trollbill's page

I have Scenario #1–11: Flames of Rebellion Boon A on one of my characters and would like to bequeath it to a more appropriate character. However, unlike every other boon I have bequeathed to other characters using Bequeathal Boons, this boon does not list a rarity on it? Does that mean I need to use the Bequeathal (Unique) Boon or can I not transfer it at all?

Thank you all. That was most helpful.

I can't seem to find this in the new PFS2 Guide. What are the current rules for apply GM boons to a character? Do I still have the option of applying a high level Chronicle to a first level character? If so, what does that give them? If I apply it to a character who isn't high enough level yet, does it apply as soon as they reach that level, or can I wait till it reaches the higher tier?

As a person playing a Ysoki Bombardier Heavy Weapons guy, my biggest problem is that I can’t use an efficient Bandoleer. This is highly annoying with no practical reason for the limitation.

Is there any way of using your Strength instead of Dexterity for your attack rolls with thrown weapons in PF2? I see there is a Brutal trait in the Bestiary that does this, but I see no way of PCs getting access to this?

That's the way I see it too. This would also prevent followers of Irori from gaining their favored weapon bonus on special Stance strike like Wolf Jaw or Tiger Slash.

On the other hand, Archives of Nethys links all natural attacks together, and all deities with "Jaws" as their favored weapon also have a separate weapon as well.

Also of note, there are three Vampires in the bestiary and none of them have fang attacks, nor does the Vampire template add it. Honestly it should have given you a Claw attack and eventually the Drink Blood action instead.

"Fangs" is a Heritage Feat for Dhampir in 2E.

Except the way I am reading it, Jaws and Fangs are two separate types of unarmed attacks, just like Fist and Claws would be different even though they both use your hands.

So I have a Dhampyr Warpriest with Fangs. Is there a deity with a Deity's Weapon this would work with this?

I too have been dropping in on some non-local online games. Most have been very welcoming. The only issue I have experienced was caused by the organizer actually being too welcoming. I had signed up on a wait-list for a game that already had 2 tables full, on the off chance someone would back out. The organizer decided he needed to accommodate outside visitors to their lodge, and he and one of the other organizers decided to drop out of their games so that I and another "Rando" could join. This required them to rearrange tables so that groups had closely matching levels. This, in turn, caused several locals who had wanted to play at the same table to get split up, and the drama began. While I appreciated the generosity, I did not ask for, nor expect it. I signed up on a wait list hoping, but not expecting to play and would not thought bad of anyone if I couldn't get in. I did not want to be the cause of such drama. So, in this case, I would recommend that, while being accommodating to outside visitors is important, it should not override being accommodating to your local playgroup.

I too also recommend 'giving back,' by offering to GM games online, especially if you frequent certain online groups.

One thing I will note is to be cognizant of the fact that, because we no longer have the visual cues to see someone is about say something, people talking over each other will frequently occur.

Closest I have had to a TPK in PFS2 was a game where I ran 7 2nd levels, which pushed it up to Tier 3-4 at the time (not sure it does now). End boss had multiple AoEs. Fortunately, even though 4 of the 7 where dying, one of the fighters got a crit and finished the boss just in time to get everyone stabilized (I think 2 had hit Dying 3 at that point). So it was close.

I will say, having played in 6 organized play campaigns over the years, boss monsters with multiple AoEs are the biggest problem when playing up in any organized play campaign I have been in. When the boss casts a Fireball that catches everyone in it, number of party members is irrelevant.

I have played in PFS2 games where I played up with a first level and was mostly useless. There were no deaths, but several party members were preparing for the final round to be their last (either because they expected to die, or expected they were going to have to run away) when the boss finally dropped.

You can go to Warhorn.net click on the Games tab in the upper left. A side bar listing all the game systems currently offered (and the number of the) will appear on the left. Click on Pathfinder 2 and it will show you a complete list of all Pathfinder 2 games currently scheduled on Warhorn. You can also search by the title of the scenario if you are looking for a specific one.

Thanks for all the replies. My first game was a success.

