RPG Superstar 2010 winner Matt Goodall's adventure "Cult of the Ebon Destroyers" has now been sanctioned for PFS play. You can download the Chronicle for the module here:
Hyrum.
|
This is great, I love what you guys are doing for the modules here.
However, I just downloaded and read the PFS rules for this one, and I wondered if you could clarify something for me. For Godsmouth Heresy it called out that since it was intended to be a multi-session adventure you could continue to play the character in other scenarios while it was still going through the module. However, this rule set calls out it as not being able to play in other scenarios at the same time.
I know the second is more in line with normal PFS scenario rules, but wanted to double check.
Thanks!
Venture-Lieutenant, Canada—Manitoba
|
RPG Superstar 2010 winner Matt Goodall's adventure "Cult of the Ebon Destroyers" has now been sanctioned for PFS play. You can download the Chronicle for the module here:
Hyrum.
Cool! But why do characters get auto-resurrected if they die during the mod? I understand the rules about new characters, since with a multi-session module you don't want to keep people fro playing for several sessions. But why isn't death final for this mod?
|
Cool! But why do characters get auto-resurrected if they die during the mod? I understand the rules about new characters, since with a multi-session module you don't want to keep people fro playing for several sessions. But why isn't death final for this mod?
Most likely because the modules are more deadly than a typical scenario.
Cool! But why do characters get auto-resurrected if they die during the mod? I understand the rules about new characters, since with a multi-session module you don't want to keep people fro playing for several sessions. But why isn't death final for this mod?
All conditions, including death, go away at the end of the scenario. We did this since the scenarios exist outside the standard timeframe of PFS scenarios.
Also, the modules aren't designed with PFS concerns in mind, which means we had to find ways to get them to work within the PFS framwork and this was the best way. We're also sanctioning them as a way to get additional content out to PFS players, something our players asked for.
Hyrum.
|
So to make sure that I am straight on this, you can increase the level of an existing character to 8th and play with him. You would then apply the Chronicle Sheet to the level that the character actually is or to the character at 8th and they would wait until they hit 7th to apply it, since this is when they would actually be legal to play?
|
So to make sure that I am straight on this, you can increase the level of an existing character to 8th and play with him. You would then apply the Chronicle Sheet to the level that the character actually is or to the character at 8th and they would wait until they hit 7th to apply it, since this is when they would actually be legal to play?
You would apply the Chronicle sheet to the level that the character actually is.
|
|
So to make sure that I am straight on this, you can increase the level of an existing character to 8th and play with him. You would then apply the Chronicle Sheet to the level that the character actually is or to the character at 8th and they would wait until they hit 7th to apply it, since this is when they would actually be legal to play?
The intent is that you are able to 'fork' a copy of your existing legal character to play this at 8th level. I believe there needs to be some official word yet on how that fork is supposed to happen. This as of yet unofficial speculation seems to be about what the expected RAI should be. After the module is complete, the Chronicle is applied to the original character (at the valid level tier) which was forked.
|
Gah. Color me conflicted on with this.
On one talon, I like that other Paizo content and mods are being made available for PFS play. In fact, I think it's a great idea.
On the other talon, I really dislike how it is being implemented.
Specifically, these two points seem needlessly inserted:
#1) A player may also create an 8th-level version of an existing Pathfinder Society character for use in the module.
This exception creates way too much needless confusion and rules creation to justify its inclusion. There really isn't a need for it. You know what? It's *OKAY* for players to have to wait until they get characters at the appropriate level before they play the mod. It worked just fine in LG, and it will work just fine now.
I cannot see anything but endless questions and rules bloat coming from things like this...especially for new players. Let's work on keeping things simple: especially in that modules are available for play at certain tiers and you either have a character at level or you play a pre-gen. End of story.
#2) Whether playing one’s own PC or a pregen, no conditions (including death) carry beyond the end of a module. Likewise, any wealth spent or resources expended during the course of the adventure are considered unspent upon the module’s completion.
Really? GAH!
One of the things I like about Pathfinder Society play is that choices matter and what happens in modules matter. When I see things like this, I begin to question the commitment towards keeping play choices and play events as meaningful as they can be.
