Please no more nerfs


Pathfinder Society

501 to 550 of 708 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages 5/5

Ignatious the Seeker of Flame wrote:
And I am talking about a 12+ PFS module. Again, not needed to eat or drink has come up a few times. Its not common, because most PFS DMs ignore it in play, especially in all those "Your trip was uneventful. Two months later. . ." scenario setups, but it does have some mechanical value at times.

I can probably count on both hands the number of scenarios where travel time required food purchase where it didn't make sense for the lodge to cover it. But here is confirming that there are scenarios where a thing if sustenance would come in handy.

Sovereign Court 3/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Savannah aka KitsuneWarlock

supervillan wrote:

The untamed rager archetype barbarian is quite nice for Dirty Tricks, specifically. It is what I may retrain my lore warden into. But it's not a lore warden. It has a very, very different flavour even if it can mechanically achieve some of the same things. If you have a lore warden because you want a scholarly fighter, even a scholarly fighter who specialises in unorthodox and underhand combat tactics, that is an entirely different character to a savage uncivilised warrior who uses Dirty Tricks because he aims to win by any means.

In other words, a viable mechanical alternative may be incompatible with other (dare I say roleplaying) aspects of a character.

My character is also a Paladin of Shelyn, and hers is Lawful Neutral.

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KitsuneWarlock wrote:


My character is also a Paladin of Shelyn, and hers is Lawful Neutral.

Confusion indicated.

Aren't most paladins Lawful Good?

Dark Archive

Archtype Paladin can be Neutral. Just gets reduced powers.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sin of Asmodeus wrote:
Archtype Paladin can be Neutral. Just gets reduced powers.

Would still need to fall one step away from deity, so LN of Shelyn is not possible.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Tallow wrote:
Sin of Asmodeus wrote:
Archtype Paladin can be Neutral. Just gets reduced powers.
Would still need to fall one step away from deity, so LN of Shelyn is not possible.

I read that as another character is Lawful Neutral not that the Paladin is Lawful Neutral.

EDIT:
Though it really does get even more confusing as per fluff Paladins abhor Dirty Fighting.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville aka Kyrie Ebonblade,

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Sin of Asmodeus wrote:
Archtype Paladin can be Neutral. Just gets reduced powers.
Would still need to fall one step away from deity, so LN of Shelyn is not possible.

I read that as another character is Lawful Neutral not that the Paladin is Lawful Neutral.

EDIT:
Though it really does get even more confusing as per fluff Paladins abhor Dirty Fighting.

I don't know.. my swashbuckler/paladin would do all sorts of things that would be considered 'dirty fighting' to provoke AoOs to parry and/or protect other party members

Pantsing/undoing belts/shining her shiny +2 mimetic planar adamantine rapier in their eyes

Sovereign Court 3/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Savannah aka KitsuneWarlock

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My point is I cannot take barbarian instead on my axe throwing tripping paladin of Shelyn because you cannot be a lawful good barbarian. And I'm fairly certain my dirty fighting lore warden 11 friend is lawful neutral and doesn't want to rp that character as chaotic.


...you could still take Bloodrager. :)

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azten wrote:
...you could still take Bloodrager. :)

I don't think Bloodrager hits all the knowledge skills or the *original* Combat Expertise without INT-investment...?


I was responding to being unable to take barbarian while being Lawful Good.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville aka Kyrie Ebonblade,

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Azten wrote:
...you could still take Bloodrager. :)
I don't think Bloodrager hits all the knowledge skills or the *original* Combat Expertise without INT-investment...?

Yeah screaming raving maniac swinging weapons in fury really does fill the book knowledge savvy fighter type.

Sorry a bit sarcastic there. But to a point I am right, you don't fill the same hole. My one lore Warden hybrid has been rebuilt once (to unchained rogue) and I have mixed feelings. On one hand i gain access to 'know thy enemy' early.. sword secrets, but on the other hand I lose combat expertise, which I have on occasion use, for a 'pseudo-expertise' and either have to get the feat again (which fit a two weapon type is expensive or go with the one build set and wait till 11th

Me, I'm hoping for grand fathering.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
plaidwandering wrote:
RP need, low level scenario, NPC in a storyline...you're actually just reinforcing my point.

Two of those three things are what I like best about PFS.

I'm curious to see why you think food is provided free to all Society members? Certainly many scenarios do provide you with travel arrangements, supplies, etc. but many do not. We don't track time between scenarios, but I'm pretty sure we do track time during scenarios. How do you avoid taking nonlethal damage without eating?

