PFS Changes i'd like to see

[Selvaxri]

I agree with the a change to applying high-tier pregen credits to a lvl 2 character.
In my playgroup, we recent had a few new players join and they joined in on a during a module run. Then the next week, we ran a t5-9 and were questioning why they couldn't apply the credit to their now-level 2's for reduced gold as opposed to just holding on to the chronicle.
We could only reply "that's how Paizo set it up."

likewise, i'd like to see Organized expand the rebuild buffer. At lvl 2, the character isn't much different at lvl 1- a few extra hit points, slightly better saves, not much else- and they're still confined to t1-5 missions.
Why not expand the rebuild buffer to lvl 3?

[Kalindlara]

I'm one of those obnoxious people who can draw a circle freehand, so they never bothered me much. Diagonal corridors that don't match the lines (see The Accursed Halls) give me a lot of trouble, though.

Selvaxri wrote:

Why not expand the rebuild buffer to lvl 3?

I'll admit that it'd be nice to not have to be a rogue until I can have my Dex-to-damage.

Seriously though, if this is something that you think would be a good fit for the campaign, I recommend putting together a full thread looking at the various ramifications of such a change. ^_^

[Unbegreiflich]

I'm waiting for an underground adventure dug by pretzel loving minotaurs of small to huge size using quilting pattern books... or maybe round tunnels where one room has etched on the floor, "NO KILL I"

Yes, some people were vocal:

honestly I loved the butterfly floor plan of a certain scenario, it was very artistic and whimsical, perfect for an old Desna temple "The archive had once served as a temple to Desna early in Absalom’s history before being refurbished by the Society, ...". Rotating the grid 45 degrees just made me laugh. Yes, it was a pain. It's a old temple not a battleground.

[Hmm]

Unbegreiflich wrote:

I'm waiting for an underground adventure dug by pretzel loving minotaurs of small to huge size using quilting pattern books...

Serious Answer:

Not quite what you want, but one sequence in Kortos Envoy might appeal. That dungeon is the WRONG size for its inhabitants, though.

Hmm

[Dennis Muldoon]

Speaking of maps, any chance you could encourage writers to stick to flipmats that are still in print? Or ask the publishing side to reprint maps that get used a lot? I always twitch a little when I see a new PFS scenario that uses Darklands or one of the other long-out-of-print maps.

[ZenithTN]

Modify No-Replay. I believe an expiration date is the way to go. Allow replay every 2? years. Most of us already keep up with scenarios played/GMd with a checkbox system of some sort. It would be negligible additional effort to keep tally with a date instead. I will concede this has been discussed at length in other threads and this thread should not be derailed with a lengthy discussion on any one topic.

Change restriction to applying credit from a higher level scenario from level 1 pcs to level 1-2 pcs. Agreed. Credit to Dan Armstrong.

Update Season Zero scenarios. Update First Steps II, First Steps III and other retired scenarios. Credit Hillis Mallory II for the basic idea.

I'm intrigued by the option to report non-permanent PC death as well. Credit GM Lamplighter. But only if we get to see the results! [See next]

Publish the results of polls. Publish the results of scenarios. I'd like to know how many people have played The Golemworks Incident, for example, how many have died and how many achieved primary & secondary success conditions, if applicable.

Scenario maps always on the 90 degrees. Arbitrarily hard to free-hand rooms should be the exception. Credit BNW & Dan Armstrong. And well-answered by Thursty, but I stand by my request. Minimizing the occurence of oddball rooms minimizes prep time. A good thing.

Devote significant staff time (two weeks annually?) to resolving FAQs. Video Conference Calls are a thing. You needn't be all in the same room, same time zone or same hemisphere. Vacations happen. 75% of staff present is a respectable quorum. It can be done.

When writing scenarios, limit access to the thesaurus - DM prep should not include oral yoga to get through the introduction. Proper names need not be multisyllabic monstrosities. Michael, Jorge, Paolo, Sven, Mufasa, Barry, Jessica, Margo, Monique, Clara, Dee, Shar and Zella are all fine, multi-cultural names. Then lower the length requirement for scenarios. These go hand in hand. Lower the word count/length requirement so word bloat, bizarre naming trends and vocabulary vomit is not required. And more trees may survive.