I am trying to set up my first online game on Roll20 and don't have much of a clue about what I am doing. I recall seeing an Ad on Paizo.com a week or so ago about free aids (tokens, etc) for Roll20 and now can find the Ad or the info. Can some direct me to that and tell me how I upload it to Roll20? I am sure I will have more questions, but for now, that is what I am working on.

I feel like whenever a question like this comes up, there are some people who ignore this rule because they find it more fun to argue for an overly strict and obviously not intended interpretation.

Quote:

Ambiguous Rules

Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Aratorin,

I agree with you, and if the was a Home Game issue, I wouldn't have even posted it. But I also run PFS, which requires running the rules by RAW in order to avoid table variation. Nothing like building an effective healer only to play under another GM and have them rule you are only a mediocre one.

So the text of the Chirugeon Research Field says:

"As long as your proficiency rank in Medicine is trained or better, you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses."

By my reading on this, this ability only allows Chirugeons to use a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for untrained and train uses only. This would mean you could not use it for Medicine checks that have Expert, Master or Legendary requirements, such as voluntarily taking a higher DC to heal more damage. This would be true even if you were an Expert, Master or Legendary in Medicine. By the wording, you would have to use your Medicine check to do this, not your Crafting skill, which kind of defeats the purpose. This therefor mostly becomes useless at higher levels. This is very disappointing for the only other dedicated healer in the game outside of Cleric.

I am still waiting for my second Nova to show up on my Avatar since I have 33 SFS GM credits.

I am still trying to train myself to give them out.

- 2001 Unbreakable Goblin
- 2002 Gutsy Halfing
- 2003 Versatile Human
- 2004 Versatile Human

After some initial stumbling, I find the system easier. Especially when the mod actually uses the point spread in the side bar rather than the level adjustment indicated on the table in the Guide. It's just one less step.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

You ran two 7-player scenarios? Isn't the policy still that those should happen only as a last resort?

If there's not a lot of GMs running the new system yet, it's bound to be the rule rather than the exception until enough players gain the game mastery to be able to GM.

The game has been out less than 4 months. NO ONE has system mastery. And if everyone waited until they did, no one would be playing. If you wish to help the community, I strongly urge you, and others with similar reluctance, to gain your system mastery through experience GMing, just as I am doing. No one is going to fault you for getting a rule wrong, and most should be willing to help you with the learning process. Frequently, if we have a rules question while playing, I may have a player who isn't currently doing anything look it up while we move on. Sometimes we go back over a rule on Facebook after the game. So far the only one I have killed due to a rules mistake was an Animal Companion, because I thought if you were at Dying 2 and got healed, then you went to Wounded 2, but you only go to Wounded 2 if you had Wounded 1 when you got the Dying condition.

You ran two 7-player scenarios? Isn't the policy still that those should happen only as a last resort?

I would say half the games in my area seem to be either 7-player tables or 3-player tables. It just seems to work out that we can't quite get the right numbers.

But the story behind this one is too sadly funny not to share.

So, I had scheduled 2 tables on Warhorn for my Saturday gameday running of Lost on the Spirit Road. We had one GM already signed up and only 5 players, including me. So, I was looking forward to playing that week instead of running. However, by Wednesday there were 7 players signed up. Now, one thing I have discovered is that players tend to not sign up to play if they don’t see enough GMs to run everyone. So, I switched from playing to GMing.

That was when I noticed that a group in Orlando (50 miles away) I am familiar with, was running the same mod on Friday night. And they only had 5 players signed up. I could take off a little early from work, drive over, and still get to play. So, I signed up, then prepped the mod Thursday night, since I wasn’t going to get to do it Friday. But by Friday morning there were 8 players signed up. So, I sighed and bit the bullet, and decided to sign up to GM. After all, I had already prepped the mod. Besides, Dawn, the other GM signed up, ALWAYS seemed stuck running 7-player tables. So, I thought it would be great to give her a break for once. It would also give my wife a chance to play since she had avoided signing up due to too many players and not enough GMs.

