Master of the Fallen Fortress, Tier 1 or Tier 1-2?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Master of the Fallen Fortress still rewards 1 XP and 0 PP. It isn't going to change.

I'm going to miss Mike's absolutism.

As for the topic at hand, "All other rules for sanctioned module play, found in Chapter 6 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, should be followed." is pretty clear. He didn't say "All other rules, except the one about playing once as a level 2."

Silver Crusade 5/5

Nefreet wrote:

As I stated up thread, there is no meaningful distinction.

A "Tier 1-2 Chronicle" works the same whether it's a scenario (like The Confirmation) or a Module (like We Be Goblins).

A "Tier 1 Chronicle" should work the same whether it's a scenario (like First Steps) or a Module (like Master of the Fallen Fortress).

This! This! A hundred times this!

Every time somebody trots the module v. scenario thing, it just makes me want to start drinking (not that it's that hard to make me drink).

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas

UndeadMitch wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

As I stated up thread, there is no meaningful distinction.

A "Tier 1-2 Chronicle" works the same whether it's a scenario (like The Confirmation) or a Module (like We Be Goblins).

A "Tier 1 Chronicle" should work the same whether it's a scenario (like First Steps) or a Module (like Master of the Fallen Fortress).

This! This! A hundred times this!

Every time somebody trots the module v. scenario thing, it just makes me want to start drinking (not that it's that hard to make me drink).

Drink more, maybe you'll start to understand the difference between scenarios and modules.

From the Guide to Organized Play wrote:
All Tier 1 scenarios and Tier 1–2 sanctioned modules are available for unlimited replay with a 1st-level character for credit. The sanctioned modules may also be played with a 2nd-level character once for credit.

There are no sanctioned Tier 1 Modules. There is a sanctioned Level 1 Module, which is Tier 1-2 because of the way PFS handles module play, which has an antique chronicle which doesn't show level 2 on it.

Note: Anyone have any of the older Guides which defined the level ranges available to play a Module with? It appears that the explanation of legal PFS PC levels for use in a module disappeared sometime between the end of grandfathering the original module play mode, and the current old module play mode.

Jon & Mike: One hopes that you updated the information in the Modules chapter (which is listed on the wrong page in the ToC for Season 6) to include the play mode for the newer 64 page modules, with multiple chronicles, and occasional bonus chronicle.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

There are exactly two Chronicle Sheets available in PFS that say "Tier 1" on them, and you want each of them to be handled differently?

I don't see how that's simplifying things.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas

Nefreet wrote:

There are exactly two Chronicle Sheets available in PFS that say "Tier 1" on them, and you want each of them to be handled differently?

I don't see how that's simplifying things.

Yep, the only Tier 1 Scenario sheet falls under the Scenario rules.

The Tier 1 Module sheet is an antique, and should say Tier 1-2, and should be treated as though it did.

Currently, as noted by this thread, it is neither fish nor fowl, it is not a Tier 1 Scenario, as it is not a scenario, so it doesn't fall under those rules; and it does not say it is a Tier 1-2 Module, so some feel it should not be treated as such, so they think it should not follow the Tier 1-2 Module rules.

Silver Crusade 5/5

And thus I am back to my recommendation that MoFF gets retired. It is more trouble than it is worth. The more we bicker about it, the more likely it becomes (see Pageant of the Peacock, SLA's as prereqs, True Primitive barbarian, et al).

Grand Lodge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UndeadMitch wrote:
And thus I am back to my recommendation that MoFF gets retired. It is more trouble than it is worth. The more we bicker about it, the more likely it becomes (see Pageant of the Peacock, SLA's as prereqs, True Primitive barbarian, et al).

It takes exactly as much effort to say "we are retiring MotFF" as it doesn't to say "it's a 1-2 module."

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think both sides of the issue present reasonable viewpoints. I don't think there's a slam-dunk here for either side. So I am going to play it safe. I won't allow any 2nd-level characters play it at my table, but I'll treat it as a legal Chronicle sheet on 2nd-level PCs I audit.

