If you could change just one PFS rule - what would it be?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would allow GM's more flexibility when using strategy with the NPC's. <---Number 1 reason I have not tried to GM yet for PFS.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

wraithstrike wrote:
I would allow GM's more flexibility when using strategy with the NPC's. <---Number 1 reason I have not tried to GM yet for PFS.

Its not as bad as you'd think. Usually the strategy is pretty open ended, especially as the best plans only last till that first arrow flies.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarma wrote:
I'd remove spells with the evil descriptor just so that debate would finally go away.

Or simpler: remove good and evil descriptor from spells.

I would go further and remove alignment from PCs/pathfinders altogether.

Grand Lodge

wraithstrike wrote:
I would allow GM's more flexibility when using strategy with the NPC's. <---Number 1 reason I have not tried to GM yet for PFS.

Yup, its incredibly restricting. It took a paradigm shift in the way I looked at PFS before I could continue GMing it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, I would wish for more wishes. Then I would change lots of things.

You can replay scenarios, you just dont get a chronicle for it... Why? I dont see the harm in giving a chronicle every time you play something with a different character. It works for the tier 1-2 stuff.

Grand Lodge

Wraithcannon wrote:

Allow GM credit for running the same scenario multiple times. If I can find a table of fresh players that haven't played it, for whom I can run it, why are you shorting my GM credits?

I realize that not buying new scenarios cuts into Paizo's pockets, but I think this situation is fringe enough that it wouldn't significantly bother them. Other than once or twice a year at conventions, how often do you RUN outside your local PFS circles?

And if you do have a large enough group that fresh players are cycling in, again, why are you cutting off the GM's knees by removing part of his incentive to run? If he has run that scenario, and had a great time running it, why shortchange the players in what will probably be an even better game the second time around because now he's familiar with it by making him pull out a fresh scenario so that he can get credit for it?

I know I know, "But it still counts towards your GM Stars". Whatever, I don't think it's too much to ask.

This too.

Grand Lodge

Seth Gipson wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:

I would eliminate the 1 xp per scenario abstraction, and use the logical consequences of using real XP values to eliminate the need for the new APL calculation mechanic.

Seasons 0-3 would still require an APL bump to correct for their 4 player assumption.

Closely followed by removing the non-PFRPG core deity requirements.

I actually wouldnt mind that change, however, I disagree with the necessity to change the APL for Seasons 0-3. Want to play it with 6 people? Fine. Just splitting the exp more ways, so everybody gets less. :P

Ok so we have 7 people show up to play. All we can play is a season 0-3. I form a table of 4 so we get maximum xp and tell the other two players sorry? Or do I penalize those that showed up just because they showed up?

Grand Lodge

Ok. Just realized I shouldnt be dissing other people's ideas here. :) Sorry.

The Exchange 5/5

Jayson MF Kip wrote:
I would ban the name "Bob." Any character/companion/eidolon/mount/familiar named "Bob" would be excised from the Society unless they get an atonement and an official name change.

What about the character with a great ax named "Bob"?

Scarab Sages

nosig wrote:
Jayson MF Kip wrote:
I would ban the name "Bob." Any character/companion/eidolon/mount/familiar named "Bob" would be excised from the Society unless they get an atonement and an official name change.
What about the character with a great ax named "Bob"?

I would like to form a new group called BAN: the Bob Association of Namekeeping

4/5

I'd make white haired witch legal so I can play a pirate who grapples people with his beard.


David_Bross wrote:
I'd make white haired witch legal so I can play a pirate who grapples people with his beard.

Your wish is granted.

Additional Resources wrote:

Pathfinder Player Companion: Dragon Empires Primer

Archetypes: all archetypes on pages 22-23

Shadow Lodge

If I could change one rule I would make it so players as well as GMs could use the PRD as their official source for character creation. Not the SRD, but the Paizo created and maintained PRD that is on this site. It would allow access to a lot more for those of us with low budgets, but still be somewhat limiting as there are A LOT of options that are not found in the core line. It would also cut the amount of books that need to be hauled from place to place by players.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

I personally wish they would let you retrain into prestige classes. I understand and at least partly agree with the current decision after reading the back and forth. It is just a pity we can not have nice things.

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:
I would allow GM's more flexibility when using strategy with the NPC's. <---Number 1 reason I have not tried to GM yet for PFS.