Core Rulebook wrote:

Starvation and Thirst

Characters might find themselves without food or water and with no means to obtain them. In normal climates, Medium characters need at least a gallon of fluids and about a pound of decent food per day to avoid starvation. (Small characters need half as much.) In very hot climates, characters need two or three times as much water to avoid dehydration.

A character can go without water for 1 day plus a number of hours equal to his Constitution score. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each hour (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Characters that take an amount of nonlethal damage equal to their total hit points begin to take lethal damage instead.

A character can go without food for 3 days, in growing discomfort. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each day (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Characters that take an amount of nonlethal damage equal to their total hit points begin to take lethal damage instead.

Characters who have taken nonlethal damage from lack of food or water are fatigued. Nonlethal damage from thirst or starvation cannot be recovered until the character gets food or water, as needed—not even magic that restores hit points heals this damage.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

I believe he's saying that

1) scenarios taking place over more than 3 days are rare. Usually it's travel, and meals usually come with the cruise.

2) scenarios taking place over three days where you can't just pay a gold piece and have food for a month is almost non existant. Which makes a 4,000 gp investment in an item to give you 1 gp of food ridiculous.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It was a package deal.

RP wise it's nice not to have to worry about feeding a huge mammoth.
Mechanic wise it was nice not to have to worry overly much about something dominating or possessing my mammoth.

Edit: also, I bought the ioun stone at level 12, when we started Eyes of the Ten.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I've often seen it handwaved, and handwave it myself just as often, but I recently did indeed have a GM that asked us to mark off days worth of rations (water was fine since we had a Cleric).

I suppose that sort of character management isn't conducive to a four hour slot.

*imagines a PC spending 8 hours gathering food and water, and the GM generating a random encounter for the group while that's happening*

Scarab Sages 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I believe he's saying that

1) scenarios taking place over more than 3 days are rare. Usually it's travel, and meals usually come with the cruise.

2) scenarios taking place over three days where you can't just pay a gold piece and have food for a month is almost non existant. Which makes a 4,000 gp investment in an item to give you 1 gp of food ridiculous.

If Travel is a significant part of the scenario, I typically have the players worry about having enough food and water. If the Travel is being paid for by the lodge, then I typically don't have the players worry about food and water.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I usually shame the VC into giving us a few weeks' supply of tuna sandwiches.

Worrying about food in "survival mode" is basically a different game than PFS. That's more like first edition D&D survival issues. It's also an interesting game, but not if you were expecting PFS. It's basically a different game with different rules, and you shouldn't "gotcha!" those on players without an extremely good reason.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I usually shame the VC into giving us a few weeks' supply of tuna sandwiches.

Worrying about food in "survival mode" is basically a different game than PFS. That's more like first edition D&D survival issues. It's also an interesting game, but not if you were expecting PFS. It's basically a different game with different rules, and you shouldn't "gotcha!" those on players without an extremely good reason.

Oh, I agree. Although there are a couple scenarios out there that do call out using survival to find food and water.

But there are specifically a couple scenarios out there where 7 days of travel are happening, and the PCs are nowhere near a lodge, more specifically in a location that is hostile to pathfinders. In that circumstance, I had no problem asking them to purchase food and water for the trip. It was too heavy for many of the characters, so they also bought a donkey to carry it all.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Azten wrote:
...you could still take Bloodrager. :)
I don't think Bloodrager hits all the knowledge skills or the *original* Combat Expertise without INT-investment...?

Neither can the Lore Warden. You can barely hit most skills with an intelligence primary class like the alchemist.

As for fluff the Bloodrager has an archetype where you cast magic like one of the leading suspects of the decimeravate so yeah it's fluff is even better.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Azten wrote:
...you could still take Bloodrager. :)
I don't think Bloodrager hits all the knowledge skills or the *original* Combat Expertise without INT-investment...?

Neither can the Lore Warden. You can barely hit most skills with an intelligence primary class like the alchemist.

As for fluff the Bloodrager has an archetype where you cast magic like one of the leading suspects of the decimeravate so yeah it's fluff is even better.

I think he means "gets all Knowledge skills as class skills."

Which might be important, depending on what each ex-Lore Warden chose to specialize in. Mine has Knowledge (History), which is fairly rare as a class skill.

