|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'd be more upfront about the AoOs for reach weapons and sizes. These things are clearly observable for the PCs.
If someone is about to trigger an AoO because of some weird hijink of the cover rules, tell them. These rules are not ambiguous, but they are obscure, so you can't expect people to know the details. Playing Gotcha with rules is not nice.
Also, we should always be up to snuff on cover rules. There's soooo much tactical advantage to be gained if you use them well.
By the way, the inquisitor has access to a truly nasty tactic. His Growth subdomain lets him Enlarge as a swift action, but he shrinks again at the start of his next turn. Consider carefully into which of the 4 squares he occupies to shrink, and when you grow again, where to grow. Consider this situation:
P _ _ _ I _ _
Now the inquisitor grows and takes his attack;
P _ _ I I _ _
PC thinks he's gotta suck it up, moves closer and provokes;
_ _ P I I _ _
Inquisitor's turn, he shrinks again;
_ _ P _ I _ _
Takes a 5ft step;
_ _ P _ _ I _
And grows, and attacks;
_ _ P _ _ I I
So now to attack, the PC will again have to provoke by moving; and if he tries to walk away, he also provokes.
As you can see, with the right build, the Growth version of Enlarge is better than a continual spell.
I think you're better off not spacing out those errata over time. Not only does Macchiavelli recommend doing all the horrible things at once, and spreading out kindness over time, so people are reminded of it frequently... It's better to rebuild once, than to rebuild, face another errata, and have to rebuild the same character again.
Giving more time before big Cons on the other hand, might've been handy.
I've been meaning to work on this too. I got a bit of a Deadwood vibe from the book.
I think what it needs is some kind of interlude story set in Torch between Fires and Lords.
And yeah, "hooray, you lived" parties are good. I think there needs to be more town life.
My players just fought the drones guarding Khonnir and Hardness 10 gave them serious trouble. I kind of expect them to ask the townsfolk if there's any adamatine weapons on loan - this town is famous for smelting adamantine after all, and they are trying to save it.
It doesn't make much sense to me to flatly refuse, but that'll make things a lot easier later on. Anyone have ideas for a spin I can put on it?
I don't get the hate against RMA wannabes. We have lots of priests of evil gods, too. And people wanting to play something because it's cool - isn't wish fulfilment the whole point of RPGs?
It should be noted that the iconic Slayer is a pretty effective assassin/"will it blend" kitchen machine. Though not dex-based, he still gets off lots of off-hand attacks.
I remember a discussion about tiefling starting ages about two years back, when it was brought up that several APs feature tieflings/aasimars that are around 16-25ish and acting all grown up. Apparently the result of some miscommunication between writers.
Back then it was said that the ARG age table would be altered to fit the story, not the other way around.
Personally I think that's the right way: given all the stories about most parents being unhappy with tiefling births, if they're mewling kids for forty years, I think they don't stand a chance.
Anything that's not loveable needs to grow up fast.
I've seen an abyssal bloodrager in action before, and between the Enlarge-on-Rage ability and Reach weapons, I've seen him get lots and lots of AoOs. Enemies just didn't have a choice, the threatened area was just too big.
However, this is for PFS, so mythic stuff doesn't really work.
Line in the Sand is only within 5ft, and the casting time isn't helping either.
I'm working up an Abyssal Bloodrager build. They grow up so fast, and get lots of reach for AoOs. However, going big is bad for Dex and so bad for Combat Reflexes. And AC.
I was thinking about using Lore Oracle to use Charisma for AC instead Dex, since it doesn't go down when you go Large. However, that doesn't help for AoOs.
So, does anyone know good ways to get at more AoOs per round?
outshyn: interesting analysis, but consider this counterquestion: what if the PCs are ranged-heavy? Then they're on top of an awesome position to gattle down the Aspis forces before they even get close.
We found the final fight rather easy, but the inquisitor did get to use one round of his chicanery and insta-dropped (not killed) the playing-up wizard, so there was still an "oh crap" moment to liven it up.
The S6 and S7 faction cards for Sovereign Court have an identically named capstone, but they don't do the same thing;
SPYMASTER (7+ goals): Once per adventure, you can coach up to seven other creatures in the use of a skill that you select when you use this ability. For the duration of the adventure, those creatures gain a +4 competence bonus on checks using that skill and halve their armor check penalty when using the skill.
SPYMASTER (7+ goals): Once per adventure, you can coach up to seven other creatures in the use of a skill that you select when you use this ability. For the duration of the adventure, those creatures gain a bonus on checks using that skill equal to half the goals you have completed (rounded down) and halve their armor check penalty when using the skill.
So how does that stack?
I do think the Spell Trigger thing needs to be addressed. There's nothing in the Investigator talking about what items they can or can't use. But they use spells in the same way as Alchemists, so it's reasonable to let them use the same set of items.
And in the Alchemist, they're spoken of as basically "because of the way alchemists use magic, they can use Spell Trigger but not Spell Completion".