This kind of rule will, in general, undermine quality of play both in how seriously players take the mod and in metagamed resource consumption. Yes, players will do both.
I see this as a needless step towards making the game less interesting...why not just have the module being known as 'more challenging' and let players know to avoid this if the risk is too great for them?
I just don't see the reasoning behind this rule.
That said, as a gameday and convention organizer, do we have any say in how we sanction this module at our events? Can I stipulate pure PFS characters or pre-gens and correct resource utilization/death at the tables I put on?
Thanks.
-Pain
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Ugh. This is not good. +1 Painlord. :(
... this mod, with these rules, will not appear in the store I coordinate. It's just not what I see Pathfinder being. I hope this is not a trend. Godsmouth should NOT become the new standard - it should be rare and the limit of what 'counts'.
The plan is to sanction all Modules from now on, but the meat and potatoes of Pathfinder Society will remain the 28+ scenarios we release over the course of each season. If a coordinator wants to run only scenarios and never Modules, that's his prerogative. For those groups that blow through two new scenarios a month, sanctioned Modules allow them a new two to three session game every other month or so.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
This is great, I love what you guys are doing for the modules here.
However, I just downloaded and read the PFS rules for this one, and I wondered if you could clarify something for me. For Godsmouth Heresy it called out that since it was intended to be a multi-session adventure you could continue to play the character in other scenarios while it was still going through the module. However, this rule set calls out it as not being able to play in other scenarios at the same time.
I know the second is more in line with normal PFS scenario rules, but wanted to double check.
Thanks!
We've updated the rules pdf to correct this, permitting PCs playing through this adventure to play other scenarios between sessions. We don't want to discourage play of actual PFS scenarios if someone's caught in the middle of a Module, since play of this or other Modules is secondary to the primary adventures of a Pathfinder Society PC.
|
|
We've updated the rules pdf to correct this, permitting PCs playing through this adventure to play other scenarios between sessions. We don't want to discourage play of actual PFS scenarios if someone's caught in the middle of a Module, since play of this or other Modules is secondary to the primary adventures of a Pathfinder Society PC.
What if the PFS character levels up from regular scenarios before completing this scenario, and levels out of tier?
Example: 9th level character, starts CotED with 2 XP toward 10th, would level out by just playing one normal PFS scenario...
Would that be continue using the out of date 9th level version of the PC, or create an 8th level avatar?
|
|
We've updated the rules pdf to correct this, permitting PCs playing through this adventure to play other scenarios between sessions. We don't want to discourage play of actual PFS scenarios if someone's caught in the middle of a Module, since play of this or other Modules is secondary to the primary adventures of a Pathfinder Society PC.What if the PFS character levels up from regular scenarios before completing this scenario, and levels out of tier?
Example: 9th level character, starts CotED with 2 XP toward 10th, would level out by just playing one normal PFS scenario...
Would that be continue using the out of date 9th level version of the PC, or create an 8th level avatar?
I would advise making a conscience decision to not create this situation. If a PC is one xp away from leveling and playing that character in two adventures, effectively simulateously, would make his present module play "illegal" why would one proceed with a conflicting situation? It doesn't make sense. Why are more rules needed when a player should be responsible for his/her actions. My recommendation: play a different character in either the module or the scenario.
|
|
Thinking about it further, I really don't see the need to have the "no death-no consumables used" clause at all.
I won't speculate as to the intent, but I can't imagine a good argument for it (but would love to hear one).
I object, *strongly*, to reward without risk; the opportunity for players to gain XP/PA/access without putting their butts on the line. To me, that is one of the defining traits of a Living Campaign.
I feel like we're losing something really special with this rule in place. Instead of this mod being an opportunity for real challenge and glory, the mod is now like bowling with those gutter balloons. Or celebrating that you can swim...but you have waterwings on.
We've lost the opportunity to say *both* "I survived CotED...it was tough, but our party worked together to really overcome something" and "I died in CotED...it was tough, but they got the best of me. My party survived and my people thought enough of me to bring me back to life."
Now that both Godsmouth and CotED allow PCs to play the mods with no risk, how about *not* doing that for the next few releases?
Maybe it will make the next batch really worth playing.