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shaventalz wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Azten wrote:
...you could still take Bloodrager. :)
I don't think Bloodrager hits all the knowledge skills or the *original* Combat Expertise without INT-investment...?

Neither can the Lore Warden. You can barely hit most skills with an intelligence primary class like the alchemist.

As for fluff the Bloodrager has an archetype where you cast magic like one of the leading suspects of the decimeravate so yeah it's fluff is even better.

I think he means "gets all Knowledge skills as class skills."

Which might be important, depending on what each ex-Lore Warden chose to specialize in. Mine has Knowledge (History), which is fairly rare as a class skill.

I was going for Oracle(Draconic Mystery)/Lore Warden(original version) with the dip, then was going to go back to Oracle, so there'd at least be a *chance* of all the Knowledge skills at a given table for a given scenario on one character.

Unfortunately, the new version doesn't do what the original did, so... may have to really do some soul-searching... might have to do a 0 BAB @L3 jobber to get Bard and something else on there and make the build completely combat ineffective.

Maybe Sorcerer?

Would it be considered bad form to have a PFS character that NEVER got a BAB?

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Would it be considered bad form to have a PFS character that NEVER got a BAB?

As long as you contribute something useful and fun to the table, it's fine.

Full casters wouldn't care. The best spells with attack rolls use caster level + casting stat instead of BAB+Str anyway.

1/5

Tallow wrote:
Power creep is not necessarily new more powerful additions, but rather the totality of everything added over a period of time that causes unintended combinations. Over 9 years this has become pervasive.

I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably dispute this (though I'm sure people will try).

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville aka Kyrie Ebonblade,

bugleyman wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Power creep is not necessarily new more powerful additions, but rather the totality of everything added over a period of time that causes unintended combinations. Over 9 years this has become pervasive.
I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably dispute this (though I'm sure people will try).

The day ends in 'y', so someone will argue it

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Graham wrote:


The day ends in 'y', so someone will argue it

Only in your oppressive english language monoculture!

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Only in your oppressive english language monoculture!

Silence, wolf! Shouldn't you be pulling a sled or something? ;-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:


The day ends in 'y', so someone will argue it
Only in your oppressive english language monoculture!

YOU'RE a monoculture!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

the problem is that the nerfs and table variations are hurting PFS as a whole

of my group of 7 players I am now the only one that still even regards PFS as fun

DM Beckett put it perfectly with regards to his wife

we get invested in our characters and then have them nerfed out from under us

I realize that 6 players is a relatively small number of people compared to the grand scheme of things ... but look at all the contention on the forums as a whole ... this thread alone is 529 posts long ... others crack into the thousands

BNW also stated it well ... "if the day ends in a Y someone will argue about it"

there are people that I know that refuse to come onto the forums because its so toxic ... all of these things hurt the health of PFS as we know it ....
its got to stop somewhere


Wraith235 wrote:

the problem is that the nerfs and table variations are hurting PFS as a whole

of my group of 7 players I am now the only one that still even regards PFS as fun

DM Beckett put it perfectly with regards to his wife

we get invested in our characters and then have them nerfed out from under us

I realize that 6 players is a relatively small number of people compared to the grand scheme of things ... but look at all the contention on the forums as a whole ... this thread alone is 529 posts long ... others crack into the thousands

BNW also stated it well ... "if the day ends in a Y someone will argue about it"

there are people that I know that refuse to come onto the forums because its so toxic ... all of these things hurt the health of PFS as we know it ....
its got to stop somewhere

Starfinder?

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wraith235 wrote:

the problem is that the nerfs and table variations are hurting PFS as a whole

of my group of 7 players I am now the only one that still even regards PFS as fun

DM Beckett put it perfectly with regards to his wife

we get invested in our characters and then have them nerfed out from under us

I realize that 6 players is a relatively small number of people compared to the grand scheme of things ... but look at all the contention on the forums as a whole ... this thread alone is 529 posts long ... others crack into the thousands

BNW also stated it well ... "if the day ends in a Y someone will argue about it"

there are people that I know that refuse to come onto the forums because its so toxic ... all of these things hurt the health of PFS as we know it ....
its got to stop somewhere

I lost interest in PFS a few years ago, mostly because of what I perceived to be an emphasis on new mechanics which did nothing to improve the experience. YMMV.