I admit, that doesn't make much sense, but I'll ask John to consider: if MotFF is designated Tier 1, that we grandfather in any characters who have played it at 2nd level, even if that ruling is considered a clarification.

3/5

As usual, I would oppose the elimination of any of our already limited content. The irony of a proposal to limit a mod to CORE only that was intended to showcase APG classes is not lost on me, either.

The inability of folks to agree on something that they all thinks are obvious and which are all mutually exclusive is hardly a new thing on the internet. Doubly or triply so on the Paizo boards. "It's more trouble than it's worth" is a really low bar and includes the majority of our content if viewed through the lenses of the internet.

-TimD

Scarab Sages 4/5

I can understand why someone would look at the module, the text within the module, and the chronicle sheet and decide it may only be played by a level 1.

I can also (fairly obviously, given my posts) look at the guide and understand why someone would think it can be played once at level 2.

The thing is, there are many examples of the text in the guide superseding the text in a scenario or module. Faction missions, out-of-tier gold, prestige point changes, etc.

Whether or not it's simplest to have a distinction between scenarios and modules, that distinction exists. There are currently separate rules for module play and scenario play which affect more than just the tier. Maybe that is changing with the revisions to the guide, maybe not. In the meantime, the rules in the guide should apply to modules, and per Mike's message from the older thread, Master of the Fallen Fortress is included in that group.

To the point of retiring the module, I'm with TimD. I also think it's more likely that In Service to Lore will be retired once the season 7 Tier 1-2 comes out, since campaign leadership indicated it would eventually be retired because of changes in the society. That would then leave Master of the Fallen Fortress as the only chronicle to list "Tier 1," and at that point I think it becomes much simpler to roll it into the same rules as the other Level 1 modules.

(I don't want to see In Service to Lore retired, but I do think it's going to happen at some point. It includes two faction heads who are no longer faction heads, for one thing).

Silver Crusade 5/5

Honestly, once the season seven replayable comes out, I think we should remove both MoFF and First Steps from play. It's not a matter of removing or limiting play options, as there will still be more than enough options to get people to at least 5xp without using up any scenarios that are not replayable (at least 5 replayables off the top of my head that give 1xp, plus a whole slew of 1-2 Modules).

Neither of the two scenarios are particularly engaging. MoFF is a very basic dungeon crawl with some very unremarkable opponents. First Steps is a fetch the gadget quest featuring factions that don't exist anymore with a final fight that is unreasonably deadly for a scenario meant to be played by 0xp characters (color spray and a raging barbarian with a x3 crit weapon).

Basically, I see no reason to keep an unremarkable module that has caused years of pointless, circular arguments.

3/5

We're going to have to agree to disagree as I think the threshold should be "broken enough to be irreparable and remove" rather than "remarkable enough to keep". Especially as I'd rather see First Steps II & III restored as the faction changes are no more jarring to me from an immersion standpoint than playing Season 0 scenarios after playing more recent ones (Ex. Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch after Rivalry's End) or similar scenarios which reference things which have changed since the campaign timeline has progressed.

-TimD

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to raise a hand in favor of MotFF. It does a good job of introducing the Pathfinder RPG, the island of Kortos and the city of Absalom, and the Pathfinder Society. It also casts the PCs as heroes (rescuers!) rather than errand children. UndeadMitch is spot-on about it being a dungeon crawl, and since "To Delve the Dungeons Deep" was retired, thee are damn few of them left.

For PFS I start by asserting that the PCs are not Pathfinders yet. They're all hopeful applicants at the gates of the Grand Lodge, having come from Desna knows where. And they all get turned away. (I play this out: "Tell us who you are, and where you come from, and why you want to be a Pathfinder agent." "All right. And you (pointing to another player) explain why he gets rejected." All around the table.)