-Pain
|
|
It doesn't make it illegal, because the module instructions specifically state you're allowed to play other PFS adventures with the character while you're playing the module.I would advise making a conscience decision to not create this situation. If a PC is one xp away from leveling and playing that character in two adventures, effectively simulateously, would make his present module play "illegal" why would one proceed with a conflicting situation? It doesn't make sense. Why are more rules needed when a player should be responsible for his/her actions. My recommendation: play a different character in either the module or the scenario.We've updated the rules pdf to correct this, permitting PCs playing through this adventure to play other scenarios between sessions. We don't want to discourage play of actual PFS scenarios if someone's caught in the middle of a Module, since play of this or other Modules is secondary to the primary adventures of a Pathfinder Society PC.What if the PFS character levels up from regular scenarios before completing this scenario, and levels out of tier?
Example: 9th level character, starts CotED with 2 XP toward 10th, would level out by just playing one normal PFS scenario...
Would that be continue using the out of date 9th level version of the PC, or create an 8th level avatar?
Our discussion here isn't the legality of playing simultaneously. It's creating a situation where a character is now out of 'legal' tier to play Cult. If a players makes a decision to play a character in the situation you've described he or she has made the conscience decision to not continue the Cult module with the now out of tier PC.
Per the Cult OP write up:
A player may use an existing Pathfinder Society character within 1 level of the module's beginning level (8th). This means existing PCs of 7th, 8th, and 9th level are legal for play without modification.
Once a PC hits 10th it is not possible to continue Cult with that PC. So back to my earlier comment, why are more rules necessary to adjucate a player's decision to play a PC in the situation you described? My recommendation is to avoid the situation by playing a different character. As an addendum, that could be a pre-gen or newly built 8th level PC in Cult and the player participtes in both play opportunities without further dissection of the module and/or PFS OP rules.
Edit: By not recognizing the scenario that caused the level up to 10th and continuing Cult as 9th level is, in effect, banking a chronicle to level up later. We all know that's not allowed. Unless a GM ran a scenario for which he/she doesn't have a character at the level appropriate to recognize the chronicle.
|
|
If you level up between sessions of a multi-session Module by playing other scenarios, just keep playing the version of the character you started the Module with. When the adventure's over, apply the credit to the same PC at her new level.
See, Teribithia9, that is exactly what I was trying to say. Glad it's clear now.
|
|
Thinking about it further, I really don't see the need to have the "no death-no consumables used" clause at all.
I won't speculate as to the intent, but I can't imagine a good argument for it (but would love to hear one).
I object, *strongly*, to reward without risk; the opportunity for players to gain XP/PA/access without putting their butts on the line. To me, that is one of the defining traits of a Living Campaign.
I feel like we're losing something really special with this rule in place. Instead of this mod being an opportunity for real challenge and glory, the mod is now like bowling with those gutter balloons. Or celebrating that you can swim...but you have waterwings on.
We've lost the opportunity to say *both* "I survived CotED...it was tough, but our party worked together to really overcome something" and "I died in CotED...it was tough, but they got the best of me. My party survived and my people thought enough of me to bring me back to life."
Now that both Godsmouth and CotED allow PCs to play the mods with no risk, how about *not* doing that for the next few releases?
Maybe it will make the next batch really worth playing.
-Pain
+1
|
|
While there is no lasting penalty for death in these there are penalties. Every time you're killed your rewards are dropped by -1xp, -1PA and - 1/3rd gold. It would be pretty lame to get crit and killed in the first encounter and then have nothing to do for the next 11 hours. That said the penalty is much less severe then death in a normal mod but that doesn't really bother me.
The lack of consumables is weird but if you're playing a non-current version of your character (maybe from the future, maybe from the past) dealing with consumables would be a big headache.
Speaking of such things I thought the out of time characters for Godsmouth was kinda neat but it seems really strange for the 8th level mod. I think a lot of players that don't have characters of that level and might enjoy getting the chance to play at higher level than normal.
I'm a little torn about this issue. While elitism is always a potential problem in an OP environment, (You haven't played at least 20 adventures with the same character, too bad this mod isn't for you) stringent level requirements for adventures doesn't bother me so it shouldn't for this either.
The whole process seems a little strange but all in all it seems like a fairly reasonable way to do things.