I would (and have) argued that the frustration you are describing is unavoidable given (1) the rapid and continuous publication of new mechanics, and (2) the need for organized play to have some semblance of balance. But I appreciate that does little to address your specific concerns. I guess my question to you would be this: When -- not if -- an unbalancing option is published, how would you prefer it be handled in PFS? Just leaving it alone will result in trivializing large amounts of content (leading to player boredom), unacceptable spread of character power (leading to player boredom), etc.

It seems to me that nerfing is the best -- albeit far from ideal -- solution, at least given the pace at which new mechanics are added.

1/5

Gisher wrote:
Starfinder?

This aspect of Starfinder alone has me strongly considering coming back to organized play. Of course this is a short-term solution, but the first several years of the campaign (possibly longer, depending on how quickly they churn out new mechanics) seem very promising to me.

Paizo Employee Starfinder Society Developer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Starfinder?
This aspect of Starfinder alone has me strongly considering coming back to organized play. Of course this is a short-term solution, but the first several years of the campaign (possibly longer, depending on how quickly they churn out new mechanics) seem very promising to me.

But seriously, no pressure or anything :P

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

the problem is that the nerfs and table variations are hurting PFS as a whole

of my group of 7 players I am now the only one that still even regards PFS as fun

DM Beckett put it perfectly with regards to his wife

we get invested in our characters and then have them nerfed out from under us

I realize that 6 players is a relatively small number of people compared to the grand scheme of things ... but look at all the contention on the forums as a whole ... this thread alone is 529 posts long ... others crack into the thousands

BNW also stated it well ... "if the day ends in a Y someone will argue about it"

there are people that I know that refuse to come onto the forums because its so toxic ... all of these things hurt the health of PFS as we know it ....
its got to stop somewhere

I lost interest in PFS a few years ago, mostly because of what I perceived to be an emphasis on new mechanics which did nothing to improve the experience. YMMV.

I would (and have) argued that the frustration you are describing is unavoidable given (1) the rapid and continuous publication of new mechanics, and (2) the need for organized play to have some semblance of balance. But I appreciate that does little to address your specific concerns. I guess my question to you would be this: When -- not if -- an unbalancing option is published, how would you prefer it be handled in PFS? Just leaving it alone will result in trivializing large amounts of content (leading to player boredom), unacceptable spread of character power (leading to player boredom), etc.

It seems to me that nerfing is the best -- albeit far from ideal -- solution, at least given the pace at which new mechanics are added.

Most of what I am stating is a Observation of whats going on from being in PFSOP for 5 years now

but if I had a say ... things need to be banned at onset not allowed to settle for Months (or in the case of the Ioun stone or Lore Warden years) before getting hit ... however the biggest issue is that this would hit their bottom line as PFS is one of the biggest drivers of sales - weve seen that with the recent paths of the rightous book which IIRC Very little to None of it was legal in PFS causing sales of that particular book to be less than its counterparts

Silver Crusade 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

the problem is that the nerfs and table variations are hurting PFS as a whole

of my group of 7 players I am now the only one that still even regards PFS as fun

DM Beckett put it perfectly with regards to his wife

we get invested in our characters and then have them nerfed out from under us

I realize that 6 players is a relatively small number of people compared to the grand scheme of things ... but look at all the contention on the forums as a whole ... this thread alone is 529 posts long ... others crack into the thousands

BNW also stated it well ... "if the day ends in a Y someone will argue about it"

there are people that I know that refuse to come onto the forums because its so toxic ... all of these things hurt the health of PFS as we know it ....
its got to stop somewhere

I lost interest in PFS a few years ago, mostly because of what I perceived to be an emphasis on new mechanics which did nothing to improve the experience. YMMV.

I would (and have) argued that the frustration you are describing is unavoidable given (1) the rapid and continuous publication of new mechanics, and (2) the need for organized play to have some semblance of balance. But I appreciate that does little to address your specific concerns. I guess my question to you would be this: When -- not if -- an unbalancing option is published, how would you prefer it be handled in PFS? Just leaving it alone will result in trivializing large amounts of content (leading to player boredom), unacceptable spread of character power (leading to player boredom), etc.

It seems to me that nerfing is the best -- albeit far from ideal -- solution, at least given the pace at which new mechanics are added.

Here's what I'd prefer, in priority order.