The listed tactics tend to get invalidated by competent parties. At that point you've basically got to improvise, and PFS does enjoy providing you with NPCs that possess sufficient intelligence scores to begin executing advanced tactics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daedalaman wrote:
If I could change one rule I would make it so players as well as GMs could use the PRD as their official source for character creation. Not the SRD, but the Paizo created and maintained PRD that is on this site. It would allow access to a lot more for those of us with low budgets, but still be somewhat limiting as there are A LOT of options that are not found in the core line. It would also cut the amount of books that need to be hauled from place to place by players.

Paizo does need to actually sell product to stay in business. Almost everything in the PRD is from a $10 pdf.


Some of the tactics seem intentionally bad, perhaps to balance out an encounter? I've also seen tactics change depending on tier (w/ little reason for change).
So, yes, I'd like to change tactics, but can't say I'd like everybody to have that ability.
What I'd really like is always having creatures whose tactics maximize their abilities, never downplay them.

EDIT TO ADD: And not to have creatures that can't actually perform their tactics or break rules doing what's asked. (Can think of two examples offhand.)

Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha aka downerbeautiful

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
What about the character with a great ax named "Bob"?

That's right up there with "Barbarian Lockpick." It's tired and degrading. I mean, I'm pretty sure you're just jesting here, but I've come across the situation before.

If you're not going to bother giving the character/weapon/companion a meaningful name, then why bother naming it at all? If you can't come up with a fitting title, then "This is my animal companion; he's a horse. I haven't named him because we haven't found something that sounds good."

Shoo-my characters run around for a level or two before getting named; naming is a delicate process undermined by unimaginative names like the generic "Bob."


downerbeautiful wrote:

That's right up there with "Barbarian Lockpick." It's tired and degrading. I mean, I'm pretty sure you're just jesting here, but I've come across the situation before.

If you're not going to bother giving the character/weapon/companion a meaningful name, then why bother naming it at all? If you can't come up with a fitting title, then "This is my animal companion; he's a horse. I haven't named him because we haven't found something that sounds good."

Shoo-my characters run around for a level or two before getting named; naming is a delicate process undermined by unimaginative names like the generic "Bob."

It's tradition. Some still find it really amusing.

Besides, no one said you have to live on Bob.

Grand Lodge

VO alias is blocked but this is posted as my gnome sorcerer, Farkle Dimwitty Quadpicker Numnums the 15th. Read it in a high pitched voice.

Well said! If I had my way, everyone would have a respectable name! Like my forefathers.

Also, I would gather all the Pathfinders together once a month so that they could discuss matters of great import. I find it simply shocking how many people have failed to take an hour or three of their time to ponder the subject of Gnomish rights. Really, the current state of affairs is simply dreadful.

3/5

downerbeautiful wrote:
nosig wrote:
What about the character with a great ax named "Bob"?

That's right up there with "Barbarian Lockpick." It's tired and degrading. I mean, I'm pretty sure you're just jesting here, but I've come across the situation before.

If you're not going to bother giving the character/weapon/companion a meaningful name, then why bother naming it at all? If you can't come up with a fitting title, then "This is my animal companion; he's a horse. I haven't named him because we haven't found something that sounds good."

Shoo-my characters run around for a level or two before getting named; naming is a delicate process undermined by unimaginative names like the generic "Bob."

Careful there, Downer. You're starting to sound like you're telling people that they're having badwrongfun and your way is the only right way to play.

Scarab Sages

Now you are going to say that my new character, Mahjheek Misol, would not be a meaningful name. =(

Grand Lodge

The Fourth Horseman wrote:
downerbeautiful wrote:
nosig wrote:
What about the character with a great ax named "Bob"?

That's right up there with "Barbarian Lockpick." It's tired and degrading. I mean, I'm pretty sure you're just jesting here, but I've come across the situation before.

If you're not going to bother giving the character/weapon/companion a meaningful name, then why bother naming it at all? If you can't come up with a fitting title, then "This is my animal companion; he's a horse. I haven't named him because we haven't found something that sounds good."

Shoo-my characters run around for a level or two before getting named; naming is a delicate process undermined by unimaginative names like the generic "Bob."

Careful there, Downer. You're starting to sound like you're telling people that they're having badwrongfun and your way is the only right way to play.

I hope to one day see a cavalier named Fred riding a mount named Fred... (bonus points if you can name the reference).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see a refined Fame table. Ideally, a character's purchase limit would change with every single point of Fame, but even having the purchase limit increase at every odd number of Fame would be a huge improvement.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm fine with the fame table past 18, but I think it should be much more fleshed out before 18.