My only real problem is the fact that playing only 1 session of this, rather than the full 3, still gives you full gold along with only 1XP and 2PA.
|
|
I object, *strongly*, to reward without risk; the opportunity for players to gain XP/PA/access without putting their butts on the line. To me, that is one of the defining traits of a Living Campaign.
I agree with most everything you said above but this in particular. Playing Godsmouth and this module is a much better bargain for the PFS player kick starting a player from their first adventure.
The only upside to playing normal scenarios is you have the potential to get more PA and more slightly treasure. Since you normally spend at least some gold on adventures this last benefit is questionable.
While I love the idea of being able to flex levels with characters I really don't care for the relatively bigger payoff with little/ no risk the modules bring to PFS.
I tend to concur with Painlord's thoughts. With that said, I do realize this is a new realm (sanctioning modules for PFS), and so I imagine some things will be tried, and based on data will be tweaked as necessary.
|
|
I tend to concur with Painlord's thoughts. With that said, I do realize this is a new realm (sanctioning modules for PFS), and so I imagine some things will be tried, and based on data will be tweaked as necessary.
This is why I am a bit hesitant to be very vocal about this. I really *love* that modules are available as an option.
|
|
I like being able to use the PF Modules for PFS, but really dislike the way you can apply credit. I suggest you stick to the level(s) that the module was written for ONLY. The other options are just goofy. I will run it for our local chums, but ONLY if they want to use their actual characters and risk death, otherwise, no thanks.
|
|
No thanks
I'm not in favor of the "goofy" level adjusting either, but if my local group requested that I run it for them, I would. As the GM, I really don't care if they live or die, use their resources or not, blah, blah, blah. My only concern is that they have fun. From an in-game perspective, I see no difference between this and all the players using pregens. I'll get GM credit for running it and the satisfaction of a fun session.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I like being able to use the PF Modules for PFS, but really dislike the way you can apply credit. I suggest you stick to the level(s) that the module was written for ONLY. The other options are just goofy. I will run it for our local chums, but ONLY if they want to use their actual characters and risk death, otherwise, no thanks.
So what PC would you play through a level 14 module?
|
|
A 14th level PC that I used in an AP. The Pathfinder world is bigger than just PFS.
I wouldn't sanction a 14th level module for PFS. The goodies would be unbalanced.
Well they've already said they were planning on releasing all the modules for PFS (which I think is great) so this isn't a workable solution.
|
|
Since it appears the next module that exists within the PFS level restrictions will not release until July, IMO, it is a good idea to offer the higher level mods with some ways to play them "down." Of course, if you and your players don't like the "feel," like any other product, you can just avoid it. For those of us looking for additional material, outside of scenarios, this is a good option.
|
|
With that said, I do realize this is a new realm (sanctioning modules for PFS), and so I imagine some things will be tried, and based on data will be tweaked as necessary.
We agree that we like the concept and the availability of the modules.
As I stated above, I hope future modules are in better alignment with risk and reward, making choices matter, and a Living Campaign philosophy.
Well they've already said they were planning on releasing all the modules for PFS (which I think is great) so this isn't a workable solution.
Sure, but I think we can find better solutions than magically leveling your character for one shots.
Off the top of my head, I'd would rather have alternate encounters created at an appropriate APL. Yes, I'm cognizant of Paizo time, but I *know* there are several people who would love to volunteer to re-design encounters. Heck, the VCs could lead this process.
Alternately, don't release APL 13+ modules for PFS play...unless it's a decree from the highest of high. In that case, let's find a better, saner solution.
I like being able to use the PF Modules for PFS, but really dislike the way you can apply credit. I suggest you stick to the level(s) that the module was written for ONLY. The other options are just goofy. I will run it for our local chums, but ONLY if they want to use their actual characters and risk death, otherwise, no thanks.
I feel very similarly to Dave, here.
Back in the day, Josh was very assertive in his convictions about only being able to play in a tier that you've really earned. I appreciated that...it made sense. And it supported a core piece of the Living Campaign: you earn the right to play higher mods at higher tiers and that your choices matter.
Using the logic behind the presentation of PFS-CotED, we should allow auto-temporary leveling, no death, and no consumption for all PFS modules and at all PFS tiers. Obvious, this is a bit of hyperbole, but I think it's a fair thought.