I've gone into this before and people half-remembered that there was a designer comment somewhere in the playtest saying Investigators couldn't use Spell-Trigger. But I wasn't able to actually find that comment, so I had to dismisss that as being too obscure that actually use.
So should investigators get to use wands? I think they should.
1) Flavor argument: investigators use the same kind of magic as alchemists. They should be able to use the same items. Also, investigators are quite flavored as a tool-using class, so wands are appropriate.
2) Consistency argument: investigators use the same kind of magic as alchemists. They should be able to use the same items.
3) Balance argument: investigators are not stronger than alchemists, probably a lot more limited even. There's no need to take this away from them.
4) Uniqueness argument: wands aren't some feature that's highly specific to alchemists that should be reserved for that class alone.
I'm not a fan of unrestricted dex to damage. It is generally intended that smaller monsters deal less damage, so they get penalties to strength and bonuses to dex. Allowing dex to damage on a full set of natural attacks would blow that out of the water.
But the new slashing grace looks very awkward to me.
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
Check again. The original entry has two lines in it saying you can take Rogue Talent more than once. The errata only removes the redundant line.
John Compton wrote:
I'll be studying it to see if I can rebuild my occultist arcanist. Suddenly I need charisma.
Hetuath has a raft of resistances and immunities, good touch AC, good AC, tricky DR; all in all it's mostly the 2H crew that can threaten him. If my dice hadn't been stone cold he would've done a number on my players. As-is, they were impressed.
And now they just fought a collector and two medbots, are quite drained, and they don't know yet that Hetuath just rejuvenated...
I ran the Entrap as a constant that happened to anyone ending movement in the zone. It scared my players considerably. However, the Ghelarns both died quite quickly to 2H attacks.
What about if the familiar sneaks off, warns Khonnir, and Khonnir sets up a diversion that draws away Meyanda c.s., so that the PCs get a chance to escape?
That way, you take a lot of the sting out of the "saved by NPC" thing, because the NPCs work off-screen to give the PCs the chance to do some on-screen stuff. But the heroes do get rewarded for saving Khonnir, which is also nice. And it rewards the effort to conceal the familiar.
That was my original plan, but my Inquisitor ended up preferring to wear a shield to be tankier. The Investigator turned out to be a longspear specialist.
We played this a while back at high tier with a party containing a gunslinger5/inquisitor of Gorum1; paladin 7 pregen; investigator 5 (mine, strength longspear build); and ranger archer 4.
It was fun, especially with the GM hamming up the cultists. But I should warn: these old adventures with lots of clerics in heavy armor can't stand up to gunslingers (and presumably, alchemists) that target Touch AC.
One thing I do miss in the pregens, especially at level 1, is a dedicated archer. Some of the pregens have a bow, but none of them have Precise Shot at level 1, and that's a showstopper.
"Elven archer" isn't the most original concept ever, but it's something that quite a few new players express interest in.
Bonus would be a picture on the backside of the sheet explaining the (ranged) cover rules with a simple picture. I think the tactical depth of moving to shoot without cover is a nice taste of that side of PF, without being overwhelming. But, Precise Shot really is required for the pregen to feel effective in often cramped low-level dungeons.
I think it's best to interpret the movement of teleportation spells as something different than "moving your feet" like that limiting 5ft steps.
I'd be inclined not to apply Freedom of Movement to Dimensional Anchor, because DA isn't stopping you from moving your body freely, it's just keeping it in this dimension. But it's a grey area.
I just wanted to point out that if you're going to classify teleportation as movement, then it probably can't be combined with 5ft steps anymore - which screws over casters a lot more I'd say.
There's no explicit rule saying you can't full attack with crossbows, guns, or slings for that matter.
There's only some reminder text that points out that this or that ability removes the reloading obstacle that would normally make it impossible to fire more than once.
You're inferring a rule that doesn't exist. Such a rule would be significant enough that if it existed, it would be called out explicitly, in the description of the weapon, or the firearms rules. We shouldn't have to read crossbow feats to discover that we can't full-attack with firearms.
Dead Shot (Ex): At 7th level, as a full-round action, the gunslinger can take careful aim and pool all of her attack potential into a single, deadly shot.
This implies that the gunslinger has a multi-shot potential that can be pooled into a single shot instead.
Apart from that, it does quite a few things; conserves ammo, efficiently handles DR, and increases the chance of a critical hit.
It wouldn't be difficult rules-wise, but I have my doubts if it's a good idea style-wise to just make a carbon copy but divinify it. I would prefer more differences, substantial and cosmetic.
I do think Brigh's faithful should have an interesting PrC, but I'd slant it a bit away from electronics, Brigh seems more clockwork-oriented. The stuff that fell onto Numeria is alien to her to, even though she's more appreciative.
I'd say focus more on Constructs (including but not limited to robots) and less on guns.
When Rapid Reload was written for the CRB, the CRB was the only book. Gungslingers didn't exist yet. Also, Paizo's policy is to not have the CRB refer to stuff in other books.
There's nothing in the gunslinger writeup that suggests you can't make full attacks, except that reloading would be a problem without aids like feats or cartridges.
