|
Stop giving VO's Free Scenarios for Game days, make them/GMs buy them just like anyone else so maybe scenarios will actually make some money for Paizo.
You have evidence/information that Paizo doesn't make money off of the sale of PFS Scenarios? My *guess* is that it's far from a cash cow, but actually does produce self-sustaining numbers + perhaps a small margin -- no data to support that, again, just a guess.
|
|
People already have countless ways to troll townsfolk if they really want to. Giving them one more option probably won't make that big of a difference, I figure.
'Troll townsfolk'? How about the issue of doing unspeakable things to the verisimilitude of the setting? As far as I can tell, in most societies in Golarion (Geb defn being an exception), raising corpses of former sentients (or even animals) is TABOO (just like corpse defilement is in almost every real world culture, past and present!). In my not so humble opinion, players already have enough ways to feel like 'special unique snowflakes' in PFS play without taking the setting from 'pulpy' flavored to that like some of the silly MMO's I've played.
You already GET the thrill of playing that Dr. Frankenstein-like character that bends the laws of life so that you may create the UNLIVING. You also get the flavor value of seeing almost all NPC's (and many PC's) that happen to see you using these types of necromancy have looks of shock and revulsion at your actions. They FEAR you. FEAR YOU. DRINK THAT FEAR IN. REVEL IN IT. (And get ready to run in case they have enough friends close at hand, such that the torches and pitchforks come out.) :-)
Allow PCs to have large sized guns. Unwieldy? Check. Take more time to reload? Check. Cool looking? Check.
|
People already have countless ways to troll townsfolk if they really want to. Giving them one more option probably won't make that big of a difference, I figure.'Troll townsfolk'? How about the issue of doing unspeakable things to the verisimilitude of the setting? As far as I can tell, in most societies in Golarion (Geb defn being an exception), raising corpses of former sentients (or even animals) is TABOO (just like corpse defilement is in almost every real world culture, past and present!). In my not so humble opinion, players already have enough ways to feel like 'special unique snowflakes' in PFS play without taking the setting from 'pulpy' flavored to that like some of the silly MMO's I've played.
You already GET the thrill of playing that Dr. Frankenstein-like character that bends the laws of life so that you may create the UNLIVING. You also get the flavor value of seeing almost all NPC's (and many PC's) that happen to see you using these types of necromancy have looks of shock and revulsion at your actions. They FEAR you. FEAR YOU. DRINK THAT FEAR IN. REVEL IN IT. (And get ready to run in case they have enough friends close at hand, such that the torches and pitchforks come out.) :-)
Meanwhile in Qadira: "So Bob, did you manage to get your mummies up and running yet?" "Huh? Oh yeah, we took care of that last night; the tombs are now well protected against invaders. Isn't raising the dead such a wonderful ability?"
People get to keep their weapons and armor between scenarios, do they not? These undead cost hard earned gold, and there is no time limit on the animate dead spell. In fact, the spell's description goes out of its way to make note of these creatures obeying you indefinitely. Adding it to the list of spells allowed to persist between scenarios would cause no harm at all. On top of that... Did I not mention earlier in that post you quoted a small part of that people probably SHOULDN'T be taking the dead into town? That thought process still stands. A necromancer that flaunts its power probably deserves to be burned at the stake; well, depending on where it is.
|
I disagree. Permanent animate dead would lead to people getting the best corpses from every scenario and it would lead to further unbalance. If you animate a few thugs, no big deal. If you animate the big combat monster of that scenario, still not really a big deal because you have to beat it first. But if you can take the combat monster from one scenario and use it to roflstomp the next scenario you play, how can you balance for that?
Also, it turns animating necromancers into the next master summoners, flooding the map with creautres they might not even have stats for, slowing things down for everyone.
|
|
While I love animating, both in and out of PFS, I admit that taking the creatures to the next scenario would be unbalancing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule of who runs the campaign.