So, they're sitting in a bar in the Coins district, trying to figure out where they should go from here. (The Aspis Consortium might be hiring ....) Suddenly, there's a tremor. Five minutes later, a fellow in a hap-hazard guards uniform comes in, asking if anybody's seen guard captain Antaroth. Seems that one of the formerly-sealed siege towers has partially collapsed, and the guard needs to secure it by morning.

And the PCs always take the bait and light out, hoping to prove themselves to the Society by exploring the tower.

So, when they rescue the bard at the end, and return to Absalom, their admission into the Society is the resolution of an arc.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

TimD wrote:
I'd rather see First Steps II & III restored as the faction changes are no more jarring to me from an immersion standpoint than playing Season 0 scenarios after playing more recent ones .

As general Pathfinder Society adventures, I'd agree with you, Tim. But do they serve as introductions to the campaign? I think they would need updating. (If only to change the little bits of "framing material" about the factions.)

3/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
TimD wrote:
I'd rather see First Steps II & III restored as the faction changes are no more jarring to me from an immersion standpoint than playing Season 0 scenarios after playing more recent ones .
As general Pathfinder Society adventures, I'd agree with you, Tim. But do they serve as introductions to the campaign? I think they would need updating. (If only to change the little bits of "framing material" about the factions.)

I wouldn't mind seeing them updated, to be sure.

However, (at least as far as I know) we've pretty much never seen anything actually updated and re-released that is PFS-specific, other than the Guide. If it were an option, I'd love to see some of the "returned from retirement" scenarios that were run at PaizoCon released back into the wilds of general PFS play (if only to fill holes on my spreadsheet of played / unplayed).
That said, I understand that the Paizo staff has limited resources, though, so would be very surprised if resources at Paizo were diverted to do such an update.

If a Season 7 "repeatable intro series" were in the works, I'd rather see it as something with a slightly different flavor than First Steps / Confirmation, perhaps with PCs actually working for a PF Agent unknowingly and then being recruited into the Society afterwards or a"PCs show skills that make the society want THEM" or some other type of scenario that breaks from "your goal is to join the PF Society, now run errands until we decide you are worthy of our time". Anything which would allow for a player to have thematically different introductions to the Society and yet still be repeatable.

Also, nice intro for MoFF :)

-TimD

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas

TimD wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
TimD wrote:
I'd rather see First Steps II & III restored as the faction changes are no more jarring to me from an immersion standpoint than playing Season 0 scenarios after playing more recent ones .
As general Pathfinder Society adventures, I'd agree with you, Tim. But do they serve as introductions to the campaign? I think they would need updating. (If only to change the little bits of "framing material" about the factions.)

I wouldn't mind seeing them updated, to be sure.

However, (at least as far as I know) we've pretty much never seen anything actually updated and re-released that is PFS-specific, other than the Guide. If it were an option, I'd love to see some of the "returned from retirement" scenarios that were run at PaizoCon released back into the wilds of general PFS play (if only to fill holes on my spreadsheet of played / unplayed).
That said, I understand that the Paizo staff has limited resources, though, so would be very surprised if resources at Paizo were diverted to do such an update.

If a Season 7 "repeatable intro series" were in the works, I'd rather see it as something with a slightly different flavor than First Steps / Confirmation, perhaps with PCs actually working for a PF Agent unknowingly and then being recruited into the Society afterwards or a"PCs show skills that make the society want THEM" or some other type of scenario that breaks from "your goal is to join the PF Society, now run errands until we decide you are worthy of our time". Anything which would allow for a player to have thematically different introductions to the Society and yet still be repeatable.

Also, nice intro for MoFF :)

-TimD

Nice idea.

On your "updated and re-released" list, you need to add in Mists of Mwangi, scenario 5 from Season 0, which was updated to PFRPG rules. Last I heard, there were still plans to update all the Season 0 scenarios, or at least the ones that weren't retired, to PFRPG rules.

