Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Owl

Ascalaphus's page

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 5,579 posts (5,580 including aliases). 38 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 8 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,579 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court *

KingOfAnything wrote:
It's already calculated into the scenario rewards. If you don't get the bounty, you lose out on that gold.

This is often how it's done. The adventure is usually written to provide X gold split among Y things, they don't all have to be monsters.

Sovereign Court *

Julix wrote:
a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)?

Yes.

Julix wrote:
b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)?

Playing a 26 HP barbarian that turns into a nerdy wizard at level 2 is a bit gauche, but I wouldn't call it unethical.

Julix wrote:
c. would you do it?

I have and will likely do so again.

Julix wrote:
d. would you mind if others did?

Go ahead. Have a good time.

Sovereign Court *

I don't think you get anything extra. It's extremely rare that you get more gold than normal for an adventure. If it's not on the Chronicle you don't get it.

Sovereign Court *

Flagged: should have [Fabric of Reality Spoilers] in the thread title.

Sovereign Court *

Some of the most annoying people to play with are total klutzes when it comes to character building. Their extreme ineptitude can be grating. And then they start shooting hostages because they're not sure how to deal with the possessing entity.

And some extreme powergamers are a delight to play with because they know how to share spotlight but also make sure everyone makes it back alive. You look at the iffy signups for a dangerous scenario, worry a bit and then spot their name and "Phew! Ward is playing up only one level, this is going to be fine".

Sovereign Court *

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

@Nefreet: Your Q&A is looking good. Keep it up.

Nefreet wrote:

Q: What faction do the Pregens belong to?

A: Pregens are assumed to belong to the Grand Lodge faction.

This could be clearer though. We have cases to distinguish:

A) I'm attaching this sheet to a GL PC
B) I'm attaching this sheet to a non-GL PC

In case A, can I:
- Earn GL-specific boons?
- Advance my GL faction journal card?

In case B, can I:
- Earn boons of my own faction?
- Earn GL boons, since during this game I had a sudden bout of GL-affiliation?

---

The answer to most of these is probably No, but it would be good to clear up. Personally I'd like the option (perhaps for non-newbie players) to choose at the beginning of the session to declare their pregen in a different faction so that they can earn faction boons and journal advancement.

Imagine that your table is levels 3, 6, 6, 6 and you're the L3 player; furthermore, you're playing a 3-7 adventure which is supposed to be relevant to your faction, say Dark Archive. Your APL is 5.25 so you'd be playing the low tier with a grossly overqualified party; but you don't have enough players to play the high tier. If you switched to a L7 pregen you'd have a table that was nicely in-tier and everyone has a much better time. But you lose out on a boon or the opportunity to complete a hard Faction Journal goal.

I suspect "are assumed to be GL" is a trick to speed up starting the game with newbies, so that you don't have to explain factions and make them choose at the beginning of the game.

I think a better rule would be "pregens are assumed to be GL unless you state otherwise at the beginning of the scenario" and "you can only earn faction-specific boons if you played your pregen as belonging to that faction AND you attach the chronicle to a character of that faction."

Sovereign Court *

Humans are a mechanically strong choice for just about every class, and many people prefer them for nonmechanical reasons as well. I think the biggest strike against humans is that they lack darkvision and that PFS writers sometimes think that using lots of Darkness is still original.

Sovereign Court *

Joe Ducey wrote:
Juniperkitsu wrote:
Honestly, my biggest peeve about the the races in pfs is the fact that most players don't put any thought into their character's history. Like not knowing where they were raised, or even how they became a pathfinder.
Not sure that's really a problem with the races so much as the players lack of building a backstory. There are some races I wish had more background to help build backstory - Wayang I'm looking at you.

Yeah, there's like all of 3/4 of a page describing what the race is like, and about two pictures of wayangs. I would like more than that, wayangs could be awesome. I'm really enjoying playing mine as extremely skittish, scared of anything bigger than him, and lamenting the return of the sun to Golarion. Things were better when eagles couldn't spot you from up high.

Sovereign Court *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We seriously need a clear rule on how to handle "the same thing" appearing in two books with different, sometimes updated mechanics.