Every October, Mike Brock steps down and appoints me as the head of PFS. For one month, I get to make all the rules. If nothing else, it'll be amusing.
Especially once every single monster in the game has a single level of synthesist.
|
|
While I love animating, both in and out of PFS, I admit that taking the creatures to the next scenario would be unbalancing.
** spoiler omitted **
Pardon how horribly fragmented that idea was in the spoiler. Sometimes I have to pretend to care about something else going on around me while typing.....
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule of who runs the campaign.
Every October, Mike Brock steps down and appoints me as the head of PFS. For one month, I get to make all the rules. If nothing else, it'll be amusing.
Especially once every single monster in the game has a single level of synthesist.
Synthesist/Gunslinger/Monks with Crane Wing. Let's do it.
|
|
I disagree. Permanent animate dead would lead to people getting the best corpses from every scenario and it would lead to further unbalance. If you animate a few thugs, no big deal. If you animate the big combat monster of that scenario, still not really a big deal because you have to beat it first. But if you can take the combat monster from one scenario and use it to roflstomp the next scenario you play, how can you balance for that?
Also, it turns animating necromancers into the next master summoners, flooding the map with creautres they might not even have stats for, slowing things down for everyone.
I am actually inclined to agree with you on that second point. There would need to be a limit of between one and three undead you're allowed to keep in your possession at any given time, I think. The first point I honestly don't see the problem with; that super powerful monster you've got at level whatever will become a joke the second you move up to the next tier. ... Well, I guess there are a few exceptions that line of thought.
I'm looking at you,The alternative would be to lower the price of creating and controlling undead to reflect that WBL calculations are waaaaayyy above our paygrade in PFS. I mean, I understand that necromancy is supposed to be frowned upon in most of Golarion, but it's still allowed within the rules very easily. I guess for now we'll keep getting lots of mileage out of Blood Money. :P
Synthesist/Gunslinger/Monks with Crane Wing. Let's do it.
Now why would you go and do a thing like that? You completely forgot the magus component! It's clear to me that the gunslinger aspect (definitely pistolero + monkey belt) is actually a bladebound magus. Its weapon qualifies due to all that duct tape holding a blade on the underside of the barrel; contains no less cheese than some of the other mechanics present.
|
I miss faction missions as they where. I would like to have them back. They gave color and backround to the scenarios, adding fun to the sessions
In general, as both GM and player, not really.
I swear, my PCs have completed about as many faction missions incidentally, while actually concentrating on the actual Pathfinder mission, as they have by doing the, "Are we there yet?" scattershot method.
Had one faction mission which was not to kill someone who was under the mdomination of an outsider. We completed that one by not fighting the CG clerics (of the same god my PC was a follower of) who had been Charmed to kick us out of the temple. Because that is so subtle, I was still looking for the dominated person not to kill for all the rest of the scenario, until the GM told us that we had both PP for our missions. Fun? Meh.
|
|
There's nothing stopping you from doing that. You can (as most NPC's do) venerate multiple deities as appropriate. The only restriction is that you can (like Elric) only choose one to be your patron.remove the monotheistic rules....
In a polytheistic world (one with more than one god), people are required to only worship one god.
PCs should be able to worship any/all the gods, or at least any that will except them.
Note to self: next character will wade into battle crying "Blood and souls for my Lord Arioch!" (Which will be awkward, because there's a character that occasionally visits my area whose name is Arioch.)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd remove the evil restriction and have games tailored to a faction who's working against the Society. You wouldn't battle actual players, but you could come across the occasional named venture captain.
So your one change would be that you'd be playing a different campaign?
|
|
I would introduce a halfling faction that secretly aims to overthrow the world order and overcome the human overlords. Perhaps they would even ally with drow or somesuch. They would be way cooler than the Shadow Lodge in every way of course.