Also, IIRC, the original version of the first Exclusive, the Midnight Mauler, had some serious changes when it got released as a normal scenario the next season, among other things changing it from a 1-7 to a 3-7....

Dark Archive 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

There is no need for a FAQ.

JJF's original post linked above was obsoleted by the text in the current version of the Guide (which text is largely similar in the Guide you'll see soon, though there's that We Be Goblins Free thing in the list now too). The text in the guide being an explicit enumeration overrides JJF's prior post.

It's a module. It's treated as other modules for level 1 characters.

MAYBE John can schedule an InDesign update on that PDF and post for mid-August.... But I'd rather he was working on getting sanctioning for more APs, personally.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Not everyone agrees on that interpretation of the Guide's text, though.

This thread (and the one from last year) should be evident of that.

A quick pop in this thread confirming or denying that would be an easy way to end the debate either way.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Or it would give us one more thread to be linked to and picked apart years later when the wording in the Guide inevitably changes.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Mystic Lemur wrote:
Master of the Fallen Fortress still rewards 1 XP and 0 PP. It isn't going to change.

I'm going to miss Mike's absolutism.

As for the topic at hand, "All other rules for sanctioned module play, found in Chapter 6 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, should be followed." is pretty clear. He didn't say "All other rules, except the one about playing once as a level 2."

(Bolding, mine.)

Except it did change, didn't it?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas

Nefreet wrote:

Not everyone agrees on that interpretation of the Guide's text, though.

This thread (and the one from last year) should be evident of that.

A quick pop in this thread confirming or denying that would be an easy way to end the debate either way.

Just as an FYI, Nefreet, TetsujinOni is the person who Mike Brock thanked on the boards recently for helping get the Season 7 version of the Guide updated....

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I should point out some text from the module itself that everyone seems to have overlooked...

Master of the Fallen Fortress, page 3 wrote:
Master of the Fallen Fortress is a Pathfinder Module designed for four 1st-level characters and uses the medium XP advancement track. Master of the Fallen Fortress is also a Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for 1st-level characters (Tier 1).

Bolded for emphasis. Yes, it is a module, but it was sanctioned as a scenario, not a module, meaning the scenario rules apply, not the module rules. That means it is unquestionably Tier 1, and falls under the "Tier 1 Exception" replay rules.

Now, if someone REALLY wants to nit-pick those replay rules, I should also point out that both The Confirmation and The Wounded Wisp are Tier 1-2 scenarios. If the Guide specifying that the replay rules apply Tier 1 scenarios and Tier 1-2 modules, these scenarios wouldn't be replayable, but they have explicitly been stated as falling under this rule, so clearly such a strict interpretation is clearly not intended. If it's Tier 1 or Tier 1-2, you can pretty much assume it's replayable, whether it's a scenario, module, or Adventure Path.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

kinevon wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Not everyone agrees on that interpretation of the Guide's text, though.

This thread (and the one from last year) should be evident of that.

A quick pop in this thread confirming or denying that would be an easy way to end the debate either way.

Just as an FYI, Nefreet, TetsujinOni is the person who Mike Brock thanked on the boards recently for helping get the Season 7 version of the Guide updated.

Well aware, but I don't see how that has any bearing on this. It's the same text that existed before he helped on the Season 7 Guide.

Now, if he's aware of new text, or further clarifications, then that changes things, obviously.

Scarab Sages 4/5

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

James, that language from the module was, again, well before any sanctioned modules existed. With the revision to the guide for season 4, MoFF was explicitly added to the list of sanctioned modules in the section on sanctioned modules, with a list of rules to follow. It appears in the modules section of the store. As Mike stated in the message quoted above, changes were made to how MoFF works to bring it in line with the other free rpg day modules (including the change to prestige). It could have been lumped in with the scenarios at that point, but it wasn't. It was placed with the modules, where it is still explicitly listed, and where according to TestujinOni it will continue to be listed. So, once again, I believe referring to the most recent Guide to Organized Play and following the rules set out there is the correct thing to do, as the text in the scenario itself is obsolete.