Because although people naturally assume so, there is not any rule saying you should use the newest rules, that anyone's been able to quote to me.

And if you think about it, that would undermine half the point of Additional Resources: that you can show your GM an accurate version of the ability you're using, if you own the source.

If only the version of a thing from the most recent source is legal, the other source is not sufficient. For example, if I have an item from UE, but it gets a newer printing in say, Adventurer's Armory. Because I have UE I have the right to use the item. But the newest rules are in a book that's not in the PRD and which I might not own, nor the GM.

This is less problematic if the newest source is in the PRD, which is often the case because stuff tends to go from softcovers to reprinting in hardcovers.

Sovereign Court *

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Mirza of Osirion wrote:
I personally prefer when Fluffy is on the same initiative as me. Streamlines the process.

nothing is stopping you from rolling twice and take the lower to streamline it.

Most people are fine with that.

Another solution is riding your pet around, at least until combat starts, because this way you and your mount sharea the same initiative*

*use only for streamlining purposes. Do not use to max out fluffies initiative. Do not use if nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant after contact with a WISC, slaad, or other creature lacking bilateral symmetry. If the taste of cheese persists for more than 4 hours contact your cleric...

What have you got against Valais?!

That aside, I very much prefer sharing initiative. Pay your Handle Animal skill rank tax, buy the training harness, take the standard tricks, and get on with things.

Sovereign Court *

One reason for channeling/running from haunts is that the lack of clarity in the rules, and the lack of guidance for GMs, makes interacting with them a pain for the players, not just the characters.

If the GM doesn't really know how haunts work, or has it wrong, or is being cagey about the game mechanics for interacting with haunts in general, they as a player it gets less and less fun to actually make the effort.

Sovereign Court *

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
TheFlyingPhoton wrote:
5) On the Scarab Sages card, how do you identify how to permanently destroy a haunt? Haunts always have a description on how to permanently destroy them, but it's never been clear on how to do that. A Knowledge(Religion) check?

Unclear. The Knowledge check rules for haunts are vague. If the GM doesn't allow "how do we destroy it" as a question, try "how do we find out how to destroy it" for a lead?

The knowledge rules say that you can make a check to know something useful, and more if you exceed the DC by 5+. It doesn't give difficulties for haunts, but there's no reason you can't use knowledge on haunts otherwise. I recommend using the same DCs as for creatures, i.e. based on CR.

Because haunts are not monsters, the monster knowledge rules don't apply. The best method to determine how to destroy a haunt is probably the speak with haunt spell. In my experience a common method is to bury/consecrate the remains of any creatures whose deaths may have caused the haunt.

While it's true the monster knowledge rules don't apply, that doesn't mean haunts are totally unknowable.

Knowledge skill description, CRB wrote:

Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.

Notice that it covers more than just monsters; it's just that the rules for monsters are best-defined.

For haunts, you could either base the DC on the haunt's CR as if it were a monster, or you could say "it's a really tough question" and pick something between 20 and 30.

I think I'd use DC 15 for vague clues that nudge people in the right direction, and DC 20-30 for insights into what spells the haunt uses, what it's AoE is and similar game mechanics.

Sovereign Court *

Gummy Bear wrote:

Mirza has a good point, ideally people should be thinking about their actions prior to their turn. Especially if they have a complex and/or time consuming class feature. That in addition to actually knowing how your abilities work should be considered general player etiquette IMO.

I think if you are doing the above and the animal etiquette stuff mentioned above and in the linked guides, you're golden.

EDIT: I'm not saying you have to be an expert or not have questions, but if you have several levels of using a class feature (like Finlander's example) you should have at least read how it works once.

I quite agree with this. The comment I was responding to sounded more like people with companions were expected to be faster than most people, with or without companions.

Of course you should have stuff precalculated as much as possible, and of course you're thinking ahead what sort of things you might want to do next turn.

But after a few levels, a tactically interesting combat will have enough things changing from turn to turn that you can't quite now what the situation will be when your turn comes up next. A new enemy is summoned, an enemy unexpectedly survives a full attack and is now in position to return the favor, a PC has just gone down and needs immediate attention, a Wall of Fire suddenly separates you from your planned target, you just got Greater Dispelled, and so forth.

