|
My typical situation is to run a couple of weekly (or bi-weekly) PFS games and both of them have run into the situation that most of the group has already played in nearly every low level adventure, then a new player calls out and says that they would like to join up.
Everyone so far has been fine with making the first level characters to let the new person play, but the issue generally has been that there are only two or three weeks of PFS that I can run for the group (and maybe another two if I get someone else to run those games).
That does not really get that new player (and the other low level PCs) to the Tier 5-9 scenarios that I probably expended the majority of already. My options (for one group) are to stop playing Pathfinder Society, kick out the new player out of my group for a few months, have the new player play a 7th level pre-gen with the 10th level party for a couple months, or have the old players play 1st and 4th level pregens for a few months until the 3rd level character can play with the 10th level party. I really don't like any of those options. I don't want to turn people away, but I feel that pushing any of the other options would lead to the group finding more enjoyable things to do than PFS. The other group would have similar solutions though their main characters are a couple levels lower.
I am very glad to have the modules with the rules that they have because that means that, while it doesn't completely solve my problems, it means that, while waiting for newer low level scenarios, I will be able to still be able to play modules in PFS with my entire group. If the rules change later on I will understand, but the current rules work very well for my situation.
I am not particularly fond of the rule allowing no effects to carry over beyond the modules (death, disease, curse, etc.). Right now, death in a modules means very little to me. I might lose some potential XP, PA, and money, but given that the same death in a normal scenario means that and losing the character you playing with, it feels quite lenient.
Right now, my favorite option for applying penalties for dying and being hit with other bad effects during the module (without just pushing back death onto the table) is to include negative penalties on the chronicle sheet. Dieing in Godsmouth Ossuary might lead to penalties against the undead for that character. They may or may not be able to remove it with resources they have on hand (like restoration) or quests (curse is removed by you helping to slay five intelligent undead).
|
Callarek - The module rules say it is appropriate for 8th level plus or minus one, so 7-9 is a good spread.
Nothing prevents you from taking one of your PFS characters and leveling him or her up to 17th to play witchwar legacy. You just don't get to apply the credit to that character or some 3rd level mook who didn't play it anyway.
You can play any of the other products Paizo makes without having PFS. Our home game of Legacy of Fire is now at 10th level and we will finish around 14th and then we will enjoy a few of the one shot modules they have produced. You don't need PFS to play Pathfinder.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Perhaps the modules are a way for them to increase the level cap without requiring high level scenarios? You play your 12th level retired character in a 12th level mod, he becomes 13th, and so on?
Very nice, very elegant solution.
Only problem is that it would create a log jam as people waited for other people to get their characters retired and able to play. I know there aren't any retired in Denver, yet. JP is close, and maybe one other, but no one I know of for sure.
|
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.
From the thread, 'Feedback Turnaround' on the submissions thread.
At this point, reading through the slush pile is the lowest priority on an overflowing todo list. I'll get to them, but probably not anytime soon. Patience is appreciated, and one way to ensure you're not selected to write a scenario is to flood the submissions inbox every few days. I'll look into changing the resubmit text on the submissions page.
I would prefer that you made this more of a priority in response to the demand for scenarios. I say this as a sincere supporter of your product and with all the respect in the world.
All the Best,
Kerney
|
|
To throw in my $.02: "Forked" characters and reward with no risk do not appeal to me. Further, I believe they punch holes in verisimilitude, making them potentially unhealthy for a living campaign.
Frankly, this seems both odd and ill-advised. I don't see why the adventures can't just be three-slot, contiguous adventures that (mostly) follow the normal rules for Society play. Since they're aimed at the hardcore players, those players should be expected to understand the inherent trade-offs.
Not a deal-breaker by any stretch, but I won't be playing (or judging) any sanctioned modules -- at least not with the rules for doing so in their present form.
|
Painlord, Be honest, the reason you don't like the no death rule is that you like to be able to kill PC's. "As the giant plant goes munch munch munch. And the firey death of the esteemed pathfinder Rock Cartwrght"
I really don't like the idea of no death and being able to play diffrent versions of characters. IMO it would create a book keeeping
nightmare.