I would love to consider TestsujinOni's response as official, and I have no doubt that the text was discussed with Mike when the guide was revised. I know that not everyone will accept that, though, so I still think a message from Mike or John just saying yes or no to whether a level 2 can play would be appropriate.

Right now there are either players being denied the opportunity to play the scenario when they shouldn't be or being allowed to play the scenario when they shouldn't be, and neither of those is a good situation. As far as table variation goes, this is a much worse situation than a GM having a different interpretation of a particular rule, because it affects mustering tables and includes the possibility of someone being sent home from a game day (or having to play a pregen instead of their own character), or of someone showing up with what might be an illegal chronicle if they have played it at level 2 and that isn't allowed. So I do think an answer from the campaign would be worthwhile.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Ferious Thune wrote:

James, that language from the module was, again, well before any sanctioned modules existed. With the revision to the guide for season 4, MoFF was explicitly added to the list of sanctioned modules in the section on sanctioned modules, with a list of rules to follow. It appears in the modules section of the store. As Mike stated in the message quoted above, changes were made to how MoFF works to bring it in line with the other free rpg day modules (including the change to prestige). It could have been lumped in with the scenarios at that point, but it wasn't. It was placed with the modules, where it is still explicitly listed, and where according to TestujinOni it will continue to be listed. So, once again, I believe referring to the most recent Guide to Organized Play and following the rules set out there is the correct thing to do, as the text in the scenario itself is obsolete.

I would love to consider TestsujinOni's response as official, and I have no doubt that the text was discussed with Mike when the guide was revised. I know that not everyone will accept that, though, so I still think a message from Mike or John just saying yes or no to whether a level 2 can play would be appropriate.

Right now there are either players being denied the opportunity to play the scenario when they shouldn't be or being allowed to play the scenario when they shouldn't be, and neither of those is a good situation. As far as table variation goes, this is a much worse situation than a GM having a different interpretation of a particular rule, because it affects mustering tables and includes the possibility of someone being sent home from a game day (or having to play a pregen instead of their own character), or of someone showing up with what might be an illegal chronicle if they have played it at level 2 and that isn't allowed. So I do think an answer from the campaign would be worthwhile.

This enumerates the logic of why anything referring to guides, or prior board posts is getting "Yeah, and, read the guide for the current rule" has been my response since the GenCon 2012 guide....

If you read further in the thread with the old Mike post, the suggestion to explicitly list the Free RPG Day Modules that are sanctioned as modules but award 1 xp / 1 gp / printed gold was made in that thread, and adopted.

... I wonder if it would be good or bad to flag that post of Mike's for deletion....

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

I don't know why anybody would expect to show up with a level 2 and play MotFF anyways.

This is a discussion being had amongst people experienced with the rules. Newbies probably aren't going to know about the fineries of forum debates. They'll hear "level 1", read "level 1", and see "level 1" on the Chronicle, and would probably have no clue that a level 2 would even be considered.

Scarab Sages 4/5

They would ask their event organizer or look at the sign up page where it lists the levels that can play. The problem right now is that the experienced players, venture captains, and event organizers don't know how to respond.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

When in doubt, go with the conservative approach (which is supported by all the points I listed out earlier).

It's quite a jump to eschew everything and assume a level 2 is allowed. People doing so should be in the minority.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

And a bit of an off-topic rant:
We have an organizer in our area that really hates when players come to the table with the intention of "spanking a scenario" (his words, but I echo his sentiments). For example, if a Tier 5-9 is scheduled, and five players bring level 5's but one player brings a level 9, he'll actively refuse to seat that player, or force them to use a level 7 pregen (have had this experience twice with him now, once with me as having the level 9).

