Searching Low Level Scenario with Ghost Touch weapon

[FLite]

There are also some scenarios that have some very significant boons (As in several thousand gp equivalent that are beneficial to *any* character.)

Such a database would let people stack all those onto a single character.

[Ryzoken]

Lab_Rat wrote:

It comes down to this: knowing the items on a chronicle ahead of time tells you a vast amount of information about what is in the scenario. Scrolls of X tell you that you will face a spellcaster with an ability to cast said scroll. A potion of invisibility tells you that an enemy may be invisible and you should get something to counter it. A rapier of ghost touch tells you that you will face some form of dex based fighting class that may be crit fishing and that the ability to attack incorporeal creatures may be important. I could go on and on and on. The point is, items on the chronicle tell you WAY WAY WAY more about the encounters in the scenario than any player needs to know.

Not necessarily. There's plenty of scenarios where those things show up in random loot caches or are given to you by the VC or other NPC at the start, not on actual enemies. And anyway, you should be preparing to face those enemies in general. I don't generally play characters in PFS that can't solve for invis past level 3 or solve for fly past level 5, for instance.

[Ryzoken]

FLite wrote:

There are also some scenarios that have some very significant boons (As in several thousand gp equivalent that are beneficial to *any* character.)

Such a database would let people stack all those onto a single character.

Which is already possible. Of course, we won't go into how those scenarios may be more dangerous than others or how putting all your eggs in one basket makes for a sour experience when said basket eats an unrecoverable character death or simply retires.

[kinevon]

Ryzoken wrote:

Acedio wrote:

Feel free to scenario farm then, I guess?

So if you're in a small playgroup who doesn't have the playerbase to go through a scenario more than once, you're just screwed?

Or, we could solve the actual issue of information restriction via a crowdsourced databank of spoiler free chronicle content made available openly and stop demonizing people for wanting to make informed decisions on how they spend their time.

Welcome to the Internet, where you can, easily, find enough players to run Scenario or Module Z online, either in real time via VTT like Roll20 or FG2, or over a period of days to weeks via PbP.

Note that, among other people here, I have had experience of just such a document, for LFR, and that it had serious effects on game play and scenario selection. (Did I just do a "Summon Drogon" spell?)

[Imbicatus]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Reading the scenario before running it is cheating

You must either have a lot of cheaters or a lot of unprepared GMs in your area then...

[Nefreet]

Running scenarios cold is just more hard core.

[Ryzoken]

Nefreet wrote:

Running scenarios cold is just more hard core.

I run all my scenarios cold

This was not a joke, even when I read through them in advance I can't remember what I read the next day.

[Nefreet]

For me, it's akin to a Wizard preparing spells.

I sleep for 8 hours, memorize what I need, and expend it that evening, with no recollection of what I just did the next day.

[blackbloodtroll]

I am not sure if I should repeat everything that was also on the thread I linked.

I at least know, that for some reason, I shouldn't suggest anyone actually go there, read what has already been written, and comment there.

I have no idea why I shouldn't do that, but apparently that is a bad thing too.

[kinevon]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am not sure if I should repeat everything that was also on the thread I linked.

I at least know, that for some reason, I shouldn't suggest anyone actually go there, read what has already been written, and comment there.

I have no idea why I shouldn't do that, but apparently that is a bad thing too.

That is not what is being said. What was said is that, given the subject of this thread, the comments are also appropriate here, for the OP's perusal.

[redward]

Ryzoken wrote:

Acedio wrote:

Feel free to scenario farm then, I guess?

So if you're in a small playgroup who doesn't have the playerbase to go through a scenario more than once, you're just screwed?

Or, we could solve the actual issue of information restriction via a crowdsourced databank of spoiler free chronicle content made available openly and stop demonizing people for wanting to make informed decisions on how they spend their time.

It comes down to this:

Campaign management (AKA, the GM) makes a decision on how much they want players to know ahead of time in their idealized play setting*.
*meaning: all players running the scenario fresh, the GM is well-prepared, everyone is maintaining an appropriate level of hygiene, etc.

Currently, that information is limited to the descriptive blurb, the level range, and whether the scenario "contributes to the ongoing storyline of XYZ".

You (general 'you', not 'you=Ryzoken') as a player decide whether you agree to those terms. If you do not, you have three options:
a) petition the GM (AKA campaign management) for a change
b) ignore their preference and do what you want
c) opt out of organized play

Option b is cheating. If your home GM asks you not to read the new Bestiary because he wants the monster to be a surprise and you ignore him, that's willfully cheating. If you sneak into the GM's house and look through his notes to find out what's in the BBEG's treasure chest, that's cheating and breaking and entering. And, IMO, that's reading the Chronicle Sheet. Just because they're widely available doesn't mean it's okay.