I like making all of the Modules playable for PFS but they should follow standard PFS rules.
IF all Modules are able to be used for PFS play then I would suggest that the 12 level cap for PFS be scrapped. I have always felt it was a dumb rule both from a player standpoint lots of players like to play a PC higher than 12 level. More importantly from a company stand point
why would you wnat to limit revenues from not publishing creating higher level mods. You put out a very high quality product why limit
yourselves?
As far as PA Missions why don't you have one of your PFS authors write
PA misssions and release them as a web enhancement for published Mods
and in future mods add two pages at the end of the mod for PA Missions.
IF this cannot be done from a cost publishing reason then post the PA missions for the Modules on your very fine web site.
|
Now you see why they've set it up this way. Paizo is not looking to redo the entire structure of PFS play in order to accomodate these modules which can't fit into neat 4 hour convention blocks. They're essentially a benie thrown in for either home play or special convention setups devoted strictly to them. i.e. a 3 part series that would be structured outside of normal convention play.
Also, those vocal weekly FLGS games that complained about the no replay for credit rule.
Now there is another option which gives multiple sessions of play for credit, without seriously impacting the PFS development side of things.
Now you see why they've set it up this way. Paizo is not looking to redo the entire structure of PFS play in order to accomodate these modules which can't fit into neat 4 hour convention blocks. They're essentially a benie thrown in for either home play or special convention setups devoted strictly to them. i.e. a 3 part series that would be structured outside of normal convention play.
Very good point. I imagine this was the logic behind the sanctioning process. I still really don't care for the non-death, and character adjustment rules, but on the other hand if it means changing the structure just to accommodate a couple corner cases, I suppose it is not worth it.
|
Im guessing that PFS is capped at lv 12 due to the trouble lv 7 spells create when trying to prewrite modules or scenarios. its hard for writers to come up with challenges for a group at the higher levels of play when a single spell can often create a confusing or stressful situation for a GM (who may be gming for a brand new group). outside of PFS play the gm would have more room to fudge, improvize or adapt, but within the environment of PFS it could be hard for a GM to work with a NPC who failed his save vs insanity, a PC who abuses ethereal Jaunt, or a limited wish spell. i think the aim is to create not only a welcome environment for players but for GMs as well.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Looking at how the rules for both of the sanction modules are so different, it will be awhile before I feel comfortable offering these to my PFS players. I understand that this is still in its infancy, so I will sit back and wait to see what happens. In the meantime, I wish the sanctioning rules where more consistent.
|
|
Looking at how the rules for both of the sanction modules are so different, it will be awhile before I feel comfortable offering these to my PFS players. I understand that this is still in its infancy, so I will sit back and wait to see what happens. In the meantime, I wish the sanctioning rules where more consistent.
Inconsistence? how are they inconsistent? Other then new rules because of the difference in Level.
Lets see.
They both have
Both can be played through multiple session
Both can be played with existing level appropriate character
Both allow you to create level appropriate versions of existing characters
Both allow to use Pre Gen
Rules for Conditions, Death, and Expendables are exactly the same
3xp for completion
4PA for Completion
Both have the same penalty for death, losing 1 PA and 1 xp to a Min of 1&1
The rules are exactly the same, except they added rules on how make a level appropriated character for higher level modules, because well, it is a higher level module and they had to. Also the higher level module can't be replayed for credit over and over, but we where told from the beginning that replay rule was only going to be for level 1 Modules.
In other words there is no inconsistency.
|
Stuff.
DMoon, I think you misunderstood.
I think there is great and unnecessary inconsistency between the two sanctioned modules (Godsmouth and CotED) and regular PFS scenarios.
Especially for CotED, the no-death, no-use of consumbles, and the unnecessary character forking-bumping guidelines are very inconsistent compared to a typical 7-11 tiered PFS scenario.
At least I think that's what Arnim meant. It's certainly what *I* think and I hope I'm not alone in thinking it.