Although I actively disagree with him turning away players that are bringing legal characters to a game, his actions are the result of players in the past abusing out-of-tier play and ruining scenarios for the other players at the table. Call it a "lack of social grace", or what-have-you, but his policy was born out of powergamers looking for every opportunity to turn a game into a cakewalk.

I can't help but think that there's some of that going on here in this thread. We all know that MotFF was designed for level 1's, and as an introductory for brand new characters. Bringing a level 2 would be "spanking the scenario". I'd bet money that the organizer in our area still wouldn't allow a level 2 at his table, even if it was specifically enumerated in the Guide. Although I'd be obligated to allow such a character, I can imagine having an echo of his voice in the back of my head for the duration of the session.

4/5

Nefreet wrote:
It's quite a jump to eschew everything and assume a level 2 is allowed. People doing so should be in the minority.

But the fact of the matter is we aren't eschewing everything because we are using the rules for module and applying it to this, which is how it works for every other free RPG day module. And whether it is a minority or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is correct. I would argue with this much ambiguity as evidenced by this thread, there isn't a "correct" stance at this point.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

It's already been established that there is disagreement, and that both sides are lacking clear proof. Why do you have such a bone to pick with this one? Why is everyone who doesn't agree with you so clearly wrong in your eyes? You aren't going to play or run it with a level 2 unless you get clarification to the contrary (and, I suspect, not even then). Stellar. The issue seems to be resolved on your end.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

I addressed that in two other posts.

I'd happily add 1xp to four of my level 2 characters (2 in Core, 2 in regular). And I'd be obligated to include any level 2 that showed up to play, regardless of my feeling son the matter.

Scarab Sages 4/5

It's not about power gaming, or a desire for power gaming. It's about not wanting to see a play option removed. I'm not looking for or advising that an entire party of level 2s run through it. But sometimes being able to put a single level 2 in with a group of new characters is the difference between finding a game everyone can play and sending someone home.

recent example:
There's a local group getting ready to go through Plunder & Peril. One of the players needed a single XP on his level 2 character to get it into tier for the module. He had played in this order The Confirmation, Godsmouth Heresy, and Out of Anarchy. We were trying to schedule a special session so he could get his character to level 3. We had six players plus a GM who were already showing up to play a 7-11 with different characters, so we decided to run something after that game. That particular group has difficulty finding a 1-5 that they all can play. With me running, our options were MoFF, We Be Goblins, and Wounded Wisp. Others in the group were happy to start new characters, but not everyone in the group likes goblins. So that left MoFF and Wounded Wisp. We settled on Wounded Wisp, because I hadn't run that one yet and wanted to, but in an even slightly more complicated situation, that might not have been an option. If the player that needed credit had played WW at level 2 with another character, for example, we'd have been left with WBG and MoFF. We ended up not having time to run anything, because the 7-11 went 6 hours, so he's still trying to fit in a game before Saturday. Having fewer options means having fewer games people can play in.

Situations like that are part of the reason why tier 1-2 was created in the first place.

EDIT: I should have prefaced this message to say for me, this is the reason. Didn't mean to imply I was speaking for The Fox or anyone else. If I did, I apologize.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Who doesn't allow higher level characters in Tier appropriate games? Probably should text me with this info. "Praise in public, discipline in private" to paraphrase our glorious leader..

As one of your VO's and an occasional organizer, I strongly discourage a level 9, in a 5-6 tier game, with all other characters lower level. Even aware players like yourself unintentionally overwhelm encounters, and while you make sure to share the spotlight, many of our players do not.

However, I don't think I've turned anyone away other than a 7th player or illegal character.

I usually allow the 7th, but if the table doesn't want a 7th...

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Nefreet wrote:

I addressed that in two other posts.

I'd happily add 1xp to four of my level 2 characters (2 in Core, 2 in regular).

You can't do that.

Replayable tier 1-2 scenarios/modules only let you play once at level 2, so you'd be able to add 1XP to at most two of your characters (one core, one non-core).