Dark Archive

Cire wrote:

I hope to one day see a cavalier named Fred riding a mount named Fred... (bonus points if you can name the reference).

FREDFRED BURGER! I doubt that is the reference you're looking for, but it's what immediately lept to mind when I read this post.

5/5 ⦵⦵

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I’d allow all magic items on a chronicle sheet be allowed to be purchased with a 20% discount, as it is most players just don’t care what items are listed. It only matters at low levels, poisons, and partially charged wands. Otherwise who cares really?

5/5

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If I could change one PFS rule, I'd rewrite the way item access is handled in PFS. Just as now, the only items that would be always available would be the ones on the Always Available list. However, unlike now you would not be able to purchase any item for which you had sufficient Fame. All items not available through the always available list in the Guide would need to come from Chronicles.

If a PC wanted to purchase an item that was not available to them from either the always available list or on their Chronicles, they'd have to both have sufficient Fame to buy the item and also spend 1 PP for each 1,000 gp in the item's price, minimum of 1 PP for items costing less than 1,000 gp, representing going to their faction and calling in favors to be connected to someone who will craft/provide the magic item that the PC wants. This would also eliminate the 2 PP wand (for which my hate is well documented) and the 1 PP potion/scroll (which annoys me far less, but still shouldn't be), because both of those uses of PP would be subsumed by the new item purchasing rules.

The rule would have two benefits; curbing the absurd power level of PFS PCs relative to the CR system in PFS and increasing the value of Chronicles because suddenly, those boring/uninteresting +2 stat items that *everyone* can buy anyway under the real rules would suddenly become valuable! That should help put to bed the hand-wringing over the value of items on Chronicle sheets. Also, because you're not hoarding for perfectly optimized item purchases (knowing that you can get whatever you want all the time always) players wouldn't feel compelled to skip buying dumb, fluff purchases that are fun but unoptimal in the low to mid tiers of PFS, purchases that are normally reserved only for PCs on the far side of Eyes of the Ten and home game loot. That would be an absolutely awesome side effect, as well.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

Quote:
...ban the name "Bob"

I've been banned? :sniff:

Dark Archive

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Quote:
...ban the name "Bob"
I've been banned? :sniff:

You shall henceforth be known as Ramirez.

Now then... RAMIREZ, disarm those IEDs with your chest hair!

Dark Archive

Cire wrote:
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
downerbeautiful wrote:
nosig wrote:
What about the character with a great ax named "Bob"?

That's right up there with "Barbarian Lockpick." It's tired and degrading. I mean, I'm pretty sure you're just jesting here, but I've come across the situation before.

If you're not going to bother giving the character/weapon/companion a meaningful name, then why bother naming it at all? If you can't come up with a fitting title, then "This is my animal companion; he's a horse. I haven't named him because we haven't found something that sounds good."

Shoo-my characters run around for a level or two before getting named; naming is a delicate process undermined by unimaginative names like the generic "Bob."

Careful there, Downer. You're starting to sound like you're telling people that they're having badwrongfun and your way is the only right way to play.

I hope to one day see a cavalier named Fred riding a mount named Fred... (bonus points if you can name the reference).

I have a cavalier named Johnson, who has a horse named Johnson


Name Violation wrote:
I have a cavalier named Johnson, who has a horse named Johnson

I once knew a man with a wooden leg named Smith.

4/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
I once knew a man with a wooden leg named Smith.

What is the name of the other one?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
I once knew a man with a wooden leg named Smith.
What did he name the other one?

Wesson

Dark Archive

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
I once knew a man with a wooden leg named Smith.
What did he name the other one?
Wesson

Smith & Wesson... Funny, Smith & Wesson insures my home and truck against theft. This fella named Mossberg sometimes helps out as well.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

The Beard wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
I once knew a man with a wooden leg named Smith.
What did he name the other one?
Wesson
Smith & Wesson... Funny, Smith & Wesson insures my home and truck against theft. This fella named Mossberg sometimes helps out as well.

Great lawfirm too. They do weddings and divorces.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The option to play down on a table where you're currently forced to play up.

Reason: Consider a 4 player 5-9 table where you have levels 6,6,8,9 - the APL is 7.25. If it's a tougher scenario, the whole table will struggle, even with 4-player scaling. The reason forced subtiering got put in place was to prevent people playing up all the time with munchkinned characters; that doesn't apply to playing down.

The Exchange 5/5

The Beard wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
I once knew a man with a wooden leg named Smith.
What did he name the other one?
Wesson
Smith & Wesson... Funny, Smith & Wesson insures my home and truck against theft. This fella named Mossberg sometimes helps out as well.