Enough with the overuse of the skill check - Despite the publishing of the Investigator class, I'm generally not here to play Sherlock Holmes. Maybe two meaningful skill checks for background information during mission briefing, but make them useful - "Yes, with that knowledge planes 35, you can be certain there's an Erinyes active in the area. Not the sterilized "I got a 35. Oh, well, a black feather has been found with a strange odor." Maybe two skill checks for gathering information. Done. This goes for Chase Scenes, reverse-Chases and other arbitrarily contrived skill challenges - so many of these could be resolved with an arrow to the knee. If I wanted to negotiate trade treaties I'd play Lawyers and Lobbyists. If I wanted to waste d4 hours getting directions to 'a pizza place in NYC with a pool hall, frequented by Ted the Informant on Tuesdays after 5:00, unless its his mothers birthday - get there early, parking is a nightmare', I'd stick to RL challenges. PFS, the corporation, will be a ton more efficient once it starts using its resources better. Get those answers with divs prior to scenario & give them to the Agents. Seriously! A divination is, what, 280 gp for an NPC spellcaster? Perhaps less if you keep them on retainer? What does replacing an agent cost? What does replacing a shanked VC cost [the fictional ones, not the RL VCs!]? Move on to smashing faces. 16+ scenarios a season worth of smashing face! Yes!

More overt labeling of scenarios: "Good aligned characters may have a hard time with this." "While other strategies are accounted for, this scenario was written with stealth in mind." "Harold don't bother with this one. Too much RP; hardly any combat. We apologize." Stuff like that would be lovely.

And now that we've shaved GM prep time, avoided unnecessary skill checks, and guided people to picking out characters appropriate for the mission, we can devote more time to battle. Since we have more time for battles, give NPCs max hp at first level, and FCB.

Less haunts. Zero would be ideal. I've never enjoyed an encounter with them, either as player or GM. The only joy they provide is taking a permanent black marker and redacting them from every random encounter table in the evergreens. A haunt could be better represented by build-a-ghost.

Less prep time investment for Specials. Players should not be punished for finishing a wave of monsters by another wave of monsters, without a commiserate increase in reward.

While I enjoy the idea of the faction cards, I really don't enjoy factions at all. Ceasing faction missions was a decision I applauded. I have enough factions to deal with RL. One PFS is plenty for me.

Zero!!! delay between product release and Additional Resources update. Your retailers deserve this. Your players deserve this. Credit Shaventalz, but I've been praying for this for well over a year. While we're on the subject... HEY PAIZO, CONVENTION SEASON IS COMING UP! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR HOW HARD IS ON YOU GUYS. IT DOES NOT SNEAK UP ON YOU. THIS IS A SELF-INFLICTED SITUATION - PREPARE BETTER! YOU HAVE PLENTY OF NOTICE! QYB.

And I'd like to end with a positive ... My players and I are really enjoying the 3-7 Evergreens. They have just enough story. They are challenging. They are appropriately rewarding. Please continue. Thank you.

[ZenithTN]

Oops, found some more on the floor...

Second Darkness et al sanctioning.

DM PCs get Day Job rolls.

No more nuclear nerf! (Jingasa et al)

[eddv]

Actually, having just prepped an adventure for TPKon - maps that aren't compressed/have squares that are actually square would be life-changing.

So would cutting off that weird 1/4 of a square border all the flip-mats seem to have - they make aligning pre-gridded maps to VTT grids a real pain in the butt. Alternatively, including the sort of technology you use in your AP pdf map packs where the grids and labels come off would be huge, but I imagine that's a lot more work.

[Gorignak227]

Harold Ervin wrote:

Publish the results of polls. Publish the results of scenarios. I'd like to know how many people have played The Golemworks Incident, for example, how many have died and how many achieved primary & secondary success conditions, if applicable.

I like this one, especially with difficult scenarios to almost hype the players up, i.e.

<in evil gm voice> "Only 1 out of 10 players earn both prestige points... And 1 out of every 4 players don't come back...mwahahahahahah!"

Having a few "extra difficult" scenarios (by design) with some nice boons would be fun for a lot of players.

[TriOmegaZero]

I'll go on record as opposed to most everything Harold said.

[Gorignak227]

Harold Ervin wrote:

Less haunts. Zero would be ideal. I've never enjoyed an encounter with them, either as player or GM. The only joy they provide is taking a permanent black marker and redacting them from every random encounter table in the evergreens. A haunt could be better represented by build-a-ghost.

I seem to have a hard time making these fun as well. I wonder if they should have some more element of puzzle in them to engage the players more.

I would also like to hear some GM tips from someone who has success running them.