I mean, look where that human reign led the world, devils in cheliax, the worldwound, psychopathic murderers in Andor, no good where you look.
|
|
I would introduce a halfling faction that secretly aims to overthrow the world order and overcome the human overlords. Perhaps they would even ally with drow or somesuch. They would be way cooler than the Shadow Lodge in every way of course.
I mean, look where that human reign led the world, devils in cheliax, the worldwound, psychopathic murderers in Andor, no good where you look.
I would argue the world wound is more a god trying to destroy the world than the fault of humans.
|
|
I would argue the world wound is more a god trying to destroy the world than the fault of humans.I would introduce a halfling faction that secretly aims to overthrow the world order and overcome the human overlords. Perhaps they would even ally with drow or somesuch. They would be way cooler than the Shadow Lodge in every way of course.
I mean, look where that human reign led the world, devils in cheliax, the worldwound, psychopathic murderers in Andor, no good where you look.
I would further follow that up by arguing that elves have done as much, if not more, damage to Golarion than humans.
|
|
Change the retraining rules so that, instead of requiring prestige, allow one retrained option (except added HP, I guess) between scenarios for free.
If you want more than one option retrained, any additional retraining beyond the first retraining you do follows the current rule that cost prestige points.
It's not even a big deal if you cheat the system by, say, when retraining 2 options, you choose the higher-cost option to be free and the lower-cost option to be prestige paid.
|
|
One thing I would probably change/allow is for some way to create higher level legal characters. maybe something like after you have gotten a single character to say 7th level or higher you can then have the option to start out a new character at level 2. Having a GM Stars might then increase that. 1-2 Stars allows for a 3rd level starting character, 3-4 Stars a 4th level starting character, and (maybe) 5 Stars a 5th level starting character.
Such characters would start out with 150 gp, plus
2nd -> 3 XP, 5 Fame/PP, and +1,300 gp
3rd -> 6 XP, 10 Fame/PP, and +2,600 gp
4th -> 9 XP, 15 Fame/PP, and +5,800 gp
5th -> 12 XP, 20 Fame/PP, and +11,000 gp
I just get tired of replaying so much 1st - 3rd level. To me, it's probably the least fun range to play in or to DM for, where past level 3ish is when you can start to really make a character that fits into the design and RP goal one might set for it. Starts to finally be able to do things, but that's just my opinion.
|
|
Thats what DM credits are for!
That and getting over the hump from 6-7.
True to a point. A lot of the trouble I find is that I run low on low level options as we get more new players. Many of my characters are primarily built through GM Credit, sometimes past the point where I can actually play them in groups when I do get to play (too high level for the newer low level players), so just being able to start out at 2nd or 3 level with no Chronicles would be nice, (for me).
DM Beckett, it already works out that way. If I have 2 GM stars, I've GMed 30 scenarios. If 6 of those were low-tier, I can apply that GM credit to a character and start her at 3rd Level.
True, and I get that. The issue I'm starting to have is running out of things to run that a given group can mostly play for credit as we get new players. It tends to put the players that have played longer locked at 5th-7th as we wait for the new players to catch up more, which means we keep making new starter characters, and then getting up to 3rdish, and start over as even more new players come. The more we do that, the less options we can then play as a group, etc. . .
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
All right. I guess I don't see how "GMs can start a character at 3rd or 4th level" would necessarily get through that roadblock.
It sounds to me, and I could be off-base here, that you're getting new players in, and also retaining the older players. Is thee a reason they all have to play at the same table?
|
|
All right. I guess I don't see how "GMs can start a character at 3rd or 4th level" would necessarily get through that roadblock.
It sounds to me, and I could be off-base here, that you're getting new players in, and also retaining the older players. Is thee a reason they all have to play at the same table?
Small player base, small play area,
But yeah, 2 tables is almost a must.
|
|
All right. I guess I don't see how "GMs can start a character at 3rd or 4th level" would necessarily get through that roadblock.
It sounds to me, and I could be off-base here, that you're getting new players in, and also retaining the older players. Is thee a reason they all have to play at the same table?