Some people don't like any surprises, so they read the entire scenario before they play it. That's also cheating. But it's really just a matter of degrees. As many, many, many people have said, the items and boons on a chronicle sheet offer a lot more knowledge than mere potential rewards.

Also, as many, many, many people have said, if you find out something would be a better fit for a different character, GM the scenario and apply the credit appropriately. I know that's not a preferred option for people who don't like to GM. You know what, though? I like to play a lot more than I like to GM and I've still run 90+ games.

OTOH, if you have one or a few regular GM(s), I don't think there's anything wrong with them saying "hey, you should consider switching to your Swashbuckler for this" and leaving it at that. It's vague enough to not give anything away while giving you the chance to get a beneficial item or boon.

[blackbloodtroll]

I noted before:

A friend may want to show you this cool thing he/she got on a chronicle sheet, or tries to ask you how something on a chronicle sheet works.
You either outright refuse, or you're cheating.

You are DMing a game, and a player has some kind of odd bonus, or item. He/she says it's on a chronicle sheet.
You can either trust that they know exactly what it does, and deny them the chance to tell you which chronicle it came from, or you're cheating.

You prepare to run a scenario, reading through to make sure you have the required materials. Things don't work out, or you don't get around to running it. A PFS game comes up, and it is said scenario.
You either refuse to play, and in fact must never play it, or you're cheating.

You decide to play a CORE PFS game. You have played through, or DM'd most scenarios available. By CORE rules, you can play through scenarios, you have played through in a non-CORE game, but...
You can try to find the few scenarios you might not have played/DM'd, just not play at all, or you're cheating.

[redward]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I noted before:

A friend may want to show you this cool thing he/she got on a chronicle sheet, or tries to ask you how something on a chronicle sheet works.
You either outright refuse, or you're cheating.

You are DMing a game, and a player has some kind of odd bonus, or item. He/she says it's on a chronicle sheet.
You can either trust that they know exactly what it does, and deny them the chance to tell you which chronicle it came from, or you're cheating.

You prepare to run a scenario, reading through to make sure you have the required materials. Things don't work out, or you don't get around to running it. A PFS game comes up, and it is said scenario.
You either refuse to play, and in fact must never play it, or you're cheating.

You decide to play a CORE PFS game. You have played through, or DM'd most scenarios available. By CORE rules, you can play through scenarios, you have played through in a non-CORE game, but...
You can try to find the few scenarios you might not have played/DM'd, just not play at all, or you're cheating.

I see it as the difference between peeking at your opponent's hand of cards and accidentally catching a glance because he's leaning too far forward. In the latter case, you mention that he's tipping his hand and do your best to avoid letting the knowledge influence your game.

In PFS terms, that's telling the GM ahead of time that you have some foreknowledge (whether because you saw the boon, GM'd the scenario, played it in Normal vs. Core, etc.).

The key word here is 'willful'. If you choose to seek out knowledge ahead of time, that's cheating. If you find that knowledge dropped in your lap, you're on your own recognizance to decide whether to act on it.

But we can't legislate intent, so yes, there are plenty of "legal" loopholes to justify vetting scenarios:
"I play stuff on Core to decide what I want to run on my 'real' Normal character."
"I might GM this so I'll just scan through it now."
"Hmm, that Swashbuckler's pretty good. Maybe I should 'audit' his character to see what my Swashbuckler should do."
All legal ways to gain knowledge before playing a scenario, and only the player knows for sure if their intentions are in line with the desires of the GM (PFS).

In the end, people will do what they want to do. You can come to a table with a level 11 character full of fabricated chronicles if you want. It's called the honor system for a reason.

[Chris Mortika]

When this topic comes up, I'll just note for the record:

If you have advance knowledge of elements of the adventure, you're required to let me know. ("I know there's a ghost touch +1 kama in this adventure.")

I'll ask you how you know.

If you say "Because I prepped the scenario to GM it back home last month," or "I've already played this scenario in CORE mode," I'll ask you to keep surprise-y things to yourself and let the other players figure stuff out.

If you say "Because I consulted a database of boons," I consider that cheating. I'll give you a 0 XP Chronicle sheet with the boons crossed off and ask you to leave my table.

[Chris Mortika]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I noted before:

A friend may want to show you this cool thing he/she got on a chronicle sheet, or tries to ask you how something on a chronicle sheet works.
You either outright refuse, or you're cheating.