I had a character in LG named "Wesson the Smith"... played him for years. Sadly, no one ever commented...

Grand Lodge

Cire wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:

I would eliminate the 1 xp per scenario abstraction, and use the logical consequences of using real XP values to eliminate the need for the new APL calculation mechanic.

Seasons 0-3 would still require an APL bump to correct for their 4 player assumption.

Closely followed by removing the non-PFRPG core deity requirements.

I actually wouldnt mind that change, however, I disagree with the necessity to change the APL for Seasons 0-3. Want to play it with 6 people? Fine. Just splitting the exp more ways, so everybody gets less. :P
Ok so we have 7 people show up to play. All we can play is a season 0-3. I form a table of 4 so we get maximum xp and tell the other two players sorry? Or do I penalize those that showed up just because they showed up?

Yes, effectively theyd get penalized for 6 of them playing. Playing with 6 is much safer in Seasons 0-3 than playing with 4, so you would get less experience for doing so. Dont want to take that Exp hit? Dont play. :P

Im not saying the system doesnt have its flaws, but this isnt drastically different from how Seasons 4-5 are set up. Its just in the opposite order. Sure, everyone still gets 1xp, but if you have 6 PCs, they have to defeat more stuff to earn that same amount of exp.

Shadow Lodge

Seth Gipson wrote:
Cire wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:

I would eliminate the 1 xp per scenario abstraction, and use the logical consequences of using real XP values to eliminate the need for the new APL calculation mechanic.

Seasons 0-3 would still require an APL bump to correct for their 4 player assumption.

Closely followed by removing the non-PFRPG core deity requirements.

I actually wouldnt mind that change, however, I disagree with the necessity to change the APL for Seasons 0-3. Want to play it with 6 people? Fine. Just splitting the exp more ways, so everybody gets less. :P
Ok so we have 7 people show up to play. All we can play is a season 0-3. I form a table of 4 so we get maximum xp and tell the other two players sorry? Or do I penalize those that showed up just because they showed up?

Yes, effectively theyd get penalized for 6 of them playing. Playing with 6 is much safer in Seasons 0-3 than playing with 4, so you would get less experience for doing so. Dont want to take that Exp hit? Dont play. :P

Im not saying the system doesnt have its flaws, but this isnt drastically different from how Seasons 4-5 are set up. Its just in the opposite order. Sure, everyone still gets 1xp, but if you have 6 PCs, they have to defeat more stuff to earn that same amount of exp.

I'm not sure you've thought that one through.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Avatar-1 wrote:

The option to play down on a table where you're currently forced to play up.

Reason: Consider a 4 player 5-9 table where you have levels 6,6,8,9 - the APL is 7.25. If it's a tougher scenario, the whole table will struggle, even with 4-player scaling. The reason forced subtiering got put in place was to prevent people playing up all the time with munchkinned characters; that doesn't apply to playing down.

In this example, the APL rounds to 7, and the table would play at the 5-6 subtier, but without the small-party adjustment.

Grand Lodge

Avatar-1 wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
Cire wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:

I would eliminate the 1 xp per scenario abstraction, and use the logical consequences of using real XP values to eliminate the need for the new APL calculation mechanic.

Seasons 0-3 would still require an APL bump to correct for their 4 player assumption.

Closely followed by removing the non-PFRPG core deity requirements.

I actually wouldnt mind that change, however, I disagree with the necessity to change the APL for Seasons 0-3. Want to play it with 6 people? Fine. Just splitting the exp more ways, so everybody gets less. :P
Ok so we have 7 people show up to play. All we can play is a season 0-3. I form a table of 4 so we get maximum xp and tell the other two players sorry? Or do I penalize those that showed up just because they showed up?

Yes, effectively theyd get penalized for 6 of them playing. Playing with 6 is much safer in Seasons 0-3 than playing with 4, so you would get less experience for doing so. Dont want to take that Exp hit? Dont play. :P

Im not saying the system doesnt have its flaws, but this isnt drastically different from how Seasons 4-5 are set up. Its just in the opposite order. Sure, everyone still gets 1xp, but if you have 6 PCs, they have to defeat more stuff to earn that same amount of exp.

I'm not sure you've thought that one through.

In what way? Just curious.

BTW, Im not petitioning for a change in the EXP system PFS uses or anything. Im just talking about it for the sake of it. If we did go to it, I dont think it would be all that bad.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

In much the same way that getting your 5th star requires some hoop-jumping in addition to GMing a certain number of tables, I'd institute a checkpoint before getting your 1st star (in addition to having GM'd 10 tables).