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

1 person marked this as a favorite.

He's referring to 2 play credits and 2 GM credits, one in each campaign.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

^ that.

It means getting 4 extra characters to level 3 with just replayables.

1st XP, replayable 1-2 scenario
2nd XP, replayable 1-2 scenario
3-5 XP, replayable 1-2 module
6th XP, replayable 1-2 scenario

That's why I have so many characters around level 4-5. They all reached level 3 virtually the same way.

Opening up MotFF means 4 of my 2.2 characters can move on to 3.0 without eating up other scenarios.

Grand Lodge 4/5

I thought you could only play and GM Tier 1-2 with a level 2 only once.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

You play and GM once in Normal and once in Core.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas

Nefreet wrote:

When in doubt, go with the conservative approach (which is supported by all the points I listed out earlier).

It's quite a jump to eschew everything and assume a level 2 is allowed. People doing so should be in the minority.

Equally, it is quite a jump to assume that the rules in the Guide for modules listed as Level 1 don't apply to modules listed as Level 1.

Spoiler:
On you ridea that a level 2 would "spank" MotFF, I disagree. It is quite a dangerous module, and can easily kill a party of all levels ones.

Consider the flaming skeletons, which do damage if you are standing next to them to fight them in melee, then explode when destroyed. For a bunch of all first level PCs, with limited hit points and healing resources, that one encounter can end their night.

Add in the possibility of 3 or more of the party potentially taking 8d6 falling damage, and it can get deadly, quickly.

Note well, if you consider Josh's old post, IIRC, he required that you could only play MotFF with brand, spanking, new PCs, 0 XP, so no PP, no wands of CLW, maybe, maybe a few potions of CLW, if someone can afford to spend 1/3 of their starting gold on a single consumable, but for said party, it can get ugly, really, really fast in there, especially if they don't have someone who can heal fairly well.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
You play and GM once in Normal and once in Core.

You could, if you really, really, wanted to, get a fifth 2nd level PC credit, but that would require using a GM Star Replay to do.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I was preparing to run Master of the Fallen Fortress, and happened upon this thread.

So, now, I have some questions:

1) What level PCs are allowed to play this Module?

2) How many different PCs can one player play through this Module(not at the same time, of course)?

3) How many different PCs can a GM apply credit to with this Module?

4) Is there a XP/Fame restriction?

5) What should I ignore/update on the Chronicle Sheet?

Silver Crusade 3/5

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I was preparing to run Master of the Fallen Fortress, and happened upon this thread.

So, now, I have some questions:


    1) What level PCs are allowed to play this Module?
    1st-level characters definitely can play. We don't know yet about 2nd-level characters.

    2) How many different PCs can one player play through this Module(not at the same time, of course)?
    As many 1st-level characters they want. Either zero or one 2nd-level character; we don't know which yet.

    3) How many different PCs can a GM apply credit to with this Module?
    As many 1st-level characters they want. Either zero or one 2nd-level character; we don't know which yet.

    4) Is there a XP/Fame restriction?
    I don't know what you mean. Characters earn 1 XP and 1 prestige/fame.

    5) What should I ignore/update on the Chronicle Sheet?
    Nothing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, you can only apply credit to a PC with 0 XP and 0 Fame?

There is a lot of, confusion, being put forth here.

Silver Crusade 3/5

blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, you can only apply credit to a PC with 0 XP and 0 Fame?

I'm sorry if I led you to that conclusion. That is not true.

The Exchange 5/5

For #5 there is a problem with the price on the wand ... It should cost tree times what is
Listed...

Shadow Lodge 4/5

And the price listed is what we go by. If I've been told not to change anything, even for errors, then I don't change anything.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Has this question been answered yet?

Is Master of the Fallen Fortress Tier 1 or Tier 1-2?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

Just run it at 1st level only until it gets clarified further.

51 to 100 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Master of the Fallen Fortress, Tier 1 or Tier 1-2? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.