.


I could see how selling pregen gear could be abused but at the same time I do think there are few pregens so egregious that if an inexperienced player is unfortunate enough to choose them I'm willing to bend the rules.

But on the other hand I have also seen table cooperation go a long way to help out players with pregens before. One time I was at a table where we pitched in to get Lirianne more adamantine bullets after the player playing her blew through her allotment in the first encounter of the scenario.


To expand on that a bit the website is broken right now and staff are working on getting it fixed. Hopefully you should be able to access your books soon. It does look like their making fairly good progress in resolving the problem.


Incidentally number 13 is actually my running theory on what happened to Aroden with the additional qualification that his time was shortened by too many tapping the well.


Stephen Wight wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
Tuukka Kunto wrote:

I started GMing mainly with season 1 and 2 scenarios. They were a lot easier to prep than newer ones. Sub systems are what take a lot of time. I don't think it's a bad thing. Newer scenarios are generally more fun and story rich.

While it's good that stat blocks are now in scenario I don't like how monster stat blocks are placed in the book. Some of them are in the middle of the scenario and for some monsters you still need to scroll several pages for stat blocks. It would be a lot better if all stat blocks were at the end. I mainly use tablet for GMing and it's often horrible to try jump from one stat block to another.

It gets really bad when an NPC is a variant of something in some book. The appendix has the base form, but you have to remember to apply the different weapon or whatever.

Quite frankly, if the pfsprep site and the paizo GM thread didn't exist I'd either stop GMing or only GM older scenarios.

And there are many scenarios that are all but impossible to run cold. Yeah, one should never run cold but sometimes circumstances conspire to force it.

It's not so hard. 1) read the summary. 2)look for and understand the weird mechanic. (after season 3, it's almost always there.) 3) glance over spells and read up on the unfamiliar ones. 4) double check the success conditions 5) wing it.

The secret to running cold is giving up on the idea that your version of the scenario is going to look exactly like everyone else's. Don't change the encounters. Don't change the skill DCs. But if you miss a bit of info or evidence that would propel the plot forward, let them find it in another location, or make up an npc they can talk to to get it.

Some of my most fun is had when scenarios go off the rails anyway. You're right it's not ideal, but it's not world-ending either.

But that doesn't address the specific complaint that Paul made. When the barbarian in the appendix has a greatsword but truncated statblock gives him a scorpion whip and trades out power attack for proficiency that's a pretty huge difference. One that nearly killed a PC until I caught the change after the fact. I understand why truncated statblocks are used in modules and APs where page count matters but for scenarios it just adds that extra level of disorganization where you need to look at four different pages in order to run an encounter. There are some encounters so needlessly complicated either due to organization or mechanics that if run cold the GM will spend more time flipping back and forth than actually running the encounter.


Ran this a few days ago. It was fun but there were some hiccups. I agree with the recommendation of making notes on how you plan to run the scenario. I didn't and it did lead to some flipping back and forth and stumbling to recall where I read something.

That said I think it's a great scenario and I hope Paizo does more scenarios like this. My only objection to it is the map. I suppose it could be a blessing that Paizo decided to put it in a single scenario that will see high amount of play instead of featuring it multiple scenarios but wow do I hate it. Not general enough to be worth buying in my opinion and an utter pain to draw without it ending up looking like a bunch of nonsense lines.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't say I've ever managed to bring myself to read how mesmerists work. Is the fez a class feature or something?


So glancing at the scenario and the discussion there are apparently some deadly ways to run this. Which is fine, there are a few players I`d enjoy throwing dragons at. Any suggestions on a configuration for this that lean more towards cakewalk. Looking at the sign ups currently posted for the game I`m running tomorrow I`m expecting the possibility of the need to softball things a bit.


One of the very few witch only spells before Occult came out


Okay, now I want to see this in PFS if only for the chance that it may spawn unchained rogues with quick draw that repeatedly break wooden eleven curve blades over the heads of their foes because they haven't yet taken the option to get dex to damage with a sap.


Fairly good solution for making them PFS purchasable as well. Fragile and they can never be masterwork or magical because at a certain point it stops being a practice weapon and becomes a +1 club that happens to look like a sword.


Golarion conspiracy theory, it's all those trainers in the arena making sure access to non-lethal weapons is limited so they can maintain their income teaching adventurers the stage combatant feat. Suspension of disbelieve solved and it opens up the opportunity for it's own scenario as brave adventurers seek these weapons out (Pathfinders are of course hired to stop these brazen individuals and are rewarded with a free opportunity to retrain a feat into stage combatant).

But really as much as I enjoy immersion this is one of those situations where I can't see these weapons being allowed as they simply replace a multitude of options which require more investment.


A Drain Spider is a Scarlet Spider with the young template. So technically no you can't have Drain Spider as a familiar because you have to choose the slightly larger Scarlet Spider.


Mage of the Wyrmkin wrote:
I think that this change will save a lot of PC lives thus making the game considerably less lethal. Most characters that die of hit point damage (in my experience) are only dead by a few hit points. Allowing for five or ten additional hit points per character will make it a lot harder for a character to die at any level. Opinions are going to vary if this is a good or bad thing.