Mostly because it's a weekly home game sort of set up. Many of us deploy, so switching up DM's and players is fairly common.
Also, keep in mind this is a "If I could change one thing" sort of what if, rather than a rule I want changed on the more seriously side. :)
|
|
Maybe that could be another reward for GM stars: whenever you create a new character, you can start at a level equal to your number of GM stars.
That's what I was thinking, but was wanting it to be a little more restricted, too. To avoid it being too common, and also to avoid people trying to push through a certain number of games just to "unlock" that and not caring about the actual game or experience itself. If such a thing where allowed, I think it should be just as much a reward of getting a character up in levels as GM Stars. Maybe even having a character at 9th level, or even retired, AND also GM stars.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe that could be another reward for GM stars: whenever you create a new character, you can start at a level equal to your number of GM stars.
I think "Characters start at a level equal to your number of GM stars (minimum 1)" would be a fantastic new rule. :D
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Maybe that could be another reward for GM stars: whenever you create a new character, you can start at a level equal to your number of GM stars.That's what I was thinking, but was wanting it to be a little more restricted, too. To avoid it being too common, and also to avoid people trying to push through a certain number of games just to "unlock" that and not caring about the actual game or experience itself. If such a thing where allowed, I think it should be just as much a reward of getting a character up in levels as GM Stars. Maybe even having a character at 9th level, or even retired, AND also GM stars.
If you had it where starting level = stars, then there's no benefit until 2 stars, which is 30 games. Nobody's going to GM 30 tables just to be able to start churning out 2nd-level PCs. People don't game the system if it's not profitable to do so.
|
|
I think "Characters start at a level equal to your number of GM stars (minimum 1)" would be a fantastic new rule. :D
Should it be a single character, or an option for all characters for that GM from then on?
Or somewhere in the middle, like one character per GM Star can start at a higher level (equal to the GM star at the time)?
|
I do actually like the idea, though I would rather it be in conjunction with the present replay rule: basically, x number of times where x is equal to your GM stars, you may replay/re-GM a scenario for credit or start a PC at a level equal to your number of GM stars. Either uses up a star. So if you have three stars, you can replay up to 3 times, re-GM up to three times, or start up to three PCs at 3rd level — or any combination of those options, as long as you don't exceed 3.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, and I get that. The issue I'm starting to have is running out of things to run that a given group can mostly play for credit as we get new players. It tends to put the players that have played longer locked at 5th-7th as we wait for the new players to catch up more, which means we keep making new starter characters, and then getting up to 3rdish, and start over as even more new players come. The more we do that, the less options we can then play as a group, etc. . .
This here is pretty much the story of PFS. When new players keep coming in, and everyone is fully accommodated for (as in, no one replays for zero XP or plays a pregen), this is what happens.
If you want to get out of the low tiers, at some point, you'll just have to hold 5-9 and 7-11 tables, and the new players will have to either play a pregen or wait. If 5-9 never happens, then your group won't ever play it.
-Matt
|
|
True, and I get that. The issue I'm starting to have is running out of things to run that a given group can mostly play for credit as we get new players. It tends to put the players that have played longer locked at 5th-7th as we wait for the new players to catch up more, which means we keep making new starter characters, and then getting up to 3rdish, and start over as even more new players come. The more we do that, the less options we can then play as a group, etc. . .This here is pretty much the story of PFS. When new players keep coming in, and everyone is fully accommodated for (as in, no one replays for zero XP or plays a pregen), this is what happens.
If you want to get out of the low tiers, at some point, you'll just have to hold 5-9 and 7-11 tables, and the new players will have to either play a pregen or wait. If 5-9 never happens, then your group won't ever play it.
-Matt
It's more of a home game issue, or when I am deployed. I'm not complaining either, some just asked me the why for the idea of starting beyond level one. Kicking out the level 4 and belows would usually mean no one plays (not enough bodied for the high level tier).