1. We don't need rules bloat. New scenarios and new APs are more important to keep the campaign running.
2. If new mechanics are published, get the editing right first time. Make the decisions about what's good for the campaign when material is first added to Additional Resources.
3. If at a later time some unforeseen broken combination emerges deal with it promptly via Campaign Clarifications.
4. Leave longstanding options alone: nerfing does more harm than good.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wraith235 wrote:

Most of what I am stating is a Observation of whats going on from being in PFSOP for 5 years now

but if I had a say ... things need to be banned at onset not allowed to settle for Months (or in the case of the Ioun stone or Lore Warden years) before getting hit ... however the biggest issue is that this would hit their bottom line as PFS is one of the biggest drivers of sales - weve seen that with the recent paths of the rightous book which IIRC Very little to None of it was legal in PFS causing sales of that particular book to be less than its counterparts

Well, I don't have as much experience as you do; I was VO for only a year, and have far fewer tables to my name.

And I do think you have a point about not letting stuff "settle" for months or years if possible, and that the easiest way of doing so would be to be more selective about what gets added, which might be bad for sales.

However, one thing I believe often gets lost in discussions of organized play as a marketing tools is that it also has to be fun...and not just for the players. One thing that made me largely give up on GMing PFS was the constant stream of (what I perceived to be shoehorned-in) new mechanics. Did it really make for a better experience at the table to have NPC XYZ be a kineticist instead of a sorcerer? I personally can't say for sure, but what I can say for sure is that the need to read and understand an entire new class was not fun for me! ;-)

1/5

supervillan wrote:

Here's what I'd prefer, in priority order.

1. We don't need rules bloat. New scenarios and new APs are more important to keep the campaign running.

Amen. But there is the argument that PFS is a better sales tool if it showcases new mechanics.

supervillan wrote:
2. If new mechanics are published, get the editing right first time. Make the decisions about what's good for the campaign when material is first added to Additional Resources.

The thing is, I'm not sure this is possible. The more published mechanics pile up, the less viable it becomes to foresee all the possible interactions.

supervillan wrote:

3. If at a later time some unforeseen broken combination emerges deal with it promptly via Campaign Clarifications.

4. Leave longstanding options alone: nerfing does more harm than good.

No arguments there. :-)

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:


The day ends in 'y', so someone will argue it
Only in your oppressive english language monoculture!

OK, fine. The day ends in 'g', so someone will argue it.

Is that better BNW? ;-)

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thurston Hillman wrote:
But seriously, no pressure or anything :P

Heh...sorry.

Honestly, my single biggest piece of advice would be this: Gameplay trumps all. Don't worry about sales; rather, focus on the experience of Starfinder Society. The rest will take care of itself.

(Of course, you also have to keep your job, so do whatever the boss wants.) ;-)

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville aka Kyrie Ebonblade,

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:


The day ends in 'y', so someone will argue it
Only in your oppressive english language monoculture!

Oh left footnote out

1. Or the language/cultural equivalent of the region you reside in...2

2 PS BNW is a big poppy! :P

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thomas Graham wrote:


Oh left footnote out

1. Or the language/cultural equivalent of the region you reside in...2

2 PS BNW is a big poppy! :P

...having met BNW in person, I can safely say he is not a big narcotic plant.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville aka Kyrie Ebonblade,

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:


Oh left footnote out

1. Or the language/cultural equivalent of the region you reside in...2

2 PS BNW is a big poppy! :P

...having met BNW in person, I can safely say he is not a big narcotic plant.

Durn you and yer avian logic!

Shadow Lodge 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

Thurston Hillman wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Starfinder?
This aspect of Starfinder alone has me strongly considering coming back to organized play. Of course this is a short-term solution, but the first several years of the campaign (possibly longer, depending on how quickly they churn out new mechanics) seem very promising to me.
But seriously, no pressure or anything :P

Oh Thursty, you know this is only the beginning.


bugleyman wrote:
supervillan wrote:

Here's what I'd prefer, in priority order.

1. We don't need rules bloat. New scenarios and new APs are more important to keep the campaign running.

Amen. But there is the argument that PFS is a better sales tool if it showcases new mechanics.

supervillan wrote:
2. If new mechanics are published, get the editing right first time. Make the decisions about what's good for the campaign when material is first added to Additional Resources.

The thing is, I'm not sure this is possible. The more published mechanics pile up, the less viable it becomes to foresee all the possible interactions.

The real question, then, becomes how important are new mechanics in generating future sales?

Both of the above issues are mitigated by slowing the rate of introduction of new mechanics to the game. Fewer rules, less bloat, fewer unforeseen consequences.