[My Life Is In Ruins]

don't let the critics get you down. Great job.

I'd advocate ;

1) putting the (non-critical) GM background information in the player's discovery phase (background knowledge checks). Having just the GM know doesn't do much for the players and just adds to the word count. DCs can range from (Low Tier +1) to (5*High Tier).

2) Sometimes GM instructions are not clear regarding completion, travel, and rest times. If PCs can rest or there isn't a time constraint on the in-game completion, add that to the scenario. "{Players may rest here}". "If PCs rest add the optional encounter, deduct listed gold if not completed." "Players may take up to 3 weeks in game to complete this scenario. One way to the {location} is 100 miles, 4 days and 2 hours by foot, 2 days and 4 hours by horse." I'd agree that usually time is not a big issue, sometimes it is.

3) Have a gold value on each section in a scenario. There have been critical fights or tasks as far as completion with no gold value in the section. Sometimes it is best a weak party skip a section (dire straits happen) and just miss out on the gold and possibly a prestige point rather than abort the scenario.

4) personally I'd like to see challenge CRs go up by 1 on average in one section rather than tricky tactics or trick setups. Doing both is the "gotcha" moment. I think the challenges are not that hard on average. One or two scenarios per season are tough. A little broadcasting would be helpful but if it was a job board you just never know which assignment has your PC's death warrant on it. I didn't find Storval Stairs that hard. Surprise worm and my bad decision to move and then get critted, deadly. Random non-STR based PCs grabbed by door, deadly.

5) the laundry list of items at the bottom of a Chronicle is mainly for CORE and maybe a partial item or small batch order. Show them some love.

[GM Eazy-Earl]

NPCs with easily pronounceable names.

[Isabelle Lee]

perusing the haunt section of the PRD and scribbling notes

Don't mind me. ^_^

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

I keep wishing they'd bring back the various Faction traits that went away when their affiliated Factions were retired/reformed (Qadira's Eastern Mysteries, Cheliax's Fires of Hell, Shadow Lodge's Medic, Lantern Lodge's Meridian Strike, etc etc), or just make them available again somehow, somewhere.

[eddv]

Haunts are incredibly atmospheric and if run right add a TON to the scenarios they are a part of and provide a way to get precious details about past events out in the open. The way to run them well is to really draw on the GM only information about the nature of the haunt to share.

I ran a Silver Crusade PC through Haunting of Hinojai and honestly the best part of it was experiencing the haunts, realizing what had happened and then doing what it took to put the dead to rest. It was one of the most rewarding good aligned experiences I have had in PFS.

So no, hard disagree with the anti-haunt stuff.

[Niemand]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I keep wishing they'd bring back the various Faction traits that went away when their affiliated Factions were retired/reformed (Qadira's Eastern Mysteries, Cheliax's Fires of Hell, Shadow Lodge's Medic, Lantern Lodge's Meridian Strike, etc etc), or just make them available again somehow, somewhere.

It's not like Scarab Sages will ever let liches into their ranks or get raised from the dead at half cost and later necro'd... 8^)

[Gorignak227]

My Life Is In Ruins wrote:

1) putting the (non-critical) GM background information in the player's discovery phase (background knowledge checks). Having just the GM know doesn't do much for the players and just adds to the word count. DCs can range from (Low Tier +1) to (5*High Tier).

Yes, at least somewhere accessible to the players. There's a lot of cool lore in there that's usually only seen by the gm.

Quote:

2) Sometimes GM instructions are not clear regarding completion, travel, and rest times. If PCs can rest or there isn't a time constraint on the in-game completion, add that to the scenario. "{Players may rest here}". "If PCs rest add the optional encounter, deduct listed gold if not completed." "Players may take up to 3 weeks in game to complete this scenario. One way to the {location} is 100 miles, 4 days and 2 hours by foot, 2 days and 4 hours by horse." I'd agree that usually time is not a big issue, sometimes it is.

Definitely agree. I'm usually flying by the seat of my pants when dealing with imaginary distances when PCs want to ride by horse or travel through the night.

[Hmm]

About replay options. I know that people worry about making all the Tier 1-2 evergreens replayable on level two, because Confirmation was not built to handle it. Still, I think that it would be great if they all were replayable throughout their range, the way they are in the Starfinder Campaign. I am tired of people getting confused about whether they already played Crypt of the Everflame on Level 2, or House of Harmonious Wisdom on something other than a level 1. I really think it would be easier to explain and oversee evergreens if all were replayable throughout their range!