It was at this point that I discovered Warhorn had added a new feature that required organizers to manually authorize GMs. While I had GMed many games for the group in Orlando, the organizers hadn’t set me up as a GM yet. So, I got on their Facebook group to make sure everyone knew I would be GMing a second table in case people weren’t signing up because of the lack of GMs. Sure enough, by early afternoon, there were 12 players signed up. By the time we arrived at the game, we had 14 players.

So, in the end I still didn’t get to play and Dawn still got stuck running a 7-player table again.

So far is seems to be working well. It seems a little on the weak side for small groups of lowest levels, but a little on the tough side for large groups of second lowest levels. I haven't seen a table run with lowest levels with the temporary level pump to judge that.

In a recent running of Lost on the Spirit Road, I ran a table of 7 2nd levels, which pushed things up to high tier with the 5 person adjustment. The final encounter was very tough and ended with 4 of the 7 down with the dying condition and things didn't get worse mostly because the fighter managed to score 2 Crits in a row. This was due in large part to the age old problem of playing up against creatures that have AoE abilities. At the same time, a table of 7 1st levels had no problem, but they were going against a different set of monsters. I have seen this mod run a total of 4 times and run twice with the same set of monsters I ran it with. The other table had 3 3rds and 1 1st. It seems this particular set of monsters is simply more difficult.

Cyrad wrote:

Alas my Tien fighter still has to waste an ancestry feat to use a katana. At least he's human. If he's any other ancestry, he's out of luck.

At the moment, your Tien fighter can't get a katana, regardless of race. As far as I know, there's no published source that says "the katana is a common weapon in the Tien culture."

Well, at least as far as Katana goes, there is now a published, legal source that gives access to it.

Bill Baldwin wrote:

Since Lore's are usually more specific than the General Knowledges, I would think the DCs for Lore check's would be easier than General Knowledges. For example, if you are trying to recall knowledge about The Misty Forest, I would think the DC for Misty Forest Lore would be lower than the DC for Nature. But I am not seeing that a lot in mods so far. It's usually just something like, "DC 22 Nature or Misty Forest Lore." In fact, if we are talking about your typical druid here, he would have a greater chance of success with his general Nature check since it is Wisdom based, than he would with his specific Misty Forest Lore check, which is Intelligence based. This just doesn't make much since to me.

For what it's worth, I'd argue that even if the scenario has the same DC for Nature and Misty Forest Lore, the GM is well within their rights to apply a circumstance bonus on the check for a player who has both skills (or who just has the more specific Lore skill). Your hypothetical druid would usually have a better chance at a nature check with the same DC, but a GM could say that because they also have Misty Forest Lore, they get a circumstance bonus on the check.

Special Circumstances, Source Core Rulebook pg. 492 wrote:

The player characters in your group will at times attempt tasks that should be easier or harder than the rules or adventure would otherwise lead you to expect, such as a PC Gathering Information in their hometown. In these cases, you can just apply a circumstance bonus or penalty. Usually, this is +1 or –1 for a minor but significant circumstance, but you can adjust this bonus or penalty to +2 or –2 for a major circumstance. The maximum bonus or penalty, +4 or –4, should apply only if someone has an overwhelming advantage or is trying something extremely unlikely but not quite impossible.

The guide for organized play says that "the listed DCs and results are not to be altered" in scenarios, but applying a circumstance bonus to the check doesn't...

I agree. And as an experienced GM this is something I was leaning towards doing anyway, now that I have a better grasp of the 2E rules. However, I would still like to see authors put this in mods so that less experienced GMs will feel they can do this.

Since Lore's are usually more specific than the General Knowledges, I would think the DCs for Lore check's would be easier than General Knowledges. For example, if you are trying to recall knowledge about The Misty Forest, I would think the DC for Misty Forest Lore would be lower than the DC for Nature. But I am not seeing that a lot in mods so far. It's usually just something like, "DC 22 Nature or Misty Forest Lore." In fact, if we are talking about your typical druid here, he would have a greater chance of success with his general Nature check since it is Wisdom based, than he would with his specific Misty Forest Lore check, which is Intelligence based. This just doesn't make much since to me.

Michael Sayre wrote:

Steven Lau wrote:

Michael Sayre wrote:

and new PFS dwarves have a clan dagger as part of their starting load-out.