Sovereign Court *

mcoppel wrote:
If you have problems with players at the table I would have a timer going for rounds, they only have 30-60 seconds and next.

Lots of players without companions aren't that fast either.

Sovereign Court *

Okay, I totally agree with that. I misunderstood your previous post, I thought you were saying you know how to destroy any arbitrary haunt. But they all have different destruction requirements, so.

What does trip up people is that the haunt mechanics aren't widely understood, or perfectly clear for that matter.

- The knowledge check to know anything] about a haunt is problematic, because there's no directly applicable rule to determine DC, or give indication on what kind of questions you can ask. The nearest analog is knowledge checks for monsters.
- The Gamemastery Guide has some rules for haunts, including that every direct effect counts as a mind-affecting fear effect and that fear immunity shields you from the direct effects; even if those are normally physical spells. This is something many GMs don't know, and it's rather mysterious how to handle it if the haunt summons monsters for example. Can a L3+ paladin even see or fight the monsters?

I think this issue with knowledge of the rules hamstrings players in interacting with haunts, leading to reduced agency and irritation.

Sovereign Court *

Mirza: suppressing a haunt with positive energy isn't the same as permanently destroying it. Positive energy just shuts it down for a day.

Many haunts in adventures are side effects of the BBEG. Winning the adventure often ends the haunt, or is at least a necessary step to it.

Sovereign Court *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Use sleeves of many garments to make it look like dress armor, and bring a rapier instead of a ripsaw glaive. In Taldor, falcatas are also a stylish weapon.

Your weapons will usually be masterwork or better, so they'll look fancy enough.

Sovereign Court *

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:

Some questions:

1) On the Grand Lodge card, can you get credit for the first goal when visiting the same nation twice, as long as you check boxes on different seasons' cards? (ie can I check that box off for the season 6 card for playing a scenario in Taldor and then check a box for the same goal on the season 7 card for playing a different scenario set in Taldor?)

Sure.

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:


2) On the Grand Lodge card, do demi-planes with civilizations in them qualify for the "adventure in a nation other than Absalom" goal? How about places that aren't nations, such as the Gloomspires (Hall of the Flesheaters) or where the entire adventure takes place at sea (Murder on the Throaty Mermaid)?

The Hao Jin tapestry has at least two independent city-states in it. I'd let the tapestry count.

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:


3) On the Grand Lodge card, can you check the "adventure in a nation other than Absalom" box on one season and check another box on a different season's card?

"Checking one of this goal’s boxes does not prevent you from checking one box for a different goal." Doesn't say the other goal has to be on the same card.

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:


4) On the Liberty's Edge card, for the "fail a save vs a compulsion, succeed at a subsequent save" goal, does another player using an ability to replace your save (eg, countersong) qualify for this goal? How about another player doing something that automatically ends the effect (casting a spell such as Calm Emotions)?

I'd allow countersong, but not Calm Emotions. Countersong looks enough like a second save to me.

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:


5) On the Scarab Sages card, how do you identify how to permanently destroy a haunt? Haunts always have a description on how to permanently destroy them, but it's never been clear on how to do that. A Knowledge(Religion) check?

Unclear. The Knowledge check rules for haunts are vague. If the GM doesn't allow "how do we destroy it" as a question, try "how do we find out how to destroy it" for a lead?

The knowledge rules say that you can make a check to know something useful, and more if you exceed the DC by 5+. It doesn't give difficulties for haunts, but there's no reason you can't use knowledge on haunts otherwise. I recommend using the same DCs as for creatures, i.e. based on CR.

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:


6) On the Sovereign Court card, for the Confidante reward, if a bard has Versatile Performance for Diplomacy, can he use his ranks in the Perform skill being used for Diplomacy, or is he restricted to just receiving the +2 bonus?

Just the +2 bonus, Versatile Performance doesn't replace skill ranks.

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:


7) On the Sovereign Court card, can you check the "don't reveal your faction affiliation when you achieve one of the above goals" goal for one season when checking the box for an identical "above goal" on a different season's card?

"Fulfill one of the goals above without revealing your faction affiliation to anyone other than a present or future

member of the Sovereign Court."