I know others will disagree with me. One of the things that I appreciate in all this is seeing the diversity of our opinions. We all want different things!

Hmm

(Waits for TOZ to post... “No, we don’t.” Ba-da-bump!)

[Hmm]

Douglas Edwards wrote:

Haunts are incredibly atmospheric and if run right add a TON to the scenarios they are a part of and provide a way to get precious details about past events out in the open. The way to run them well is to really draw on the GM only information about the nature of the haunt to share.

I ran a Silver Crusade PC through Haunting of Hinojai and honestly the best part of it was experiencing the haunts, realizing what had happened and then doing what it took to put the dead to rest. It was one of the most rewarding good aligned experiences I have had in PFS.

So no, hard disagree with the anti-haunt stuff.

It does require that the GM make the Haunt interesting. I’ve seen some GMs who don’t tell you anything about the haunt... Merely whether you killed it with positive energy before it managed to do whatever it does to you.

I work hard to bring out haunt stories and atmosphere, because I love that kind of thing. I view haunts as a very creepy NPC that will hurt the party if it does not get the help it desperately needs. I can’t help wondering if some of the anti-haunt sentiment comes from players who never experienced the full story of a haunt.

Hmm

[GM Eazy-Earl]

Haunts need to manifest more slowly. I've rarely, if ever, seen the character(s) that can actually affect the haunt perceive and/or identify it before they are subject to its effects. But I do like haunts, both as a GM and as a player, and wouldn't advocate for their removal.

[Jhaeman]

I haven’t seen PFS haunts, but in APs I’ve found them a great, atmospheric way to share backstory with the PCs.

[TOZ]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

(Waits for TOZ to post... “No, we don’t.” Ba-da-bump!)

<_<

>_>

*sits down*

[Gorignak227]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

About replay options. I know that people worry about making all the Tier 1-2 evergreens replayable on level two, because Confirmation was not built to handle it. Still, I think that it would be great if they all were replayable throughout their range, the way they are in the Starfinder Campaign. I am tired of people getting confused about whether they already played Crypt of the Everflame on Level 2, or House of Harmonious Wisdom on something other than a level 1. I really think it would be easier to explain and oversee evergreens if all were replayable throughout their range!

Agree.

[BigNorseWolf]

Repeat after me

Haunts are not a trap that the party can't detect, because DMs are mad that parties keep finding and disarming their traps...

[RealAlchemy]

Fun fact about haunts : all primary effects are mind-affecting fear which makes all appropriate immunities and resistances apply. Paladins are great roving haunt detectors.

[Selvaxri]

IMO- an easy fix for Haunts. Haunts deal minor negative energy damage while they manifest during the "surprise round" then in the following round- the Haunt effect happens- this gives the PC's time to either evacuate the area or spam Channels and Holy Water. and until the Haunts Destruction even is triggered, the "Haunt" area is still tainted with negative energy.
I've had people argue over whether or not you can damage a haunt after it manifests. Haunts are "supernatural" traps... Traps don't disappear after you trigger them

But aye- Better Haunt ruling clarifications and/or tweaks are needed.
Haunts have a nice flavor, but need some working.

[Isabelle Lee]

My experiences with the haunt rules actually inspired some of the first feats I ever wrote, back in Haunted Heroes Handbook.

PFS #8-04:

I also tried to put a unique spin on interaction with the haunts in a Season 8 scenario, allowing anyone to try disabling them via physical features of the location.

[Curaigh]

Selvaxri wrote:

Why not expand the rebuild buffer to lvl 3?

Several reasons. At first level a PC has 150-1500 gp to r500mess around with. That covers armor, some consumable magic and other basics. At third level (even assuming a nerf to gp) that number is 4500. Magic armor of a special material becomes the norm for a newbie.

Similarly, 6 prestige points are waay less flexible than 18. (Why get a wand of CLW when resurrect is available?).

WBL assumes a certain amount of consumables. The longer a character avoids this 10/15/25%(?) cost the more it throws off this already delicate table.

There is an existing mechanic for rebuilds. Ignoring it punishes those who have bought the resource & expended the PP already. While this is true of Level 1, consider the existing rebuild a gift from the campaign coordinators (like it was when it first came available :)

Cherry-picking classes is easier to deal with if you don't have to 'suffer' through 6 hp & bad Saves to get ability X. Same with feats like Combat Expertise.

