Let's see if I can explain WBL manipulation in a more understandable manner.
Player A has communal energy resist, oil of daylight, communal align weapon and blessing of the mole. (about 2K worth of consumables)
Player B C and D do not have any of these items
Scenario A passes and energy resist is the only consumable that is used/needed
Player B, C and D pay their share of the scroll (about 100g) and go happily on their way.
At the end of the day, they saved an opportunity cost of 2K by not having those consumables.
Disk Elemental wrote:
But if we maintain the status quo those that don't prepare will continue to not prepare, while people such as yourself will continue to eat the cost to save them. Restitution allows you to potentially recoup the monetary loss.
I'm very sympathetic towards this view. However the way I see it, it simply enables the practice of buying that really expensive flashy magic item as early as possible at the expense of consumables.
By having such a reimbursal system in place, it allows one to reserve a certain amount of gold for that nice expendable so long as 1 person in a party has it. It allows one to hedge their bets on not needing cure blindness/deafness, for example, over a more common consumable, or perhaps no consumable whatsoever.
Whether that is a good or bad way to play, I think altering the current system encourages one style in particular which I'm not entirely comfortable with.
I'm of the opinion that those that don't plan for imminent death contingency accept the cost of that decision.
It's not my expectation that a fellow player should feel obligated to use their consumables on me.
I've also used far more BoL scrolls for other people than for myself.
I don't expect those people to reimburse me for my troubles.
I suspect altering the rules would both encourage those that don't already plan for these types of expenses to continue not to do so as well as create an expectation of reimbursement where none should exist.
I prefer the old faction missions. I almost never use the the faction cards; I feel that they're too sterile and that they rarely contribute to the internal monologue of my characters.
However, I was in the camp that really liked the faction missions prior to them being reworked, so I suspect having that sentiment really is a minority view point. That was abundantly clear back when the topic of faction missions was first being discussed.
I will say that the factions cards cause no stress no matter what camp you belonged to, so that's a positive development.
I also don't agree that the sentence on no one being in sub-tier only applies to season 0-3
That sentence is included in the paragraph that alludes to season 0-3 subtier determination. The paragraph before includes season 4-7. The manner in which I parse information leads me to believe the sub tier was determined correctly. Your understanding, of course, clearly differs from mine.
In the context of the scenario itself, the way the scenario is written makes it very easy to chain the multiple final encounters together. While I agree your experience was very harsh, it does not deviate from what other tables could possibly experience.
The question of not applying a four player adjust, however, is a legitimate concern that sadly many gms have made during the heat of a session.
Don't forget that dominated people get to make new saving throws at +2 every time they are forced to do something against their nature.
Simply by extending the rounds of combat, you're affording that dominated person a chance to regain control, assuming that character doesn't naturally make a habit of attacking fellow party members.
Actually, would it be appropriate for hints to be dropped in the scenario description where the boon builds on a certain previous boon?
Indeed. Alternatively, such clues can be provided in the prologue/VC briefing and folks may actually have an opportunity to role play fielding an appropriate team before setting out.
It'll still keep the surprise of a nice boon embedded in the scenario, but give folks a chance to do some Nancy Drew to get their preferred character into the game.
I think the old style factions had the potential to help establish a narrative for a player that did not have a distinct idea of what his or her PC was like.
Having some form of interaction with a faction leader, if only through handout, allowed one's pc to form some history with in world npcs without needing to necessarily role play.
The factions leaders were something a little more unique that each pc could have a history with, aside from the venture captains that everyone knows.
Additionally, while I understand the impetus to evolve from the old style faction system, what I did appreciate about it was it's ability to provide hooks into lore that otherwise would not be available. Information garnered from factions and resources like campaign settings and player companions allowed both a gm and a player to more intimately involve themselves in Golarion.
I personally have purchased several supplements in an attempt to evolve my pc's history, even if it had minimal chance of entering actual PFS play.
I see this type of lore interest (that for me results in my purchasing products) to be less influenced by the manner in which the new faction system establishes more mission statement type agendas.