Lol, sounds like we are playing a video game.

I actually learned how to play D&D during my time in the Army, so I have a tendency to use military terms when talking about characters and tactics :)

One of the first things I ever had published was a 3pp class called the battle lord that had a bunch of military themes and inspirations in it.

This is funny as Steven is actually still military (If I'm not mistaken). I guess airforce uses different terminology and/or that they play more video games! :-D

I had a Gnome Bombardier Alchemist with the Wings discovery. When asked what my party job was (tank, artillery, medic, etc.), my response was Combat Air Support. Encounters sometimes began with me saying, "Alchemist 1 to Party Leader. Alchemist 1 to Party Leader. I have a full load-out of Snake & Nape. Where do you want it? Over." Followed by me playing "Flight of the Valkyries" from my iPhone.

"I love the smell of Alchemist's Fire in the morning."

Why did the player choose to Power Attack another player anyway? Was he just being a jerk?

1) We are currently is a golden age of TTRPGs. There are more people playing TTRPGs than ever before. However, this means there are tons of newbs wanting to play and not nearly enough GMs to go around. A rating system would likely diminish the supply more as it puts additional pressure on GMs (making it a less fun experience for them). Remember, GMs are volunteers. They don't get paid to GM you and you aren't entitled to have them GM for you. They GM because the want to and if you make them not want to, then everyone loses. I suspect GMs that feel coerced are likely doing it because of the lack of GMs. In my 44 years of experience, the number of people who would rather play than GM compared to those who would rather GM than play is much higher of a ratio than the needed 7-1. Especially now.

2) Different players value different things in their GMs. Some value rules knowledge, others value their RP ability, and still others value preparedness and professionalism. Without some way of breaking the rating system down into sub-categories, GM ratings would be very limited in usefulness to the players.

3) Unless we are talking large Cons, the GM is probably going to have a good idea as to who at a particular table is rating them poorly and that can create friction IRL.

4) It can often be easy to confuse a bad GM with a bad adventure, and vise versa.

5) Previous campaigns that have attempted a GM rating system found it to be a bad idea due to the high level of subjectivity. The only one I saw that gave a reasonable result was a rating system that tested GM rules knowledge, and nothing else. And even then, it was only a pass/fail system.

6) People tend to only rate things they have a negative experience with. So unless there is a mandatory rating requirement at every table, most rated GMs will be rated more poorly than their average would really be.

To boil this down, GM rating systems do more to punish GMs than reward them. And when it comes to a group of volunteers that are in short supply and desperately needed in order of everyone to have fun, that is not a good thing.

Michael Sayre wrote:

and new PFS dwarves have a clan dagger as part of their starting load-out.

Lol, sounds like we are playing a video game.

Step 1: Form an entire party of Dwarves.

I'm curious.

Do people run AP's and 32+ Page longer adventures at conventions?

The 32 page format was great for an all day game at a con. I have ran Ruby Phoenix Tournament and played in Fangwood Keep and Murder's Mark. All were fun. I have not seen an AP ran at a convention however (Though I have not been around past few years, so not sure if that has changed) I have seen people playing APs at the shop in "Campaign mode, however (Over multiple sessions or weekends)

As it stands on the schedule right now, the 2 modules have a page count closer to an AP rather than the 32 page module. Is it even feasible to run (An AP or current module) at a convention without cutting a large portion? Do people run these at conventions?

While running single modules as an all day slot at a Con is more common, I have seen Cons that run parts of APs (usually the first parts). In some cases, when the Cons are organized by the same people and only a few weeks or months apart, I have seen running an entire AP spread out across multiple Cons.

I'm curious.

Do people run AP's and 32+ Page longer adventures at conventions?

The 32 page format was great for an all day game at a con. I have ran Ruby Phoenix Tournament and played in Fangwood Keep and Murder's Mark. All were fun. I have not seen an AP ran at a convention however (Though I have not been around past few years, so not sure if that has changed) I have seen people playing APs at the shop in "Campaign mode, however (Over multiple sessions or weekends)

As it stands on the schedule right now, the 2 modules have a page count closer to an AP rather than the 32 page module. Is it even feasible to run (An AP or current module) at a convention without cutting a large portion? Do people run these at conventions?