If one doesn't want to play one's character for three whole levels, it shouldn't matter if that level is 2 or 4 or 7. Existing buffer is 1/12 of a general PC's career. The proposal is 1/4 of it.

GMs blobs get these 'rewards' to encourage GMing.

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

I'll go on record as opposed to most everything Harold said.

I'll go on record as agreed with most everything TOZ opposed.

[TOZ]

This is my surprised face.

[BigNorseWolf]

TOZ wrote:

This is my surprised face.

Put it back in the jar....

[shaventalz]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Douglas Edwards wrote:

Haunts are incredibly atmospheric and if run right add a TON to the scenarios they are a part of and provide a way to get precious details about past events out in the open. The way to run them well is to really draw on the GM only information about the nature of the haunt to share.

I ran a Silver Crusade PC through Haunting of Hinojai and honestly the best part of it was experiencing the haunts, realizing what had happened and then doing what it took to put the dead to rest. It was one of the most rewarding good aligned experiences I have had in PFS.

So no, hard disagree with the anti-haunt stuff.

It does require that the GM make the Haunt interesting. I’ve seen some GMs who don’t tell you anything about the haunt... Merely whether you killed it with positive energy before it managed to do whatever it does to you.

I work hard to bring out haunt stories and atmosphere, because I love that kind of thing. I view haunts as a very creepy NPC that will hurt the party if it does not get the help it desperately needs. I can’t help wondering if some of the anti-haunt sentiment comes from players who never experienced the full story of a haunt.

Hmm

The problem I see with using the haunts as a storytelling device... is that often, the "important" part of the story is only shown AS they hurt the PCs. So it's not "help me or I hurt you", it's more "don't prevent me from hurting you so you get a vague hint for how to help me." They're also (generally) incredibly vague at best, although that's probably more a function of being written as "traps but you can't disable this one."

For example, one of the haunts I've seen with the most story available to the players:

Heresy of Man:

Part 1 has a haunt.

The only hint that a haunt is present is "a faint splashing sound", in a half-flooded hallway. Not exactly helpful.

Once it manifests, you see a tortured and possibly drowned guy holding up an hourglass, which puts the PCs to sleep.

The actual story really has nothing to do with sleep. That guy was beaten and tortured by "drowning until the hourglass ran out", woke up free one night, ran out, and collapsed from his injuries here (then drowned.) In this room is a bracelet with someone's name on it. It happens to be this guy's name (but there's little reason to assume that in-character), and a Local check will let you somehow recognize the dead-for-100-years guy. In a later chamber, climbing down an area you shouldn't be in and making the Perception check lets you find an hourglass, some torture equipment, and an alchemist's lab.

The way to permanently destroy the haunt is to "discover the means of his demise, including the specific tortures, and tell his family." This means you:
1) Allowed it to manifest
2) Either found the bracelet and assumed plot relevance, or made the Knowledge check
3) Went somewhere you had no real reason to go and made the Perception check
4) Assumed the hourglass was used to time how long the torture had gone on for, rather than for timing alchemical reactions
5) Guess that the dead guy was set free by means not even mentioned in the scenario, ran away, then drowned in the haunted hall
6) Tell his family about this 100-year-old death after the scenario. Which basically means being part of the Qadira faction and having a GM that still hands out the faction missions.

And that's probably the one that I think is MOST accessible to the players!

[TriOmegaZero]

#8-04 has a VERY accessible haunt story. As does #3-15.

[Tallow]

That's actually an example of a bad haunt. The Green Market has a fantastic one.

[shaventalz]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

#8-04 has a VERY accessible haunt story. As does #3-15.

I've not played 3-15, but you may be right about 8-04. The problem with the ones in 8-04, though,

Spoiler:

is twofold. First, you still have to let them manifest, and all you learn is in which horrible way that group of NPCs died. No real story, other than "hey, this thing from the stars killed its crew in new and exciting ways." Second, none of the haunts are really able to be put to rest themselves, since they're just part of the boss.

The actual story is shown in hallucinations after the haunt is done, or maybe only if it was pacified through positive energy (text isn't consistent.) Either way, it didn't really gain anything from being associated with the haunt mechanic. And the inability to permanently destroy individual haunts means the mechanic itself isn't used in the normal manner. With what the boss is, I'd call this less a "haunt story" than a ghost story that happens to have the haunt subtype.