While I understand the desire for this mechanism to be in place, I don't like this idea. It will do nothing to change a player's tendencies. If an individual is inclined towards cooperating, he will already have purchased consumables with the idea that those items can help a mission succeed.
If that player's consumable, e.g. breath of life scroll, saves a player's life, then that $1250 is often money well spent and generally will be close to the amount of that player's contribution of a raise dead.
Those that do not play with this mind set, will not change their behavior. In fact, it encourages it since one can just leave the consumable purchases to others and 'replace' it at the end of the scenario spending only exactly what they needed to make it through the scenario.
Those that are pack mules will be even more so relegated to that duty.
I'd surmise that one would no longer even see the pleasant surprise of a non-spell caster handing a communal scroll over to his spell casting team member to use during the course of a scenario.
Why tie up that expense if one can just max out one's wealth on wondrous items and pay for the little stuff at the end when you know what was spent and you get the scenario's gold?
Apologies for the thread derailment, but while we're on the topic of AP Chronicle credit, when dealing with chronicles awarded above level 9 for GM credit and credit applied to PFS characters from home campaign played pcs, can you apply that credit as level 1 credit to a fresh PFS character?
The field guide states that one can do this for pregens played, (Thus the <9 statement in the guide) but makes no mention whether this is acceptable for chronicles in the >9 range.
TL;DR Can I apply 3XP, 4PP, and 1,398 gold to a fresh level 1 PFS PC from a chronicle obtained in the greater than level 9 range.
I had the pleasure of playing at one of Crystal Frasier's tables for We Be Goblins: Smash and Burn. It's set after the original We Be Goblins and introduces two new murderous psychopaths in addition to the ones we already know and love. We got to revisit a well loved locale from the APs and we got to see some extremely familiar faces from the other side of the tracks.
Crystal did a wonderful job creating the perfect atmosphere for a mischievous good time, and I dare say that all of the players did an excellent job with embracing the voices, psychopathic tendencies, and all the <redacted>, <redacted> and <redacted> that Crystal placed there for us to have fun with.
We're missing out if we don't get to see future additions to the We Be Goblins 'verse.
Many of my other sessions have already been covered by others, but I will add this regarding the gen con special table I played at.
Rogue Eidolon was absolutely the best summoner player I've encountered in PFS to date, resolving the actions for a dozen summons in about a minute each round. I'd expect no less from an efficiency expert.
There was not one summoner of amazing skill at that table, but 2. Rogue Eidolon and Linda had so many minions out at that table that my poor wizard was quaking in fear of casting a haste spell. To their credit they each took their turns in less time it takes for most to resolve 2 actions. Stats for those pesky critters were available as if pulled from a handy haversack... this was how one plays with power.. I felt like a babe in the woods.
Jon Dehning did an amazing job of handling our motley crew and I remember more about the story, the epic interaction in the convention hall, and our group interaction than I did about the crunch of the mobs and grid maps.. Bravo!
Perhaps in said example scenario where a subtier 4-5 cleric uses a Slay Living scroll, hard mode adjusts a footlocker so that instead of having 50 gold bars worth 100gp each, there's instead a handy Raise Dead scroll. Thus PCs leave the adventure with no lasting advantage, but there is some measure of damage control to enable the scenario writers to do very evil, malicious things...
great idea! I approve of this message. I would love to see some really devilish havoc from the scenario writers.
Bonekeep has emboldened you, Dr. Lamontius. Just remember that there is no fighting in the pathfinder lodge.
Wake and I sit on opposite ends of the very tedious 'bland' item discussion. I shall not bore the board with reliving it in post. For this discussion, I'll concede that folks want to make these items more interesting.
That being said, the minor bonuses idea to the stat boosting items simply adds power creep to already good items, even with additional cost.
If you wish diversity and uniqueness, perhaps think about introducing flaws with those stat boosting items such that players will need to think a bit before getting their favored mechanical benefit. The flaws could even be something as minor as a effect that has no mechanical impact but will alter the way one rp's the character.
As an added bonus, this already exists in game and does not need any adjustments to existing items.
Is there a way for a cleric to cast (much) more domain spells per day if it's not on her spell list?