You are DMing a game, and a player has some kind of odd bonus, or item. He/she says it's on a chronicle sheet.
You can either trust that they know exactly what it does, and deny them the chance to tell you which chronicle it came from, or you're cheating.

You prepare to run a scenario, reading through to make sure you have the required materials. Things don't work out, or you don't get around to running it. A PFS game comes up, and it is said scenario.
You either refuse to play, and in fact must never play it, or you're cheating.

You decide to play a CORE PFS game. You have played through, or DM'd most scenarios available. By CORE rules, you can play through scenarios, you have played through in a non-CORE game, but...
You can try to find the few scenarios you might not have played/DM'd, just not play at all, or you're cheating.

Not a single thing here is true. As you say, you're a troll.

[blackbloodtroll]

No.

I been through this discussion before.

General consensus has been that you are required to go to extreme measures, to avoid all these seemingly innocent situations, that, in truth, actually make you out to be some kind of horrible cheating bastard.

A few others, have just said "don't be a jerk about it", and I more or less follow this line of thought, with some additional restrictions for my self. I don't follow this line of thought that looking at your buddy's chronicle sheet, is a sin that can only be forgiven with a act of Seppuku.

So, just wait... anything but merciless intolerance will be met with vitriol, of the most foul nature.

[blackbloodtroll]

Chris Mortika wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I noted before:

A friend may want to show you this cool thing he/she got on a chronicle sheet, or tries to ask you how something on a chronicle sheet works.
You either outright refuse, or you're cheating.

You are DMing a game, and a player has some kind of odd bonus, or item. He/she says it's on a chronicle sheet.
You can either trust that they know exactly what it does, and deny them the chance to tell you which chronicle it came from, or you're cheating.

You prepare to run a scenario, reading through to make sure you have the required materials. Things don't work out, or you don't get around to running it. A PFS game comes up, and it is said scenario.
You either refuse to play, and in fact must never play it, or you're cheating.

You decide to play a CORE PFS game. You have played through, or DM'd most scenarios available. By CORE rules, you can play through scenarios, you have played through in a non-CORE game, but...
You can try to find the few scenarios you might not have played/DM'd, just not play at all, or you're cheating.

Not a single thing here is true. As you say, you're a troll.

Name calling. Do not devolve to that. I am sure you are better than that.

I am repeating the overall reactions, and opinions, that I have heard before.

You think these statements are untrue?

I agree.

I am sorry if you did not catch that.

[BigNorseWolf]

How would you even afford the thing without hitting the prestige for it?

[Andrew Christian]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

No.

I been through this discussion before.

General consensus has been that you are required to go to extreme measures, to avoid all these seemingly innocent situations, that, in truth, actually make you out to be some kind of horrible cheating bastard.

A few others, have just said "don't be a jerk about it", and I more or less follow this line of thought, with some additional restrictions for my self. I don't follow this line of thought that looking at your buddy's chronicle sheet, is a sin that can only be forgiven with a act of Seppuku.

So, just wait... anything but merciless intolerance will be met with vitriol, of the most foul nature.

No, you've just interpreted, wildly incorrectly, what has been said to you.

1) If your intent at looking at a chronicle sheet is specifically to fish for certain boons or equipment. Then its not ok.

2) If your intent is any number of legitimate reasons such as reading to GM, assisting a friend who has a question, doing an audit, etc. then you are ok.

This is largely an honor system. Only you know your true intent. If you are ok being a cheater, eventually you'll get caught. But I'm not going to go out of my way to figure it out.

But no, you don't need to take any extraneous means or methods to avoid reading a chronicle sheet.

In 253 GM credits I have to my name, over 4-1/2 years of playing PFS, I have yet to run into any chronicle sheet I've read that I had not also prepped to GM the scenario for. So the likelihood of you happening across a chronicle sheet as you say above is pretty slim.

And if you happen to run across something you can use on a character, because you were legitimately helping someone, then good on you. That's your reward for helping someone.

That isn't an excuse, however, to "help" people or find loopholes by which you get to chronicle fish.

Lets not blow this out of proportion and all good common sense, eh?

[redward]

As I said, it's the honor system.

When you sit down at a table, only you know how much knowledge you have of the scenario. And only you know how or why you gained any such knowledge. The campaign guidelines and intent are really unambiguous: if you know something, say something.

You're free to make your own choices on what to do with all that.

[blackbloodtroll]

My reaction was, to what I perceived, already blowing it out of proportion, and ignoring anything resembling common sense.