However, does that generate new sales at the same rate? Most likely not. Time and again, customers have come back for the new options, the updated action economy (remember when swift actions didn't exist?), the different methods of character customization.

But what makes new rules so attractive? Why am I more interested in playing the neat new vigilante than, say, playing a neat new Holomog battle maiden? Probably because now I can do something I couldn't do before. Maybe because I see some quirk I can sneak past my GM. Maybe because now I can manufacture some of my own power creep.

If there's some way to make people interested in new content that doesn't translate as new options, then the inevitable bloat wouldn't have to occur. But that might not be a successful long-term business plan. We play because we like tinkering with the mechanics. If we didn't, we can write instead (and yeah, I do).

5/5

If Paizo offered a bunch of new Campaign Setting material, and slowed down the new rules introductions (and thus the power creep, etc), I'd happily spend as much (or more) money on the campaign setting material as I do on hardcover rulebooks.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Gisher wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

the problem is that the nerfs and table variations are hurting PFS as a whole

of my group of 7 players I am now the only one that still even regards PFS as fun

DM Beckett put it perfectly with regards to his wife

we get invested in our characters and then have them nerfed out from under us

I realize that 6 players is a relatively small number of people compared to the grand scheme of things ... but look at all the contention on the forums as a whole ... this thread alone is 529 posts long ... others crack into the thousands

BNW also stated it well ... "if the day ends in a Y someone will argue about it"

there are people that I know that refuse to come onto the forums because its so toxic ... all of these things hurt the health of PFS as we know it ....
its got to stop somewhere

Starfinder?

I'm definitely hoping that it will, essentially, be a reset button and for a year or three SFS will be what I remember PFS as being (a reasonably balanced game with reasonable challenges for almost all parties)

Silver Crusade 5/5

bugleyman wrote:


However, one thing I believe often gets lost in discussions of organized play as a marketing tools is that it also has to be fun...and not just for the players. One thing that made me largely give up on GMing PFS was the constant stream of (what I perceived to be shoehorned-in) new mechanics. Did it really make for a better experience at the table to have NPC XYZ be a kineticist instead of a sorcerer? I personally can't say for sure, but what I can say for sure is that the need to read and understand an entire new class was not fun for me! ;-)

When (not if) I eventually rage quit as GM (i've come VERY close several times already) this is likely to be the driving factor. They're making it too hard to GM. And, when you put in all the work, the power creep means that 1/2 the time the work you put in is TOTALLY wasted as the group just one shots the bad guy anyway.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Paul Jackson wrote:


I'm definitely hoping that it will, essentially, be a reset button and for a year or three SFS will be what I remember PFS as being (a reasonably balanced game with reasonable challenges for almost all parties)

Pathfinder Society from day 1 has never been a reasonably balanced game. Its always been a broken mess of tangled options that would break at the easiest of provocation.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
If Paizo offered a bunch of new Campaign Setting material, and slowed down the new rules introductions (and thus the power creep, etc), I'd happily spend as much (or more) money on the campaign setting material as I do on hardcover rulebooks.

I think I've used about as much content from the Campaign Setting books than the actual rules line. Hell some of the material from that line is better content.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Paul Jackson wrote:
bugleyman wrote:


However, one thing I believe often gets lost in discussions of organized play as a marketing tools is that it also has to be fun...and not just for the players. One thing that made me largely give up on GMing PFS was the constant stream of (what I perceived to be shoehorned-in) new mechanics. Did it really make for a better experience at the table to have NPC XYZ be a kineticist instead of a sorcerer? I personally can't say for sure, but what I can say for sure is that the need to read and understand an entire new class was not fun for me! ;-)
When (not if) I eventually rage quit as GM (i've come VERY close several times already) this is likely to be the driving factor. They're making it too hard to GM. And, when you put in all the work, the power creep means that 1/2 the time the work you put in is TOTALLY wasted as the group just one shots the bad guy anyway.

Right, the power creep of all the core spells that end a fight on one bad save. Or the power creep of a smiting paladin getting a x3 crit.

Perhaps the answer is spending less work getting ready for the game. Only need to know the basics to have a guy read block text and die in 1 round.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
If Paizo offered a bunch of new Campaign Setting material, and slowed down the new rules introductions (and thus the power creep, etc), I'd happily spend as much (or more) money on the campaign setting material as I do on hardcover rulebooks.

I don't know if most of the community shares that sentiment.

501 to 550 of 708 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Please no more nerfs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.