Feedback: PFS (2nd edition) Guide to Play


Pathfinder Society

201 to 237 of 237 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Olav Cleemann wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Olav Cleemann wrote:
When can we expect to have "Pathfinder Lost Omens World Guide" appear on the "Character Options" page - http://www.organizedplayfoundation.org/encyclopedia/pathfinder-2-0-characte r-options/ ?
It's still undergoing review. Expect it to take at the very least a couple more weeks. Things are unfortunately a bit hectic.
Theese weeks have come and gone several times over now. Does anyone have any further insights into this matter?

In January's Blog they announced it will likely still be another several weeks.

They obviously want this finished as well. Things just keep getting in the way.

Sovereign Court

Nefreet wrote:
Olav Cleemann wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Olav Cleemann wrote:
When can we expect to have "Pathfinder Lost Omens World Guide" appear on the "Character Options" page - http://www.organizedplayfoundation.org/encyclopedia/pathfinder-2-0-characte r-options/ ?
It's still undergoing review. Expect it to take at the very least a couple more weeks. Things are unfortunately a bit hectic.
Theese weeks have come and gone several times over now. Does anyone have any further insights into this matter?

In January's Blog they announced it will likely still be another several weeks.

They obviously want this finished as well. Things just keep getting in the way.

The blog mentioned 'by the end of the month.'

While I understand thing happen, stuff gets delayed, etc, all I (and many others, I presume) would like is an update on if they think they are going to make that deadline, or if it'll be after that.

It's not like all of us do not understand there are issues. But a once-a-week declaration of 'on schedule' or 'not sure' or 'not going to make it' would help with a lot of the people wondering about these things.

Will there always be people who complain about delays? Yes. But there are far more of us who understand that delays happen, and just would like updates.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

The King In Yellow wrote:

The blog mentioned 'by the end of the month.'

While I understand thing happen, stuff gets delayed, etc, all I (and many others, I presume) would like is an update on if they think they are going to make that deadline, or if it'll be after that.

It's not like all of us do not understand there are issues. But a once-a-week declaration of 'on schedule' or 'not sure' or 'not going to make it' would help with a lot of the people wondering about these things.

Will there always be people who complain about delays? Yes. But there are far more of us who understand that delays happen, and just would like updates.

Agreed. Radio silence does more harm than good.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Once a month isn't "radio silence".

Once a week will delay things further, since there's more that goes into planning a blog than just the text on the page.


Nefreet wrote:

Once a month isn't "radio silence".

Once a week will delay things further, since there's more that goes into planning a blog than just the text on the page.

Agreed, once a month until they can manage to stay caught up, preferably on a fixed schedule, ie the third week of the month will be the “State of the Campaign Address.”

Sovereign Court

Nefreet wrote:

Once a month isn't "radio silence".

Once a week will delay things further, since there's more that goes into planning a blog than just the text on the page.

Not going to argue with you about what constitutes 'radio silence' but also, my post wasn't meant to be asking for a blog. Just a dev that already knows the approx answer to drop in once a week on these forums, and put a reply somewhere. This topic, a new topic, another topic. We'll find it.

Just an honest answer along the likes of:

"We still hope to make it by the end of the month for LOWG (or LOCC, or AoA, or Cheeve points, or whatever) sanctioning being posted for use!"

or:

"We don't think we will make it, but we are currently pushing hard for first week of Feb."

or even:

"Delays have piled up more than we wished for, it is unfortunately looking like end of Feb now, for sanctioning."

Will there be people who scream at any of those answers? Of course. /sigh.

Is it still the better way? Probably.

Dark Archive

I noticed the guide got a version bump last night. Is there or will there be a more detailed list of changes? I want to make sure I didn't miss something.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

It is on the bottom of the page.

0.08 – Large errata and clarification update
— GM Basics – Clarified a number of rules. Added Edicts and Anathema to the Table Variation section.
— Glossary – Added “Assign a Chronicle” and “Apply a chronicle”
— Player Basics – Added RIP, clarified “Purchasing Guidelines”
— Organized Play Basics – updated Purchasing Guidelines, Chronicle sheet rules, and clarified who can make rulings for the campaign.
— Character Options – Added link to additional option

Dark Archive

I know there is a list of changes which is why I asked for a more detailed list of changes. I'm hoping for an errata style list. For example, "Clarified a number of rules." could be expanded to specify which rules changed and how they changed.

2/5 5/5

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Doing a quick look over of the changes:

Unrelated, but on Org Play Basics, under the list of tags, 'Metaplot' should be added as its being used on some scenarios.

GM Basics section on Challenge Points -- I think the second paragraph under point 4 of calculating the Challenge Points, should be bolded and/or given special emphasis in some other way.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Steven Lau wrote:

It is on the bottom of the page.