-Pain
|
|
Stuff.DMoon, I think you misunderstood.
I think there is great and unnecessary inconsistency between the two sanctioned modules (Godsmouth and CotED) and regular PFS scenarios.
Especially for CotED, the no-death, no-use of consumbles, and the unnecessary character forking-bumping guidelines are very inconsistent compared to a typical 7-11 tiered PFS scenario.
At least I think that's what Arnim meant. It's certainly what *I* think and I hope I'm not alone in thinking it.
-Pain
Ok, he may have meant that, but that was not how a read it.
That said, I am fine with the module rules, in fact I like them. But this is an Opinion based thing only and not a fact dispute, so arguing over that with you are Arnim is not a worthwhile dispute.. ;).
Edit: Though I can state why I have my opinion, which I just may do shortly.
|
|
But this is an Opinion based thing only and not a fact dispute, so arguing over that with you are Arnim is not a worthwhile dispute.. ;).
What? This is *definitely* a fact thing. There is 100% evidence that there are different rules for Godsmouth and CotED modules as opposed to regular PFS scenarios.
How you feel about it is opinion...which I welcome your viewpoint. I haven't heard a good argument for the need for the inconsistent rules.
Carry on, gunslinger.
-Pain
|
|
Why I like the Module Rules as Is.
Rules for Conditions, Death, and Expendables
1. The modules are not made to the same standard as PFS modules and have a tendency to be more deadly. There is a very good chance that a PFS character made to PFS rules will be killed in the modules, I have already killed tons in Godsmouth *MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*. Because of that inconsistency this rule is really needed.
2. Because the modules are so long and may take multiple sessions, if you had to count Conditions, Death, and Expendables, it would make those PFS characters locked in the module until it was done *Could be a long time* and unable to play normal PFS scenarios with the same character because the tracking between to different games at once is very difficult.
Making level appropriated character of existing PFS characters
1. I think this is the best part of them all! It allows me to run it now and not wait for my players to have characters that are at the right level, and makes it a great solution for those that are running out of scenarios.
2. This will allow us in the future make Concept higher then level 12 versions of our PFS characters. This I love! It is great that once some higher then level 12 Modules are allowed I can play say a Level 14 version of my PFS rogue when normally I won't.
These modules are an additional resource to be used in PFS games, separate from the normal resources. Something else to try and still get PFS credit, but adding more depth to things you can do!
I think the rules are great and I encourage Hyrum to continue adding more!
|
|
But this is an Opinion based thing only and not a fact dispute, so arguing over that with you are Arnim is not a worthwhile dispute.. ;).What? This is *definitely* a fact thing. There is 100% evidence that there are different rules for Godsmouth and CotED modules as opposed to regular PFS scenarios.
How you feel about it is opinion...which I welcome your viewpoint. I haven't heard a good argument for the need for the inconsistent rules.
Carry on, gunslinger.
-Pain
No, it is an opinion that the different rules are a Bad thing, I don't think they are.
and..
Phew! Phew!
Director of Brand Strategy
|
If I have a level 11 guy needing 2 XP to get to 12th, can I apply Ebon Destroyers XP to him??
Yes, but your wealth and PA must correspond to the number of XP added. Thus, you need to reduce total wealth earned by 1/3 and XP by 1, the same as if you had only earned 2 XP by dying. You can't add just 1 XP and get 3 XPs worth of wealth and PA.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Stuff.DMoon, I think you misunderstood.
I think there is great and unnecessary inconsistency between the two sanctioned modules (Godsmouth and CotED) and regular PFS scenarios.
Especially for CotED, the no-death, no-use of consumbles, and the unnecessary character forking-bumping guidelines are very inconsistent compared to a typical 7-11 tiered PFS scenario.
At least I think that's what Arnim meant. It's certainly what *I* think and I hope I'm not alone in thinking it.
-Pain
Exactly! The things that are the same are great... it's the differences from module to module that causes the confusion. I've seen plenty of it here, especially since Ebon Destroyer. Thanks, Pain!