While running single modules as an all day slot at a Con is more common, I have seen Cons that run parts of APs (usually the first parts). In some cases, when the Cons are organized by the same people and only a few weeks or months apart, I have seen running an entire AP spread out across multiple Cons.

Yes, that means the story gets broken up, but I don't see that as any different than a 3 scenario arc, which I've had to do similar things in order to play all of them in the past. I've still never had a chance to play City of Strangers 2, and City of Strangers 1 was my second PFS scenario played.

I am not just talking about the down side to players, but the down side to Paizo, as well. Remember, the whole point of this is to cut down how much resources have to be devoted to sanctioning, which, in turn, benefits the players by having faster sanctioning. Breaking it up into 3 parts would be more work (though how much would depend on the adventure and how it was broken up), and at least partially defeat the purpose.

There is no problem except for those who who need a problem.

Now, now. I am trying to de-escalate this, not aggravate it.

Ferious Thune wrote:

It does not make it a PFS mode/Event mode game.

Are you still talking about my "Plaguestone" example? As far as I know there is no Event mode option for that.

Bill Baldwin wrote:

So a GM requiring the players to play with their PFS characters would technically be a violation.

I wrote:

I can say "All PFS rules and guidelines apply to character creation. You may only use sanctioned material."

Please don't distort what I said to make your debate point seem valid.

I didn’t distort anything. You asked a question, I answered it to the best of my ability. I don’t understand what the problem is.

Since it is best to look at both the upsides and downsides of things before making a decision, I will now completely reverse direction. What would be the downside of Paizo simply allowing you to play the adventure in PFS mod with your PFS character and regular PFS requirements, but with no changes to the published adventure?

The larger issue is with everyone else at the table. No matter what the players and GM agree to ahead of time, no one is bound to follow those rules. A GM can still decide mid scenario to change statblocks or add creatures, and they haven’t broken any PFS rules. A player can still act like there’s no risk to their own character and do foolish things impacting everyone else, and at the end walk away with their PFS character intact, but having ruined the experience for everyone else at the table. Those are the types of things that lead to the rules being what they were.

This would, or as least should, only be an issue with strangers at a convention. If you have this kind of problem with the local players you play with regularly, your problem is bigger than any PFS rules can save.

A campaign mode GM cannot mark a character dead.

Where does it say that?

A campaign mode character expends no resources off of the actual PFS character.

Nothing is stopping you from marking that stuff off yourself, or voluntarily retiring your character if it dies in the mod. And if you choose not to do those things, then you didn't really care about playing your actual PFS character in that mod in the first place. If you just can't bring yourself to do those things without the rules telling you that you have to, then the problem isn't the rules.

Ferious Thune wrote:

That would be breaking the rules. You can’t impose the restrictions of Event mode on Campaign mode.

I don't understand.

What about my example cannot be done.

By the rule, as so far written, you have to play the module with a non-PFS character. So a GM requiring the players to play with their PFS characters would technically be a violation. That, however, doesn't prevent the players from self-imposing restrictions on themselves that effectively, if not technically, require them to play their PFS characters, or the GM refusing to run the module if the players don't self-impose those restrictions. Both are legal, though the latter might be a bit on the rude side.

@Xathos Please explain me how I can play my PFS character (not a copy of one) is this module ?

Could you please explain to me the practical difference between playing an adventure with an identical clone of your PFS character and playing it with your actual PFS character? As far as I can see, the end results would be identical. The only thing you couldn't do 'technically' is claim you are playing it with your PFS character, but why would that matter and who would care? I get this might be an issue if you only play sanctioned content at conventions, as other people at the table may not hold themselves to the same restrictions, but in a home environment or local game group, the players can all agree to these self-imposed standards.

Is it an issue with Tonya & Linda's style, or simply a matter of there is so much to do right now they don't have enough time to be as responsive as they would like? Transparency takes time. Also note that Paizo's message boards are not the only method of communication staff has to deal with. I have noticed most Paizo staff seems to be more responsive to Facebook than these forums lately.