0.08 – Large errata and clarification update
— GM Basics – Clarified a number of rules. Added Edicts and Anathema to the Table Variation section.
— Glossary – Added “Assign a Chronicle” and “Apply a chronicle”
— Player Basics – Added RIP, clarified “Purchasing Guidelines”
— Organized Play Basics – updated Purchasing Guidelines, Chronicle sheet rules, and clarified who can make rulings for the campaign.
— Character Options – Added link to additional option

Does this mean the file on PFSPrep file will be/has been updated? Sorry if this question should not be directed at you.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

Gary Bush wrote:
Does this mean the file on PFSPrep file will be/has been updated? Sorry if this question should not be directed at you.

I have no idea, I don't even know what you are talking about. It is not a page I use often (Though I have on occasion).

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5

Jed Roach wrote:
I know there is a list of changes which is why I asked for a more detailed list of changes. I'm hoping for an errata style list. For example, "Clarified a number of rules." could be expanded to specify which rules changed and how they changed.

I know nothing is going to change but man do I absolutely loathe this new process.

For example, the changelog says that they have added RIP.

I have not the tiniest clue what RIP is. Searching the players basic page, the only reference to RIP is in the changelog.

So glad that they've added it :-) :-)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Premier Event Coordinator aka TwilightKnight

Sometimes we create and use nomenclature that is not necessarily common knowledge and forget others don’t know what the hell we’re talking about. Honestly, I had to look what RIP was myself. Checked the glossary first, no luck. So I scanned down the player basics page until I hit Retail Incentive Program And realized, yeah, I know that one. :-D

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

The pfsprep pdf is marked up the top with version number and date of most recent update.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Premier Event Coordinator aka TwilightKnight

Quote:
once-a-week

Given how far behind they are on so many projects, taking time to update us on everything they are doing on a weekly basis would be a significant undertaking and probably push them even more behind. Monthly might be a more reasonable time frame, but most of the time the delays lay with another department outside of the control of the OP team so they rarely know anything other than "soon." If we were to get a weekly update I doubt it would say any more than a quick, blanket, "nope, not ready, we'll let you know."

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Robert Hetherington wrote:
The pfsprep pdf is marked up the top with version number and date of most recent update.

Ok, I was being lazy and not looking so that is why I asked.

And I still don't know.

Thank you for the help

4/5

NielsenE wrote:

Doing a quick look over of the changes:

Unrelated, but on Org Play Basics, under the list of tags, 'Metaplot' should be added as its being used on some scenarios.

GM Basics section on Challenge Points -- I think the second paragraph under point 4 of calculating the Challenge Points, should be bolded and/or given special emphasis in some other way.

Thank you. Both of those things are useful feedback, I will make a note of them.

4/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Sometimes we create and use nomenclature that is not necessarily common knowledge and forget others don’t know what the hell we’re talking about. Honestly, I had to look what RIP was myself. Checked the glossary first, no luck. So I scanned down the player basics page until I hit Retail Incentive Program And realized, yeah, I know that one. :-D

Thanks for the catch. That should be added to the Glossary.

4/5

The reason I had not yet come in here to announce the update was that I was hoping to give a couple people a chance to look it over for errors and omissions before I started a bulk rush to download / pdf it.

I had considered making the changed text a different color, like the old Additional resources guide did. But I was worried that green or red text might be seen as placing a rules influence on it. Whether or not to do this is a discussion I would need to make in consultation with the team and the campaign leadership. But *if* we decide to do this, what color would you prefer?

I will discuss our options for releasing a more detailed changelong with the team.

2/5 5/5

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I think some method of easily spotting the changes is important. Exactly what the method should be depends a bit on the technical options. It also depends on how frequent updates are happening.

Placing a border around changed paragraphs/sections would be one option to show areas that people should revist, w/o implying any coloring that you were worried about, and w/o interfering with existing use of b/strong for emphasis. This assumes your authoring tools allow you to add/remove classes to the paragraph tags wrapping the content easily. The basically <p class="updated-0.08">...</p>. First step of prepping a new version would strip all the classes from the previous version number.

Italics and strikethrough would be another non-color based approach for added/removed text.

Or, if not showing in-line, offering a link to see a text diff of the page from the previous version. This is the only version that tends to scale well for allowing a user to see the deltas between arbitrary version (ie someone who wants to compare 0.08 to 0.04 if that was the last version they reviewed/printed,etc

Grand Lodge 4/5

I would definitely like to see a means of quickly identifying new update changes. I was just asking what changed in the guide on the Online Region's Discord channel.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Maryland—Hagerstown aka Z...D...

I am still not quite understanding one of the new rulings.