I might be much more vocal when the over powered party is steam rolling the scenario but really I've much more often found myself scrambling to find a way not to kill PCs without disrupting the natural course of the game. More character deaths is fairly easy to achieve, I don't think it adds much to the game because unless the death sporting there's not much entertainment to it from a GM perspective and PFS rarely decides to be sporting when it decides to be deadly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mage of the Wyrmkin wrote:

I think that a store incentive plan is a good idea. The Harder to Kill boon seems to be overpowered IMO. I like the thought that PC can be killed if they dance around the front lines with low hit points instead of strategically withdrawing. If the bonus was divided in half say 2/5 it would serve the same purpose without unbalancing the game.

I like harder to kill mostly because it helps lower level parties and is almost irrelevant once you get to higher level play. For a level one character it may mean the player is out of fight, not out of the scenario and building a new character for the next one.

But for a party that has access to breath of life it makes almost no difference to what happens.

It's almost never going to make the difference between winning or losing a scenario but it gives a nice fringe benefit for supporting the stores that host us which is right where it should be in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Jackson wrote:
Just thought that I'd report that tonight this new incentive program saved a character from death :-).

And the Pathfinder Society pawn set has some absolutely lovely pieces to it. I'm glad I finally got around to getting it and that the timing of the purchase happened to be so fortuitous.


I've also seen overly cautious players be convinced that they'll be ambushed as they recover the package and post a sentry by the stairs to keep watch. Seeing the character rush across the basement once he realized that the threat was not where he expected it to be was quite entertaining.


Well Inevitables have the ongoing chaotic concern that is the Maelstrom to distract themselves with. Archons on the other hand have the Maelstrom, Abyss, Abbadon and Hell to contend with. Not to mention making sure that Elysium does good in the proper fashion.

All that to say I think that the Material Plane is a tangential concern for these parties.


The Confirmation is certainly a better adventure than The Wounded Wisp but for brand new players my vote goes to running The Wisp before The Confirmation. Wounded Wisp is less deadly and does a better job of giving players background on the Society and Golarion. Between the two having a bit of extra gold before you go in definitely helps more for The Confirmation.


I see running the presented content as following the story as given and using the written encounters as guidelines. With the time commitment involved in running an AP or even an extended module there's no reason that a GM shouldn't take the time to understand the players and characters at the table and be able to tweak encounters to provide them with an appropriate challenge.

Really if we're expected to run encounters as written for modules then there's no reason to ever run one again for PFS. It becomes an exercise in masochism either for the GM or players depending on how well the suited the party is for the adventure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Check out the product page for In Hell's Bright Shadow. It's definitely there.

Also the boon for completing book six. Just wow. It's interesting to say the least.

Spoiler:
I'd definitely have no problem taking it but I could see objections to a boon that irreversibly kills off an 18th level character.


It's fairly clear that Torch's angle has always been creating a crisis for the sake of getting people to owe him favours. Missions associated with him have consistently been entertaining, however.


Pete Winz wrote:
While I agree that the union (reformed Shadow Lodge) was a good development for the rank and file, Torch always had a hidden agenda and put my characters in bad situations far more often than Sheila Heidmarch (whose tarnished reputation I don't get).

Shelia is more or less the anti-Torch. While there may not be much agenda behind her actions there are a number of scenarios where she sends agents out with little to no information and in many of these cases being aware of what the characters would be facing would go a long way to mitigating the deadliness of the mission.

Exception The Waking Rune:
She does actually go out her way in this one to warn PCs that she has no idea how powerful Krune is but facing him is likely a suicide mission.


nosig wrote:
Pete Winz wrote:
I'm going to avoid spoilers for specific scenarios, but he definitely does not come off well through his appearances over the years, in my opinion. He has a history of using Pathfinder agents to his own ends. While his backstory somewhat justifies a longstanding hatred of the Society leadership, his actions have frequently been harmful to the low-level agents he supposedly championed.
and often beneficial. In fact, I would go so far as to say, in my experience playing most everything, he was the among the most helpful of Faction Leaders...

Indeed. Consistently he's been an NPC willing to provide valuable information that helps field agents navigate dangerous situations. Sure he's greedy, manipulative and deceitful but I have to say while there may be situations where one of my characters may have felt used by him I can't say they ever felt that he intended harm towards them (granted I have not yet played that one infamous scenario).

Honestly, I respect Torch for having the tenacity to out maneuver the Ten. He may not be the most upright of NPCs but all things considered the Society deserves someone like Torch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Gypsy doesn't necessarily refer to the Roma. There's ample room for considering the word a slur (akin to Tramp or Bum or maybe even Hobo) and that is fair enough reason to avoid its use to describe the Varisians, but saying it's a racist slur is a step beyond objectively fair critique.

It's true that in some English speaking regions the meaning of the word has become watered down but I don't think that means that we ignore the racist history behind its usage.

1 to 50 of 538 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>