People, seriously suggesting, that DM run scenarios cold, as it might actually have them think about which PC they would apply credit to. Not doing this, was, as stated, considered cheating.

I kid you not.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

It didn't get cleared up as much as it probably should have in the PFS RPGG this year, which is once again rearing its ugly head.

That all aside, there is a certain level of 'disassociation' that a player must have when sitting at a table for a module they've either GM'd, played in Classic (and now are playing in Core) or are playing 'evergreen'.

I sat at a table of the Confirmation at GenCon.

I'd played it in PbP a few times, over R20 a couple of times, and it was the first time I was sitting down at the table with people in the flesh to play it.

As soon as the GM was ready for us, I pointed out to them that I had played the scenario before, but was going to let the rest of the party take the lead and not drop any spoilers.

It worked out really well, and given the nature of the beast, the play-through of the module was quite unlike any other time I played it. Much fun was had by *ALL* and the campaign grew by a few members, even.

At no point did I go "Oooh, get that *REDACTED* at the *REDACTED* because you get *REDACTED* and *REDACTED*!!" That's exceptionally poor form. And that's effectively what looking at a chronicle sheet for a scenario you don't have the right to be looking at is.

If this IS a thing, please let me know as a player if any of your characters are sitting at any table I'm either playing at (or in the future, GMing at) so I can respond appropriately.

Thank you for your time.

[BigNorseWolf]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

People, seriously suggesting, that DM run scenarios cold, as it might actually have them think about which PC they would apply credit to. Not doing this, was, as stated, considered cheating.

I don't think your sarcasm detector is firing on all stewarts.

[Mahtobedis]

I am with Andrew Christian on this, (personally never thought I would see the day :p).

Reading chronicle sheets before hand to learn about the scenario or to cherry pick the loot should and is frowned upon.

Now as Andrew has pointed out there are many situation where it happens, and this is ok. The guide makes allowances for GMing scenarios first, or reading the chronicles as part of an audit.

That being said there will be discussion about chronicle contents, and there will be some chronicles or sets that players will pursue because it just fist the character so well.

I personally went out of my way to play/gm all parts of Quest for Perfection because I knew about the boon for having all three. I also had a character I thought was perfect for the boon. I think this is ok too.

Spoiler:

Tengu Samuri, how could I not ride an Ax Beak

I think we run into problematic behavior when players start reviewing chronicles to optimize gold, early access to items, or to glean information about scenarios.

One thing I will do if I'm trying to decide between my many characters in high tier is I'll straight up ask the GM, "Is there something nice for a <class> on the chronicle sheet?" Usually the GM is kind enough to tell me if a special boon is something I should consider going out of my way to play a specific class with if I have the class at the table ready to go. I think this is ok too.

Again the important part is your own intention. Obtaining meta knowledge to optimize your character, or to learn about the scenario in advance. Because of the greyness of the topic it is probably best to avoid looking at the scenario and just pay attention to the gossip. The idea way to learn about a cool boon is to see someone else use it. That is how I learned about the boon for all the parts of quest for perfection. "Oh my gosh that is so cool how can I get one/it too?" "You need to play X."

[jtaylor73003]

Chris Mortika wrote:

When this topic comes up, I'll just note for the record:

If you have advance knowledge of elements of the adventure, you're required to let me know. ("I know there's a ghost touch +1 kama in this adventure.")

I'll ask you how you know.

If you say "Because I prepped the scenario to GM it back home last month," or "I've already played this scenario in CORE mode," I'll ask you to keep surprise-y things to yourself and let the other players figure stuff out.

If you say "Because I consulted a database of boons," I consider that cheating. I'll give you a 0 XP Chronicle sheet with the boons crossed off and ask you to leave my table.

Honestly if a player said because I look at database of boons then my response would be, "Hope the other members don't make you miss it". Then I ask them what other scenario have things they like for their characters that I be willing to run for them. That way they felt they could help decide what is ran, so hopefully they run.

My group is small and has few people gming, therefore we must try harder to turn players into GMs. I don't think larger groups suffer from this very much.

Please note I am not saying that chronicle fishing isn't cheating. I am saying that in my opinion I am neutral and wouldn't punish a player for doing so, unless my Venture Captain, Venture Lt., or Coordinator said to do so.

[blackbloodtroll]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

People, seriously suggesting, that DM run scenarios cold, as it might actually have them think about which PC they would apply credit to. Not doing this, was, as stated, considered cheating.

I don't think your sarcasm detector is firing on all stewarts.