Guide to Organized Play wrote:
If the scenario you are running references challenge points directly in the encounter scaling, those override and replace the instructions here. Determine if your table is playing high tier or low tier and reference the appropriate scaling instructions in the scenario. You can then skip to step 5.

So do we still use the table in the guide to determine what is low vs high tier or do we strictly look for the CP total in the encounter section and play the tier the CP matches?

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zachary Davis wrote:

I am still not quite understanding one of the new rulings.

Guide to Organized Play wrote:
If the scenario you are running references challenge points directly in the encounter scaling, those override and replace the instructions here. Determine if your table is playing high tier or low tier and reference the appropriate scaling instructions in the scenario. You can then skip to step 5.

So do we still use the table in the guide to determine what is low vs high tier or do we strictly look for the CP total in the encounter section and play the tier the CP matches?

The exact cutoff for when a 16-18 party plays up or down is currently an unanswered question. I am hoping to have an answer shortly. In the mean time, I would suggest people use their best judgement.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a purely personal recommendation, I would have the table play down if they have fewer than 2 players in the high tier. But that is *purely* my personal judgement.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

As a heads up the pdf of the guide on pfsprep.com needs reuploading.

I had to rollback the server a few hours last night and while the database which holds the forums posts was unaffected, the uploaded files were not so lucky.

Sorry about that.


Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
Zachary Davis wrote:

I am still not quite understanding one of the new rulings.

Guide to Organized Play wrote:
If the scenario you are running references challenge points directly in the encounter scaling, those override and replace the instructions here. Determine if your table is playing high tier or low tier and reference the appropriate scaling instructions in the scenario. You can then skip to step 5.

So do we still use the table in the guide to determine what is low vs high tier or do we strictly look for the CP total in the encounter section and play the tier the CP matches?

The exact cutoff for when a 16-18 party plays up or down is currently an unanswered question. I am hoping to have an answer shortly. In the mean time, I would suggest people use their best judgement.

might be me but as it written skip to You can then skip to step 5 but then at 6 you apply the calculation of 4.

not sure how to make it more clear tough

4/5

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
Zachary Davis wrote:

I am still not quite understanding one of the new rulings.

Guide to Organized Play wrote:
If the scenario you are running references challenge points directly in the encounter scaling, those override and replace the instructions here. Determine if your table is playing high tier or low tier and reference the appropriate scaling instructions in the scenario. You can then skip to step 5.

So do we still use the table in the guide to determine what is low vs high tier or do we strictly look for the CP total in the encounter section and play the tier the CP matches?

The exact cutoff for when a 16-18 party plays up or down is currently an unanswered question. I am hoping to have an answer shortly. In the mean time, I would suggest people use their best judgement.

For reference, I ran for a party of 7 with two level 2s and 5 level 1s which put them in that range and they played up. The first encounter was rough as they ate a couple critical hits and several people were in low single digit HP, but they handled the other two encounters pretty well. They missed one treasure bundle because of skill DCs.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver aka roll4initiative

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Hetherington wrote:

As a heads up the pdf of the guide on pfsprep.com needs reuploading.

I had to rollback the server a few hours last night and while the database which holds the forums posts was unaffected, the uploaded files were not so lucky.

Sorry about that.

I'll let him know. Our VL, Zach, here in Denver made that pdf.

4/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
Zachary Davis wrote:

I am still not quite understanding one of the new rulings.

Guide to Organized Play wrote:
If the scenario you are running references challenge points directly in the encounter scaling, those override and replace the instructions here. Determine if your table is playing high tier or low tier and reference the appropriate scaling instructions in the scenario. You can then skip to step 5.

So do we still use the table in the guide to determine what is low vs high tier or do we strictly look for the CP total in the encounter section and play the tier the CP matches?

The exact cutoff for when a 16-18 party plays up or down is currently an unanswered question. I am hoping to have an answer shortly. In the mean time, I would suggest people use their best judgement.

I now have an answer, from Linda Zayas-Palmer:

"In Scenarios where there is a 16-18 scaling in the low tier, a group of 5+ PCs plays in the low tier. A group of 4 PCs is in the high tier."

For a glimpse of what this will look like, the following 16-18 tables will play high tier. All others will play low.
4, 3, 2, 2
4, 4, 1, 1
3, 3, 3, 3
4, 3, 3, 1
4, 4, 2, 1
4, 3, 3, 2
4, 4, 2, 2
4, 3, 3, 3
4, 4, 3, 1

This will be reflected in the next guide update.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

As a note there are now a few weird situations (although surprisingly few)...

3,3,3,3 plays high 16
while
3,3,3,3,1 plays low 18

Although assuming 18 low vs high is theoretically the same difficulty just a different in its distribution it shouldn't be a problem, but does provide a potentially small incentive against adding a new lvl 1 character/player to such a table if the players particularly want the high tier rewards.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
Zachary Davis wrote:

I am still not quite understanding one of the new rulings.