[aboyd]

In addition, I really enjoyed the haunts in Rise of the Runelords, but they modified haunt rules to make it more customized to the PCs. So that's kinda "cheating" to make it more enjoyable.

[chris manning]

Maps - how about a web enhancement linked from the product page with non squished maps, or GASP VTT ready maps (9-06 i'm looking at you..)

Replays - done to death - not welcome anytime

Haunts- I'd love someone to put together some videos demonstrating how to play them properly - they always look cool, but end up anticlimatic

rework of year 0 scenarios - hell yes

Scenario formatting - Clearly mark the optional encounter right where it starts, instead of in a sidebar a couple of pages away, DONT SPLIT STATBLOCKS - ive lost track of the number of statblocks that start on page 6 (3 or 4 lines), then have a map on P7, then continue on p8. This is worse on specials - i recently ran 8-99A, and an encounter with 3 monsters can spread over as much as 8 to 9 pages - almost impossible to juggle for the GM

[aboyd]

Dan Armstrong wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Less Fewer haunts.

I seem to have a hard time making these fun as well. I wonder if they should have some more element of puzzle in them to engage the players more.

I would also like to hear some GM tips from someone who has success running them.

For me, haunts were a mess until I read & re-read & re-re-read the haunt rules. I think they're really wonderful and can tell a great story, but you have to be soooo perfectly in tune with the rules. It takes a lot of GM descriptions and prodding, in order for players to feel like they're even sure what's happening. Here are two interesting nuances I picked up from the rules:

• Haunts, by the rules, would only ever trigger on one person. Group experiences are impossible. Why? Because it triggers the moment a PC hits a designated zone, which is almost always a leader and almost never a group of PCs who fanned out and are approaching an area in a wide line that would all hit the zone simultaneously. So it should almost always be that 1 PC is suffering effects and everyone else just stands there watching (or, you know, takes action to help, but at that point they're an observer rather than participating in the ongoing mental interaction). Technically, you can't move in to experience the opening vision of the haunt, because of this line: "All characters in the haunt’s proximity can attempt to notice the haunt at the start of this surprise round" which means they cannot move in to the haunt's zone first, and thus cannot participate in the hallucination/haunting, even if they wanted to.)
  
• Here's a neat thing. I've never seen a PFS GM use this rule, except for me. But check this: "The GM may elect to treat all neutralized haunts (those reduced to 0 hp) as CR 1 rapping spirits while they reset. Using this option, haunts retain enough ectoplasmic fortitude to linger in the area, where they attempt to convey their needs to the living. While these knockings are still potentially frightening, communication with these feeble spirits can be established by working out a series of codes (such as one rap for “yes” and two for “no”) or by calling out words, numbers, and letters for selection by the spirits." That is so completely right out of scary movies and kids with Ouija boards hearing thumps and bangs and so on. It's also something like modified Christmas light communication, straight out of Stranger Things. It's cool and helps the PCs a ton.
  

[Wicked Brew]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I keep wishing they'd bring back the various Faction traits that went away when their affiliated Factions were retired/reformed (Qadira's Eastern Mysteries, Cheliax's Fires of Hell, Shadow Lodge's Medic, Lantern Lodge's Meridian Strike, etc etc), or just make them available again somehow, somewhere.

I concur with this thought. I thought PFS in general lost a bit of its direct connection to the world of Golarion when the national factions were discontinued. One suggestion could be to allow players to chose a nationality or national origin at character creation much like Starfinder's home world. While not being a faction, a background nation of origin would add character depth, story and unlock background traits options during character creation. As an added bonus, backgrounds could also unlock the old vanities tied to the various national factions (Eagle Knight, Hellknight, Risen Guard, etc.).

Anyway, just a thought.

[Hmm]

Wait. Don't most players choose where they're from? I know I do. I research countries and towns and play up my ethnicity, even if I'm non-human.

Hmm

[Brew City Crafter]

Curaigh wrote:

Selvaxri wrote:

Why not expand the rebuild buffer to lvl 3?

Several reasons. At first level a PC has 150-1500 gp to r500mess around with. That covers armor, some consumable magic and other basics. At third level (even assuming a nerf to gp) that number is 4500. Magic armor of a special material becomes the norm for a newbie.

Similarly, 6 prestige points are waay less flexible than 18. (Why get a wand of CLW when resurrect is available?).

WBL assumes a certain amount of consumables. The longer a character avoids this 10/15/25%(?) cost the more it throws off this already delicate table.