I believe it's the same with Rapid Reload by the way: the only reason you can't normally full attack with a crossbow is because you'd need move actions to reload. If you had a magic crossbow that automatically reloads you wouldn't need Rapid Shot. That text in the feat is just a reminder of the consequences of reducing the load time to Free.
Besides that, guns can't be both in line with crossbows and normal bows for power level, since there's an ocean of difference between those. Crossbows lag behind composite (Str) bows for damage, and require feats to get the same firing rate. There's far more material published for bows than for crossbows, too.
Given how hard dedicated archers hit, I also don't think gunslingers are ahead of them, more like just on-par.
I don't think it was intended that something as basic as how SLAs work was intended to differ between monsters and players. If it was really intended to be different it would've been called out with more fanfare. Rather, I think it's a case of word count woes.
If something is defined differently in Bestiary and CRB, I think it's usually wisest to go with the longest, more detailed writeup.
Auke Teeninga wrote:
It's a good after-the-fact complement to Protection from X, but I have to wonder. It's a Save Negates (Harmless) spell.
Would a dominated character try the save? As I understand Dominate Person, it doesn't actually change someone's attitude, it just forces the person to carry out orders. So the dominated person would be aware of what's going on, and probably resent the domination, and be willing to accept Harmless spells from the people he still knows are his allies.
As a significant bonus, Suppress Charms & Compulsions also works against Confusion.
If the saving throw is giving you trouble, there's also the more exotic solution of using a medlance loaded with [url=http://www.archivesofnethys.com/EquipmentMiscDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Essence%20of%20independence]essence of independence]. Touch attack to deliver the Essence; the only save your ally will be rollling is the one to shake off the Dominate, and at a whopping +4 alchemical bonus.
With regard to nonlethal damage, it's important to remember that it drops people when it's equal to their current HP, but only overflows into lethal damage when it's equal to their total HP.
When you keep that in mind, it gets a lot easier for barbarians and paladins to subdue people without accidentally killing them.
Karui Kage wrote:
2. Search - I developed the entire engine myself for fun, but if there are better already made engines out there that I could plugin, I'd love to know about them. I've thought about sticking a google search engine on the site for one.
In general I like the search as it is now, as opposed to the google model. While google search is pretty clever, it gets harder and harder to do non-fuzzy searches. Your search engine allows "solid" searches which are really convenient if you know what you're looking for.
One thing that does irritate me: if you click on a search result such as an alchemical discovery, you go to the top of the list of discoveries, rather than to that specific one. I've noticed the same behaviour with rogue talents and rage powers. If you used anchors and linked the search results to those, we'd arrive more on-destination.
Apart from that, the new search interface is more user-friendly. Great work!
While I certainly see the resistance to more open replay policies, I'd be curious to see what would happen if there were some 1-5, 3-7 and 5-9 evergreens made available. It would probably be best to make them available on a trial basis, just in case replays really do have a negative impact on the campaign as a whole. Offering it on a trial basis gives the option of saying "Whoops!" and pulling them from legal PFS material or just removing the replay option from the scenarios/modules. I think this is probably the solution that acknowledges the most positions on the topic and could provide some very valuable insight for continued discussion.
I've been prepping The Wounded Wisp and comparing it to The Confirmation, and I think it's an interesting development. The Confirmation has random encounters to keep it "fresh", but playing it twice and running it 3-4 times (I lose track) for me the only thing that's really novel is how the end fight will play out. (That's gone differently every time though.)
The Wounded Wisp shows more finesse in writing evergreens; the random elements don't provide just different combats, but also put a different spin on the story.
Based on that experience, it'd be sweet to have an evergreen L3 and L6 (levels often reported as being hard to get past) that's maybe 64 pages long, but that can take so many twists and turns that it'll stay fresh for a long time.
John Compton wrote:
I think it's a fair boon, I'd like to actually get my hands on one though. I would prefer a distribution channel that isn't Con-reliant, because cons aren't so common here in the Netherlands.
In general, I'm uncomfortable with using big cons in the US as a distribution venue for boons, because it's not something I can afford to visit.
It's fine as a first testing ground, of course, but I'd like it if - when it turns out it works well - this kind of thing is made available more locally.
I'm fairly happy with the current level of replay, it could be just a shade more - occasionally recharging stars would do it for me.
I think the current system of "precious replay" is pretty decent.
"Precious" because of limited star replays, means you'll be saving them up for scenarios you'll really relish replaying. I think that prevents the grind Drogon warns about.
Re-GMing is an interesting issue. On the one hand, thoroughly preparing a scenario is a serious investment (money, props, time, effort), and running a scenario more than once can make you better at it.
On the other hand, I've occasionally been frustrated when one GM "hogs" a scenario even without credit, running it so often that everyone's played it, and I have a hard time finding people to run it for credit myself.
For irregular stuff like forests, printing is far superior to drawing, because that's really a pain.
For more regular stuff like dungeons, drawing isn't too hard.
The ruler and compass are big friends to make stuff come out neatly.