While I may get disappointed that any new edition of an RPG is going to limit my options compared to the previous version, I would rather have that than an initial glut of material that dooms the product to a new revision in only a few years.

Ditto. I just reported my first PFS2 event. I emphasized to all the players that it was important to their rewards to legibly fill out the reporting sheet, only to realize it was nearly impossible to put in most players' character number in a legible manner. Come on guys! This is the most important field for reporting and there isn't enough room on the form for it?

Only goblin I have seen so far was a Paladin, raised by a doting mother. Kind of reminded me of Izuku from My Hero Academia.

1. Because Organized Play means you will likely be playing with a variety of people and characters, in a variety of locations, with a variety of different styles of adventures, and a variety of GMs, players need to show flexibility.

2. A player who would stops playing PFS because he/she is not able to play the EXACT character concept they want is representing a very rigid mind set that is not conducive to the type of flexibility and cooperative play that is required for Organized Play.

I realize that it can be hard to fill seats sometimes. I frequently have this problem. But pandering to highly demanding people just makes them more demanding, not just of the campaign in general, but of the GMs and players. Which, in turn, puts off GMs and the more cooperative players. In my experience, pandering to overly demanding players is more likely to drive off more players and GMs than are represented by the overly demanding player base.

Bill,

I don't think I ever recommended baring people from playing combinations of things they aren't. In fact, that would be antithetical to role playing.

But it's a grounds to be cautious around, because too many people can accidentally or intentionally be offensive in their depiction. I don't think anyone in the thread has proposed it being off limits.

I just want everyone to be cautious and mindful.

I am not personally accusing you of suggesting this. It just seemed a direction this conversation might be headed towards and I wanted to steer it away from that.

I will make an additional observation here. Due to the nature of TTRPG role-playing and organized play in particular, it can be difficult to stand out much as a role-player by playing subtle characters. Usually, this means playing characters with exaggerated characteristics that can sometimes feed into stereotypes. Not trying to justify anything, just making an observation into the nature of the game we all play.

Bill Baldwin wrote:

Isn't the entire point of a role-playing game to play someone you are not? Would not trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone you are not create greater understanding towards those that are in those shoes? Is it possible that when you put yourself in someone else's shoes you may occasionally trip on the shoestrings? Yes. But that is how you learn to tie the shoes properly.

The problem is that people make offensive representation of groups of people that exist in outside the game world. Sometimes it's accidental or unknowing, and people are willing to correct it. That isn't a big problem (in my opinion), accidents happen. But some people do it intentionally, or worse are made aware of the problem and refuse to see it or change.

That hurts real people. And that's a problem.

I agree. But this should be handled like every other individual who behaves badly at the table and punish that individual for that behavior rather than limit the entire player base because of a few bad eggs. We should be punishing people for maliciously offensive role-playing, not role-playing in general.

Creating awareness of offensive stereotypes and that intentionally offensive role-playing in unacceptable is a good idea. Creating a rule, official or otherwise, that requires people to not role-play outside their own gender identity is a bad idea.

Isn't the entire point of a role-playing game to play someone you are not? Would not trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone you are not create greater understanding towards those that are in those shoes? Is it possible that when you put yourself in someone else's shoes you may occasionally trip on the shoestrings? Yes. But that is how you learn to tie the shoes properly.

Well, certainly if we hadn't moved away from using stone tablets and cuneiform we would have stronger hand muscles and we wouldn't have to worry about the dog eating our character sheets.

I had HLO for the better part of a year for Starfinder.

1. It wouldn't print anything remotely decently in Firefox. (A known feature, their 'workaround' was 'well, just use Chrome').

I don't know why it took them so long to do this, but they have finally gotten the print feature to essentially print PDF character sheets that look just like the character sheets printed by the offline version of Hero Lab, including breaking it down into Character Sheet, Abilities, Spells, etc. This is a major improvement that makes it much easier to use this on a device when you have no online connection as you can at least pull up a readable character sheet on your device if exported the print file while you had access. Though, again, I don't know why it took them over a year to do this.