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
2. This will allow us in the future make Concept higher then level 12 versions of our PFS characters. This I love! It is great that once some higher then level 12 Modules are allowed I can play say a Level 14 version of my PFS rogue when normally I won't.
Okay... this is a perspective I hadn't taken into consideration, but a good point!
|
|
Exactly! The things that are the same are great... it's the differences from module to module that causes the confusion. I've seen plenty of it here, especially since Ebon Destroyer. Thanks, Pain!
Ok, I understand that some people don't like the differences of the rules for Scenarios compared to Modules, But except that you can only replay level 1 modules, which we knew from the beginning, the rules for all the modules have been the same, so once again, and no pain this time I don't think I am confused..;), what differences are you talking about?
|
|
Ok, I understand that some people don't like the differences of the rules for Scenarios compared to Modules, But except that you can only replay level 1 modules, which we knew from the beginning, the rules for all the modules have been the same, so once again, and no pain this time I don't think I am confused..;), what differences are you talking about?Exactly! The things that are the same are great... it's the differences from module to module that causes the confusion. I've seen plenty of it here, especially since Ebon Destroyer. Thanks, Pain!
I think he is referring specifically to the "only playable by characters of level 7-9" portion, where a PFS scenario is built for 5-9 or 7-11, instead of such a narrow level range.
Of course, the fact that a module is designed for a much tighter level band, typically only a single level, is one of the major differences from PFS scenarios.
Add-in that PFS is allowing under-level PCs, real and pregen, to participate, actually increases the risk of death in those cases. Add-in that "forked" PCs won't have as much stuff as a "normal" PC of that level, and it makes it harder, NOT easier.
Overall, the rules about death and consumables are designed to help even out one of the rough spots with using a module for PFS, where home games give out more treasure, and/or PCs in home games don't sell and have to rebuy items of use to them.
Find a +1 sword in a game at 3rd level? For a home game, you give it to the Fighter. For a PFS scenario, it gets sold off at 50%, and trhe Fighterthna has to buy it for 100%. That, quickly, adds up for higher expenses/less gear.
Not to mention that, in my experience, except when starting everyone off "new", the WBL table is always lower than actual WBL in the home games I have been able to play; and starting a replacement character always feels underequipped. Even in the campaign where the GM ruled the WBL UP by 15%....
If you have an 8th level PFS PC, spend a few minutes calculating out what the cost of all his gear is, along with any remaining cash-on-hand, and then compare that with the 33,000 GP for the pseudo-character in the module guidelines...
Let me know your results, I don't have a copy of my only PFS character in that level range with me, at present...
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Especially for CotED, the no-death, no-use of consumbles, and the unnecessary character forking-bumping guidelines are very inconsistent compared to a typical 7-11 tiered PFS scenario.
This pretty much covers it. And the "build a character at 8th level" clause. While I agree that with level 17 modules, that is cool, doing it with ones that would be playable within the level limitations (Tier 1-11) seems off.
|
|
Especially for CotED, the no-death, no-use of consumbles, and the unnecessary character forking-bumping guidelines are very inconsistent compared to a typical 7-11 tiered PFS scenario.This pretty much covers it. And the "build a character at 8th level" clause. While I agree that with level 17 modules, that is cool, doing it with ones that would be playable within the level limitations (Tier 1-11) seems off.
Ok, then your terminology you are using is off, You have a problem with rule difference between Scenarios and Modules, not inconsistency in rule from modules to modules, since all the modules have rules to convert characters to appropriate levels of the module.
You made it sound like every time the offer a new module they changed the rules for modules, which as of yet they have not.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Ok, then your terminology you are using is off, You have a problem with rule difference between Scenarios and Modules, not inconsistency in rule from modules to modules, since all the modules have rules to convert characters to appropriate levels of the module.
You made it sound like every time the offer a new module they changed the rules for modules, which as of yet they have not.