I just don't see the need...but would love to hear the logic.
-Pain
|
|
On the topic of character death and consumables:
People can play their own PFS character, or a pregen. If the pregen dies, what happens?
Would you have to pick one PC to which the chronicle will be assigned if you play a Pregen, so you know who dies?
If you are playing a pregen, how would you track what consumables got used? Do you have to keep track of the gp value of items used, and then pay that out of an existing character?
It seems like the only way you could run a session with a module and have death and consumables count is if you could only use a PFS character that would be legal for the module in question.
I'm not really advocating one way or the other, just kind of brainstorming some issues with why perma death and used consumables is problematic under the current system.
Also, I believe the "alternate version of existing PC" and pregens option probably exists because many people wanted something to fill in the gaps in the adventure schedule.
A 1st level and an 8th level adventure, especially if it were limited to a character of legal level, does little to fix the gap that people wanted addressed.
Again, not advocating, just saying that I can see where the logic came from.
|
|
Off the top of my head, I'd would rather have alternate encounters created at an appropriate APL. Yes, I'm cognizant of Paizo time, but I *know* there are several people who would love to volunteer to re-design encounters. Heck, the VCs could lead this process.
As they have shared in the past, there is a lot more that goes into this process than just re-stating the encounter. It would be a large investment in time and personnel to pull off this type of adjustment. This is not going to happen for the society, especially since we only represent a minority of Paizo's market.
|
|
If the level cap on PFS is 12, then why bother with the higher level modules?
If you want to play the module, then play the module. You don't need PFS to do so. We have played AP's and a whole handful of Pathfinder modules, and somehow we managed to do it without PFS.
If you want to give the PFS folks a few options for modules, then fine, but make them play them at the level written. Most of the modules do not have a PFS feel to them.
A handful of module options are fine, but let's focus on the scenario's instead.
|
|
If the level cap on PFS is 12, then why bother with the higher level modules?
If you want to play the module, then play the module. You don't need PFS to do so. We have played AP's and a whole handful of Pathfinder modules, and somehow we managed to do it without PFS.
If you want to give the PFS folks a few options for modules, then fine, but make them play them at the level written. Most of the modules do not have a PFS feel to them.
A handful of module options are fine, but let's focus on the scenario's instead.
Because some people, if not many, dislike the 12th level cap, and this would be a way for them to get a feel for how their PC would work past the normal PFS caps.
And theis only adds OPTIONS to PFS, it does not prevent you from running the module outsuide of PFS, nor does it require you to run the module within PFS. OPTIONS are options, not requirements. Indeed, from what you poste3d earlier, you obviously would not be able to run it within PFS rules for running the module, so should not do so.
As nmentioned, not everyone has PCs of the level written. As an example, to play CotED "as written", it would only be open to PCs of 8th level. Only 8th level. So, too limited to be worth opening to organized play, so they widened it to allow more options.
They ARE focusing on scenarios, sanctioning modules in no way affects the future or release schedule for PFS scenarios. These are being sanctioned as an addition to the regular scenario release schedule, and require relatively little extra effort on Paizo's part to offer a sanctioning document, as compared to writing either an additional scenario or working up all the variations on a theme that would allow them to offer a module with all the tier coverage that it would need. For CotED, for example, it would need at least one additional set of monsters, so that it could be sanctioned as a Tier 5-9 module with sub-tiers 5-6 & 8-9. That would require an additional round of playtesting to make sure the second tier is balanced. More than a 3 page PDF, with 1-1/2 pages of virtually static tock information (the sign-in sheet, and the CS.) Not enough value added, probably.
On another subject:
The reason I asked is that I have ONE PC above 3rd level, he is 9th klevel, and I want to run him through part 3 of the Heresy of Man series, since he has done parts 1 & 2, but that is a tier 5-9 module. Yet I have to play mainly in what is ioffered in my area, so the next high-level module he can play in is Drow of the Darklands, but what would I do if someone decides to run Cult? Do I psuedo-leevl my third level fighter, or my first level gunslinger, or one of my totally virgin PCs? Best option, really, would be to use my level-appropriate PC, but I would still want to play him in Heresy 3 before he finished Cult...