If you're new to GMing in general (not just GMing for PFS), you have to attend a GM 101 session to get your first star.

If you're an experienced GM who is transitioning to PFS, you have to do the following:
You must stop GMing your longest-running home campaign for a few sessions while an undisclosed number of people you've never met each take turns running it themselves, using nothing but your own written notes to tell them what the adventure is supposed to be like. After several sessions have been run in your absence — with each guest GM doing who knows what to your plot, NPCs, setting, and the PCs your players have spent years getting invested in — you get to come back and clean up the mess.
Finally, you have to explain to a VO what you've learned and how it will influence your PFS GMing in the future. Recognizing the lesson will get you your first GM star. Failing to get it will result in a 1-year suspension from GMing public PFS games, after which time you can attempt the process again.

--------------------------------------------------

Also, it'd be nice to travel back in time and start the campaign with The Confirmation as the very first published scenario ever. A few factions would exist, having as much mechanical impact on a PC as their choice of homeland. In the new, altered timeline, no one would ever say "You know what would be cool? If my choice of faction was tied to my item access!" because that's something people only say because it's what they were originally used to. Relatedly, players would not be required to pick a faction any more than they're required to pick an ethnicity.

---------------------------------------------------

All of MisterSlanky's PCs spontaneously become kitsune.

---------------------------------------------------

People don't get to post about what ought to be required of GMs or players unless at least 20% of their reported sessions are of that type.

---------------------------------------------------

GM star replays are X/year instead of X/lifetime.

---------------------------------------------------

Maybe allow crafting using a 1PP/day mechanic much like retraining?

---------------------------------------------------

Remove Fame entirely. Keep Prestige as a spendable resource, but remove the Fame side of it, instead making all relevant items Always Available. Alternatively, re-work the chart to make it more meaningful. Currently, it's super-restrictive to non-armor-wearers at low levels and completely irrelevant at higher levels anyway.

---------------------------------------------------

Make a "start at 2nd (3rd?) level" boon.

---------------------------------------------------

Take "just one" out of this thread's title. ;)

The Exchange 5/5

require someone replying with a question with a list of unrelated (to each other) answers, to number those answers... ;)

Why #3?

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

hay Jiggy, I like #8, but let's modify it so that the PC remains at 2nd (or 3rd) level till he has the correct XP to advance past... so the PC is 2nd level till he has 6XP...

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

It's already been mentioned, but do SOMETHING to make the magic items on the Chronicle something to care about. More unique items, more better-than-average or half-charged wands, etc., or a steep discount compared to the price in the CRB. The discount makes sense in-story as well - I'm a Pathfinder agent, I find an item worth 1,000 gp and turn it into my venture captain, she gives me 500 gp. If I want the item, I have to pay full price for it, just like the one sitting on the shelf next to it that someone else found. Why bother risking my neck? Basically, if I skip the gold, I can buy the item I just found for 1/2 price. [sarcasm] Sweet! [/sarcasm] Seems like a policy that is going to cause a lot of agents to under-report what they find. I'd suggest either selling Chronicle items at 50% so it cancels out the gold the Society would pay you for the item, or if you think that's going to flood the market with magic items (I doubt it - but it would lead to a greater variety of non-standard magic items with actual story connections), then make Chronicle items available at 75% CRB price at the most. But do SOMETHING to encourage players to keep/buy/use the magic items they find while adventuring.

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

nosig wrote:

require someone replying with a question with a list of unrelated (to each other) answers, to number those answers... ;)

Why #3?

No particular reason, I am sure. It isn't like the usually very open minded MisterSlanky has a thing against Kitsune. I am sure it cannot be that.

Lantern Lodge

Jiggy wrote:

---------------------------------------------------

GM star replays are X/year instead of X/lifetime.

---------------------------------------------------

I originally thought they were a once a year benefit, but after double checking in the 5.0 guide, you are correct. What a bummer, I concur.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Silbeg wrote:
nosig wrote:

require someone replying with a question with a list of unrelated (to each other) answers, to number those answers... ;)

Why #3?

No particular reason, I am sure. It isn't like the usually very open minded MisterSlanky has a thing against Kitsune. I am sure it cannot be that.

[Insert evil cackling here]

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
I once knew a man with a wooden leg named Smith.
What is the name of the other one?

Peg?

51 to 100 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / If you could change just one PFS rule - what would it be? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.