Text does not translate sarcasm well, and it was apparent before, that not all of the opinions, of all said posters, was actually sarcasm.

Obviously, my "everyone is a cheater" posts were lined with a bit of sarcasm, but many missed it too.

If I recall, your particular views made it a bit difficult to not be considered a cheater. Bit of what seemed like vitriol mixed as well.

Missed sarcasm?

[BigNorseWolf]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If I recall, your particular views made it a bit difficult to not be considered a cheater. Bit of what seemed like vitriol mixed as well.

Missed sarcasm?

The bit about the DM not reading the scenario ahead of time was a joke about under prepared DMs having a really bad excuse for their non prep.

(also wouldn't stop someone from waiting a week to decide what character to put it on, since you don't enter that until you report it which can be some time later...)

[blackbloodtroll]

I just remember some of the rather extreme responses, just when I asking about what it is, and why it was a bad thing.

Perhaps a bit bitter, I suppose.

[BigNorseWolf]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I just remember some of the rather extreme responses, just when I asking about what it is, and why it was a bad thing.

Perhaps a bit bitter, I suppose.

I told you that prepping to DM was ok.

And that otherwise chronicle fishing was like being drunk in public: every once in a while for special occasions is probably okish but that doing it every week was probably a problem. Hardly extreme responses on my end.

[grandpoobah]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

How would you even afford the thing without hitting the prestige for it?

I would guess the most likely method would be through crafting on an arcane bonded item - especially if the item were an amulet of mighty fists.

I have a melee wizard using an Agile Amulet of Mighty fists. It would have cost 2000gp (something I had late in level 2), but due to playing some modules early on, he didn't have sufficient fame for the 4,000gp full price until almost level 5.

But that is probably an extreme case.

The main advantage of Ghost Touch is that you can sneak attack (and crit) with it (ghost salt does not allow this). Holy Balm kind of does this (but on one attack). That SpiritBane Spike mentioned up-thread is super awesome (and I didn't know about it) - I might need to buy the Undead Slayer book just to support my new unchained Rogue...

[blackbloodtroll]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I just remember some of the rather extreme responses, just when I asking about what it is, and why it was a bad thing.

Perhaps a bit bitter, I suppose.

I told you that prepping to DM was ok.

And that otherwise chronicle fishing was like being drunk in public: every once in a while for special occasions is probably okish but that doing it every week was probably a problem. Hardly extreme responses on my end.

Not necessarily you.

[Chris Mortika]

jtaylor73003 wrote:

My group is small and has few people gming, therefore we must try harder to turn players into GMs. I don't think larger groups suffer from this very much.

Please note I am not saying that chronicle fishing isn't cheating. I am saying that in my opinion I am neutral and wouldn't punish a player for doing so, unless my Venture Captain, Venture Lt., or Coordinator said to do so.

That's fine; I'm not the boss of you and you don't have to follow my example.

But I wanted to make clear that if anybody does start a database of boons / items found / other spoiler things from Chronicles, that person has read through the Chronicles for every single scenario, just for an advantage at the table. (Either "I went out to uncover the surprises here, or "I was looking for a wand of magic missiles and found one on this Chronicle sheet.") That person has effectively removed himself from PFS, at my table.

If not at your table, that's your call.

If I'm organizing PFS at a convention, we will find something else for that person to do. (Maybe he didn't think to look through the Chronicle sheets for modules, and we can find something there. Maybe he hasn't already read the scenarios that just came out this week.)

--

And I should specify: I don't see anything wrong with a home-campaign GM looking around, trying to find something for a player. (See Chakram discussion.) But that should be in the GM sub-forum, not here.

[LazarX]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Careful.

What you are asking, can be considered Chronicle fishing.

See how the community sees it, here.

Much of that is moot, considering that Chronicle missions are now a thing of the past.

[Chris Mortika]

How so, LazarX? Most of the faction missions from Seasons 0 - 4 are just for flavor, but the boon rewards on Chronicle sheets are still valid. Or do you mean something else?

[LazarX]

Chris Mortika wrote:

How so, LazarX? Most of the faction missions from Seasons 0 - 4 are just for flavor, but the boon rewards on Chronicle sheets are still valid. Or do you mean something else?

I'm referring to current and new Season scenarios. After all, unless you're going Core, or spending GM stars, you can only play those old non-intro scenarios once.

[Chris Mortika]

All right.

I suspect your player-base has much more experience under its belt than the folks I have at my tables. I still see many older scenarios run at conventions, and local gameday play is almost entirely older adventures. (And not CORE, either.)