I would say no, stuff on the other card is not above the goals on one.

TheFlyingPhoton wrote:


8) On the The Exchange card, does banking money for the Investor Reward prevent you from checking the "Earn 50+ gold on a day job" goal?

I'd allow that.

---

And remember this:

Faction Cards How To Use wrote:

For GMs: By design, the Faction Journal Cards include a variety of goals, some which include very precise instructions and some that rely on interpretation. This is to allow PCs to have many opportunities to fulfill these goals, rather than forcing them to play a specific adventure to complete their cards. Err on the side of leniency when ruling whether or not a PC fulfilled a faction

objective; for example, defeating an undead creature does not necessarily mean striking the killing blow, and someone who actively contributes to the combat almost certainly qualifies. Any skill check DCs associated with a goal are independent of and do not completely replace any other DCs that appear in a scenario.

Sovereign Court *

The feat is probably listed as legal by mistake.

Sovereign Court *

To be fair, in several opera adventures the adventure text says it's okay to bring some weaponry, but GMs make it harder anyway.

Sovereign Court *

@Damanta: I'm really looking forward to Where Mammoths Dare Not Tread. Everyone's bringing a companion: mammoth, worg, megaloceros, roc, intelligent sword and I'm guessing an undead army.

Sovereign Court

That's a very designer-centric way of looking at it. "This feature is hard to implement properly, so people shouldn't want it."

Boss fights are a staple of mythology. RPGs should be able to create satisfying fights of a party against a single monster. It's something I'm sure a lot of designers would like to invent.

And it's also a matter of degrees. Old crane wing made things significantly worse. Changing it didn't defeat the whole problem, but it's a step in the right direction.

And yeah, I think slumber is also badly designed and should also be changed.

Sovereign Court

While old Crane Wing resembles Deflect Arrow in terms of pure mechanics, it's not the same balance-wise.

Most monsters with a ranged attack have something else they can do, while many dumb melee monsters don't. Most ranged attacks will gain iteratives; monsters with natural weapons don't. And in my experience, I fight more things in melee than at range.

So old Crane Wing had a much wider scope of use than Deflect Arrow.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many different kind of dungeons - no one answer that is always right.

You could characterize a dungeon by how the inhabitants are organized.
- Are they all on the same team, or are there perhaps different tribes/gangs/solitary horrors?
- How inclined are the monsters to wander? Hobgoblins might patrol their territory, while a golem stays on guard.
- How much room is there? A ruined city might have a monster every house, every other city block, or maybe just three gangs that keep to their districts.

If you have an idea of the "ecosystem" of your dungeon, you can set up wandering encounters that "make sense". In fact, your players might figure out how the place works, and use that to figure out where they can rest.

For example, if the monsters are territorial gangs, upon defeating one gang there's a swath of territory the PCs can rest in for a while. After a couple of days, the other gangs notice the border isn't being watched anymore and start to scout, and eventually move in to claim the territory.

In another example, the dungeon is a big hobgoblin fortress. While the PCs have the element of surprise they get rooms with encounters they can handle. Some time after initial entry, patrols find trashed rooms and corpses and sound the alarm, and a coordinated search for the intruders starts. This is a "hard" dungeon for PCs because if they dally too long or make too much noise they could be trapped against waaaay more monsters that they're ready for.

Now, if the players have some idea of what they're facing, they can start making plans, like "we have to get the MacGuffin and get back out again before they get organized", or "we need to focus on clearing out one gang completely so that we can use their territory as a base camp". They can make decisions on when to go nova or when they need to count out each spell carefully because they need to do more before it's safe to rest.

Sovereign Court *

Ragoz: when the low subtier has the same monster as the high subtier, but with a Young template, that increases its AC and to-hit?

Sovereign Court

A somewhat extreme way of reading it is that while the caster isn't visible, the spell is. Casting a spell while invisible is a way to give away your location.

Sovereign Court *

@Ragoz: I'm not saying scenarios should be easier or harder; I'm saying authors should be honest about how hard they are, instead of manipulating corner cases of CR calculation.

Sovereign Court *

Played this last weekend on low tier. We had a party that only barely didn't qualify for high tier, so of course we had a relatively easy time.