In response, yes they have. No "rebuild" rules existed in Masters of the Fallen Fortress or Godsmouth Heresy. The "no death, no consumables" is existent ONLY in Ebon Destroyer. And none of them use Faction Missions, which makes the modules different (but not worse!) the the PFS scenarios since only the Year of the Shadow Lodge scenario was lacking those.
I politely disagree; they have changed (though some would say "evolved") from module to module.
|
|
In response, yes they have. No "rebuild" rules existed in Masters of the Fallen Fortress or Godsmouth Heresy. The "no death, no consumables" is existent ONLY in Ebon Destroyer. And none of them use Faction Missions, which makes the modules different (but not worse!) the the PFS scenarios since only the Year of the Shadow Lodge scenario was lacking those.
I politely disagree; they have changed (though some would say "evolved") from module to module.
First of all, when you are considering rules for the Modules you need to leave out Fallen Fortress, that was made for RPG free day and it is a lot shorter and was made for newly made PFS characters only, it is a different type of beast all together on not related to the "Baseline" for Module Rule which are the normal modules you get in your Module Subscription. *Just like you have to leave the Goblin one out for the next free RPG day because it does not fit into normal Modules.
So that leaves for a "Baseline" for normal Module rules with Godsmouth and Ebony. And here is where I am going to correct you.
The "no death, no consumables" is existent ONLY in Ebon Destroyer.
Look again Both of them have the same rule..
Conditions, Death, and Expendables
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.
Conditions, Death, and Expendables
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.
Now on to rebuild
No "rebuild" rules existed in Masters of the Fallen Fortress or Godsmouth Heresy
Leaving Fallen Fortress out for the reason I say Above..
A player may also create a 1st-level version of an existing Pathfinder Society character for use in the module.
A player may also create an 8th-level version of an existing Pathfinder Society character for use in the module. This
character may have up to 33,000 gp in total wealth, with no
single item worth more than 16,500 gp. Such a character
is considered to have no Prestige Award.
So once again, like I said, both have consistent rules.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I stand corrected, since we are conveniently ignoring Masters of the Fallen Fortress for the sake of your argument. My opinion (which is an opinion, nothing more) still stands... I don't quite feel comfortable offering these yet, at the expense of PFS scenarios that don't involve a temporary rebuild.
|
|
I don't quite feel comfortable offering these yet, at the expense of PFS scenarios that don't involve a temporary rebuild.
that is fine, but Just a reminder, these rule help you the most since your group is running out of scenarios and have a wide range of levels.
Edit: Though I still don't see modules as a feasible way to stop gap groups that run out of scenarios because of the time it takes to run one.
|
|
I stand corrected, since we are conveniently ignoring Masters of the Fallen Fortress for the sake of your argument. My opinion (which is an opinion, nothing more) still stands... I don't quite feel comfortable offering these yet, at the expense of PFS scenarios that don't involve a temporary rebuild.
MotFF is a different kettle of fish from either Pathfinder Society Scenarios or more normal Pathfinder Modules.
It is designed for new, or at least 1st level only, PCs.
It was designed as a short one-shot, mainly with strong ties in it to the Pathfinder Society, unlike any other Pathfinder Module.
It was designed to be usable under the normal Pathfinder Society Scenario rules, unlike normal Pathfinder Modules.
As to running any of the modules, not running them is your choice. Whether someone else runs and/or plays in them, however, is NOT your choice.
Also, since the level range of most modules is tighter than the tiers of scenarios, the level build is there as an option for groups where they can never seem to get everyone within the same level range at the same time.
In our local area, we can barely majke a 5-9 tier module, normally, and 7-11 is short. Until, of course, we manage to get some more PCs into the appropriate level range. So, if we want to play something with such tight banding, we would have to have several people playing either pregens or PC builds. YMMV.
I know that one group of local players is almost out of scenarios available to play, other than the 1/month low level scenarios, so this might allow them to get a bit more play in, in a public setting.
For me, I have a spreadsheet of my normal players, and finding scenarios that enough of them can play for credit is a pain. This, at least, widens my choices.