Guide to Organized Play wrote:
If the scenario you are running references challenge points directly in the encounter scaling, those override and replace the instructions here. Determine if your table is playing high tier or low tier and reference the appropriate scaling instructions in the scenario. You can then skip to step 5.

So do we still use the table in the guide to determine what is low vs high tier or do we strictly look for the CP total in the encounter section and play the tier the CP matches?

The exact cutoff for when a 16-18 party plays up or down is currently an unanswered question. I am hoping to have an answer shortly. In the mean time, I would suggest people use their best judgement.

I now have an answer, from Linda Zayas-Palmer:

"In Scenarios where there is a 16-18 scaling in the low tier, a group of 5+ PCs plays in the low tier. A group of 4 PCs is in the high tier."

For a glimpse of what this will look like, the following 16-18 tables will play high tier. All others will play low.
<< snip >>

This will be reflected in the next guide update.

This is great but will Linda be posting as well?

Sorry, I really need it in the guide or as a post from the campaign leadership.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Premier Event Coordinator aka TwilightKnight

Gary Bush wrote:
I really need it in the guide or as a post from the campaign leadership.

Online Guild Team Lead is an official position. He is in charge of updating the OPF website. If he says, "This will be reflected in the next guide update," that is about as official as it gets. I would assume that the leader of that team would know not to announce something until it had been discussed and approved by the OP leadership, otherwise we would likely see a new team leader is short order.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:
I really need it in the guide or as a post from the campaign leadership.
Online Guild Team Lead is an official position. He is in charge of updating the OPF website. If he says, "This will be reflected in the next guide update," that is about as official as it gets. I would assume that the leader of that team would know not to announce something until it had been discussed and approved by the OP leadership, otherwise we would likely see a new team leader is short order.

Thank Bob, I was not aware of that!

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

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:


For a glimpse of what this will look like, the following 16-18 tables will play high tier. All others will play low.
4, 3, 2, 2
4, 4, 1, 1
3, 3, 3, 3
4, 3, 3, 1
4, 4, 2, 1
4, 3, 3, 2
4, 4, 2, 2
4, 3, 3, 3
4, 4, 3, 1

This will be reflected in the next guide update.

Robert Hetherington wrote:

As a note there are now a few weird situations (although surprisingly few)...

3,3,3,3 plays high 16
while
3,3,3,3,1 plays low 18

I think in circumstances where the level distribution is especially skewed we should recommend the low level player to use a pregen and use the "apply to level 1" credit rule. It'll generally make for a more fun experience.

---

But overall, great progress on introducing better 5+ player scaling!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quote:
Any equipment listed on your character’s Chronicle sheets with an item level equal to or less than your character’s level + 2. Some items found on Chronicle sheets are available for purchase only a limited number of times. Weapon and Armor found on chronicle sheets can be upgraded following the normal rules for upgrading.

I don't understand how upgrading would work through PFS as the traditional rules require the formula in addition to higher crafting skills. Does this imply that we'll find formulas in the future? Or will it be a variant of rune transfer such that as long as we have access to a +2 weapon or armor we're assumed to have the formula and can pay the cost for upgrading and let the specialist perform the upgrade?

Quote:
The Society has a specialist at the Grand Lodge who can apply or swap out runes for agents of the Pathfinder Society in good standing. This service is free, and requires no check, but is generally only available before boons are slotted or once the adventure is complete, not during the middle of an adventure.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alttprules wrote:
Quote:
Any equipment listed on your character’s Chronicle sheets with an item level equal to or less than your character’s level + 2. Some items found on Chronicle sheets are available for purchase only a limited number of times. Weapon and Armor found on chronicle sheets can be upgraded following the normal rules for upgrading.

I don't understand how upgrading would work through PFS as the traditional rules require the formula in addition to higher crafting skills. Does this imply that we'll find formulas in the future? Or will it be a variant of rune transfer such that as long as we have access to a +2 weapon or armor we're assumed to have the formula and can pay the cost for upgrading and let the specialist perform the upgrade?

As per the rules in the "Runes" section of the rule book, most (if not all) runes can be upgrade to any improved version of the Rune by paying the difference in the cost.

All this is saying is that if you find, for example, an Aldori Dueling Sword (an uncommon weapon) on a chronicle, you could have a +1 potency rune engraved on it without needing to have access to a +1 Aldori dueling sword on a chronicle. You could later upgrade that rune to a +2 potency rune, without needing a specific chronicle for a +2 Aldori Dueling Sword.

201 to 237 of 237 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Feedback: PFS (2nd edition) Guide to Play All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.