Interesting point was when I used my folio reroll on Diplomacy with the Shoanti informant to turn a 2 into a 19. Getting the warning about Galdran coming at us with fire meant that we all had Fire Resistance 20 up at the final fight. I felt so very vindicated in spending my reroll on Diplomacy instead of saving it for a crucial saving throw.

Also interesting was the Aspis fight: our wizard Dim-Doored Zeva out of the fight, and the summmoner got a Satyr to Suggest everyone leave the place. So when the haunt triggered there was nobody (neither Aspis nor us) in the market. My inquisitor was one of the few people not failing against the Suggestion and standing just outside the door; she was just looking over her shoulder and going "whaa... guys...?"

Sovereign Court *

x4 crits in low-level adventures seem to be a thing of the dark times of season 0-1, when writers had yet to realize how enormously bad an idea that was in terms of writing a fun adventure. Even though it makes perfect sense as a favored weapon for the god of sudden accidental death. Fun > Flavor.

Grading scenarios by difficulty is, well, difficult. Reading reviews can help, but not every reviewer is equally representative. It's easier to know if a review would apply to your group if the review mentions what kind of party had that easy/hard time. ("They had four barbarians and thought the enemies went down easy.")

What annoys me most is when an author manipulates the CR grading system to produce encounters that are technically within the limits of the tier, but are really much harder. A level 2 barbarian is supposedly only a CR 1 encounter, and two of them a CR 3. But their to-hit and damage output can easily kill a L1 character with a lucky roll.

Likewise you have shenanigans like adding a Young template to a monster with weapon finesse or that relies on ranged attacks. Supposed downscaling increases its to-hit by +3.

Terrain that really favours enemies is supposed to be worth +1 EL, but that's often ignored. Like everyone having to squeeze into a room where they then get fireballed and fast-bombed by an optimized alchemist.

I'm fine with the challenge, but let's be honest about how hard it is, instead of pretending it's easy because that's what blind faith in normal CR counting rules tells you.

Sovereign Court

You can have durable shuriken, I think. But keep in mind that durable ammo loses enchantment after the first use.

Sovereign Court *

The satchel gives total cover, but also means your familiar can't help out quite as much.

Sovereign Court *

For season 0-3, if nobody's in the high tier, you don't have to play up. That rule doesn't apply to newer scenarios however.

In the 4,4,5,5,5 case, I'd propose that they may want to use a couple of pregens to either reduce APL, or get more ready for the high tier.

EDIT: or of course take a look at their character folders, maybe someone has an alternative PC they can play that would shift the tier.

I do try to spot this before it happens and discuss it with players if they're heading into a weird tier.

Sovereign Court

DM_Blake wrote:

Won't you have egg on your face if you ready your action to prevent him from casting a spell but he reaches into his pocket (not spellcasting so doesn't trigger your readied action) and then Poof! He disappears.

Better to be safe than sorry. Better to be thorough than sloppy. Ready for EVERYTHING.

Except that readying for everything is not the RAW or the RAI, but who are we to worry about such trivial things as rules?

You can be specific or generic in what you pick as a condition. "If he does something magical" is just as valid a choice as "if he casts a spell", but it'll also catch a cleric channeling negative energy. Not that you can interrupt that, but at least you didn't waste a round waiting for a spell that never came.

Nobody's proposing fifteen separate triggers here. Nobody's proposing ignoring the rules like you keep saying.

Sovereign Court

There's a risk of course. If you ready an action in such a way that a 5ft step itself triggers it ("he does anything other than surrendering"), you get your chance to strike before the wizard starts casting, not during. So you won't interrupt his spell. It does come close to guaranteeing that you'll some of what you want no matter what he does, but you're not as certain that you'll get everything that you want.

@Letric: there is a way to 5ft-step during a readied action, but you can only do that if you didn't move during your turn.

CRB, Combat, Ready wrote:
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.

Sovereign Court

I think the condition should be clear enough, and objective enough. Any external observer should be able to quickly and easily adjudicate whether the event matches the trigger or not.