There is an existing mechanic for rebuilds. Ignoring it punishes those who have bought the resource & expended the PP already. While this is true of Level 1, consider the existing rebuild a gift from the campaign coordinators (like it was when it first came available :)

Cherry-picking classes is easier to deal with if you don't have to 'suffer' through 6 hp & bad Saves to get ability X. Same with feats like Combat Expertise.

If one doesn't want to play one's character for three whole levels, it shouldn't matter if that level is 2 or 4 or 7. Existing buffer is 1/12 of a general PC's career. The proposal is 1/4 of it.

GMs blobs get these 'rewards' to encourage GMing.

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

I'll go on record as opposed to most everything Harold said.

I'll go on record as agreed with most everything TOZ opposed.

While I agree with your sentiment, I feel the need to correct your math, as it is misrepresenting the disparity between level 2 and a potential level 3 rebuild.

First, best case scenario for a just level three character is 12 prestige points. If the character had 18, as you assert, that character would likely have at least 9 XP and be at least level 4

Second, the rewards per XP for level 1 and level 2 characters comes out to about 500 GP per XP, so a character with 6 XP (just level 3), would put total gold at ~3200 to 3300 GP (including the 150 GP each character starts with and maybe a Day Job check).

[Curaigh]

Yes, choosing where you are from does unlock some ISWG feats & some splatbook traits. It also unlocks bonus languages. I disagree though that the traits added character depth, since 9 of 10 Pathfinders were bullied on the streets as a kid....

[shaventalz]

Curaigh wrote:

Yes, choosing where you are from does unlock some ISWG feats & some splatbook traits. It also unlocks bonus languages. I disagree though that the traits added character depth, since 9 of 10 Pathfinders were bullied on the streets as a kid....

Bullied, but never quite developed an offensive response. That's why they learned how to attack more quickly at the first sign of trouble. Wait...

For the traits requiring a regional affinity, you don't actually have to be from there. As of Guide 8.0, you can change your affinity during downtime (but only have one at a time.)

[Curaigh]

Daniel Ziermann wrote:

While I agree with your sentiment, I feel the need to correct your math, as it is misrepresenting the disparity between level 2 and a potential level 3 rebuild.

Ah thanks, I think I figured three chronicles over three levels then added it to first level. Effectively counting level 1 twice. :P

[HWalsh]

One BIG change I would like to see is some logic on enemy alignments.

Example:

1. Our enemy is a serial murdering maniac who sacrifices people in their sleep to his dark god.

Smite evil? He's not evil.

2. Our enemy, who just demanded that we give them our money or die, and has killed over a dozen people so far?

Smite evil? She's not evil.

3. Our enemy, who is stealing from people, lying to people, and committing high blasphemy.

Detect evil? He's not evil.

...

99% of those guys should probably be evil. Not simply neutral. Paizo needs to work on that. To this point it has become a joke in many of the groups I have played with that Paizo has really odd views of what evil is.

Especially that first one.

[Gorignak227]

aboyd wrote:

"The GM may elect to treat all neutralized haunts (those reduced to 0 hp) as CR 1 rapping spirits while they reset. Using this option, haunts retain enough ectoplasmic fortitude to linger in the area, where they attempt to convey their needs to the living.

While these knockings are still potentially frightening, communication with these feeble spirits can be established by working out a series of codes (such as one rap for “yes” and two for “no”) or by calling out words, numbers, and letters for selection by the spirits."

That is so completely right out of scary movies and kids with Ouija boards hearing thumps and bangs and so on. It's also something like modified Christmas light communication, straight out of Stranger Things. It's cool and helps the PCs a ton.

That is a really fun idea for haunts and allows more interaction from the characters. Totally going to use this.

[Kalindlara]

HWalsh:

Could you list the source scenarios for those alignment examples in a spoiler or PM, please? I'm really interested to see how/if the alignment decision is justified in the text.

[Isabelle Lee]

Dan Armstrong wrote:

That is a really fun idea for haunts and allows more interaction from the characters. Totally going to use this.

I may have to keep that section in mind for future haunt-based encounters. ^_^

[Neriathale]

My wished for change would be a reworked pregen sheet that looks more like the beginner box character sheet, and includes all the frequently used skills.

I've played a fair bit with new players at cons, and it's unnecessarily fiddly trying to explain that "yes you can make a Stealth check, even though stealth isn't listed on your sheet, but it's your Dex modifier, which isn't given in the stat block either..."