"Unless he does what I just told him to" is broad but clear and objective. The wizard either complies, doesn't, or bluffs the fighter into thinking he complied. All of these can be judged by an external observer (GM, bystander), assisted by some Bluff/Sense Motive checks maybe.

"If he does something I don't like" is not clear and objective enough. It can't be fairly judged by anyone else than the fighter and that makes it an invalid condition in my eyes.

"If he does one of the following 20 things" is too complicated, too. Lists aren't okay. Broad categories are. "If he casts a spell or channels or uses a supernatural ability or activates an item..." is too much I think. "If he does anything magical" is a fine and clear condition.

Sovereign Court *

I do like support clerics a lot. I mean, everyone can pull their weight and it's nice enough if a barbarian beats up a baddy, but someone who takes away the pain of a really nasty negative condition, that I really appreciate.

Remove Paralysis, Remove Blindness, Daylight...

Sovereign Court

I'd call "something I don't like" too vague. "Anything other than exactly what I told him to do" is pretty clear however.

Sovereign Court *

I like pulling out alchemical remedies that people never knew existed. Did that mean monster just Sunder your bow? I can make it better again in a minute. Stinking cloud got you coughing? Try a new save at +5. Got hit with something mind-affecting? Don't be afraid of the doctor's needle.

Sovereign Court *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@LoPan: found it.

Dafydd wrote:

First, these are AWESOME, I wish I had a game this week to start working on them.

Second, a couple questions:
If I have filled the entire goal of GM, can the next time I GM and apply the chronicle to the character, can I check a different box? One that was still complete able in that scenario of course.

Additionally, if I GM for a high level game (such as a 3-7 or 5-9) can I check the GM box, even if the character getting the chronicle is not in range yet, or do I need to wait till I can apply the chronicle to check the box?

You can only check off GM boxes when you Gm. You can't check off any of the "player" boxes for GMing.

To your second question, the answer is yes.

Sovereign Court *

As for the custom summons list - some of the AP ones are a bit wacky, particularly the level II hellhounds for Asmodeus and level IV tiger for Irori. But hellhounds are quite feeble as a level IV summons; I wonder if some AP writer wasn't doing some stealth rebalancing there?

Sovereign Court *

Inner Sea Gods has articles describing the priesthood of the Big 20, including mention of classes found in the church. Some even have bards in there.

But a simpler solution might be to equate priests to divine spellcasters that must have a patron deity, or even just to all divine spellcasters that have one (mandatory or voluntary).

Sovereign Court *

Nefreet wrote:
John Francis wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
So, I reiterate, please change the guide so that everyone is at least on the same page.
I think that's one thing we can all agree on (and what Nefreet has been requesting) - that the Guide should be updated to make it very clear what is allowed in playing a pregen.

I'm actually wondering if we can eschew Pregens from the Guide entirely in favor of a Sticky.

It'd shorten the Guide and create one place where questions and answers about Pregens can be compiled.

I think the guide should be polished further to reduce the number of different sources where you need to look up and compare rulings. This issue flares up again and again, it should be in the guide.

Likewise, the subtier calculation section needs to be crystal clear. One flowchart illustrating the decision process for subtiers, and where in that flow choosing pregens happens, would help a lot.

Sovereign Court

9mm wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

The autodeflect for melee was kinda broken. It let a level 2 monk stymie a T-Rex, or just about any monster with only one natural attack, no matter how good the monster's to-hit.

Martials should have nice things, but this was way beyond.

meanwhile the level 1 monk with deflect arrows stymies a crossbowman, whats your point.

If a dm is dumb enough to throw a singleton monster with exactly one attack at an original crane wing user, they deserve to have their encounter cakewalked.

If the GM is runnning a PFS scenario, he can't just switch out a monster.

Most things that have ranged attacks also have some other thing they can do, but the same doesn't go for (dumb) melee monsters. And most ranged things eventually develop iteratives, but that doesn't work for single-natural-attack monsters.

If the GM has to throw out 20% of the Bestiary because of one feat, that feat is probably not well-balanced.

The issue isn't so symmetrical as you're making it look.

---

Re: other things (slumber hex) are just as problematic: sure. I don't like how that thing can wreck scenarios either.

But just because I'm not solving problem B for some reason, doesn't mean I shouldn't solve A.

Sovereign Court

The autodeflect for melee was kinda broken. It let a level 2 monk stymie a T-Rex, or just about any monster with only one natural attack, no matter how good the monster's to-hit.

Martials should have nice things, but this was way beyond.

Sovereign Court

Style: as before;
- reduce penalty for defensive fighting, increase Dodge bonus

Wing: choose between defensive fighting or total defense.
- on defensive fighting, get additional +4 dodge. If this dodge bonus makes the difference between an enemy hitting or not, lose it after that attack ("if a +4 bonus would've been enough to deflect an attack, you deflect it", informally speaking)
- on total defense: deflect one attack of your choice

Riposte: if Wing "goes off", you get an AoO.

----

Basically, it works a lot like original crane wing except you can only deflect a blow that hit you by less than 4 margin, and have to do so on the first qualifying attack.

So it's not going to easily protect a L2 character from a T-Rex, but it'll help a lot against opponents in the same CR bracket as yourself.

Sovereign Court

I'm pretty happy with newest crane wing. It seems like finally a good compromise between power and balance and practical mechanics has been reached.

Sovereign Court *

As an aside, I'd like to thank John for being ahead of things with these errata and showing up prepared. It's really helping ensure a soft landing.

I'm annoyed by some changes (Litany went from very nice to too unreliable to bother with), but think other changes are fair (MoMS actually encourages you to use many styles instead of being the world's cheesiest dip sauce). I think the Crane Wing change is finally right. It's good enough to work, simple enough to work, and not broken anymore.

Sovereign Court *

@Nefreet: I notice that you're not taking a stand (yet) on the "can I play a higher than likely subtier pregen" question. Otherwise your points look good.

---

What disturbs me a bit is the assumption some people seem to be making that someone reaching for the higher-level pregen intends to be a jerk. I can come up with several bona fide reasons to go for the higher level pregen.

* The player wants to apply credit from the scenario to a level 3 character which he's unable or unwilling to play here. Perhaps he's scheduled to play him tomorrow in a 1-3 module and doesn't want to level out of tier today. Holding a pregen sheet would allow just that.

* The player wants to test out a level 4 class feature on the pregen, like Investigator Studied Combat.

* The other players want to play up and the higher choice of pregen would make the math work to do that.

I could probably come up with more reasons, but the point is: this player doesn't have to have bad intentions nor does it have to be bad for the game.

As a general principle I would encourage people to take the pregen likely to be in-tier. It will usually be the ideal solution. If someone's only reason for wanting to play the higher level is MOAR POWER, I might put my foot down. But it's entirely possible that the player has a good reason for it, and then I think it should be allowed if possible.

Sovereign Court

Ascalaphus wrote:
CRB wrote:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear.

Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields.

When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.

Ultimate Combat errata wrote:

In the Sohei archetype, change the Weapon and Armor Proficiency entry to the following:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A sohei is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armor, instead of a monk’s usual weapon and armor proficiencies. This ability alters the monk’s weapon and armor proficiencies.

APG wrote:
Temple Sword: Heavy blades typically used by guardians of religious sites, temple swords have distinctive crescent-shaped blades, appearing as an amalgam of a sickle and sword. Many have holes drilled into the blade or places on the pommel where charms, bells, or other holy trinkets might be attached. Monks are proficient with the temple sword.
Question: are Sohei still proficient with the temple sword?

So....?

Sovereign Court

CRB wrote:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear.

Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields.

When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.

Ultimate Combat errata wrote:

In the Sohei archetype, change the Weapon and Armor Proficiency entry to the following:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A sohei is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armor, instead of a monk’s usual weapon and armor proficiencies. This ability alters the monk’s weapon and armor proficiencies.

APG wrote:
Temple Sword: Heavy blades typically used by guardians of religious sites, temple swords have distinctive crescent-shaped blades, appearing as an amalgam of a sickle and sword. Many have holes drilled into the blade or places on the pommel where charms, bells, or other holy trinkets might be attached. Monks are proficient with the temple sword.

Question: are Sohei still proficient with the temple sword?

1 to 50 of 5,579 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.