|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
David knott 242 wrote:
So a Monk 1/Wizard 9 would go slow just like a Wizard 10, while a Monk 10 would be going fast?
Well, that certainly sounds fair. After all, everyone knows that multiclassing caster/noncasters are totally OP.</sarcasm>
It's not really that easy. False Focus would "apply" to augmented Ray of Frost because it now has material components, but then do absolutely nothing, because you didn't actually need those components. False Focus only does anything if you actually needed the component, and you don't need APCs.
You're allowed to cast the spell without the APC, but if you do, you don't get the bonus, because you didn't include it.
It's been ruled before that if a class gives you a choice of bonus feats, the choice of those feats is made during the "allocate skills and feats" step of the leveling up process, not the "add new class abilities" step.
So suppose at level 7 you got to select a bonus feat from some specific list of feats, and you need to meet prerequisites. You can first allocate skill ranks and get your level 7 normal feat, before testing if you qualify for the bonus feat you'd like to select.
False Focus wrote:
By using a divine focus as part of casting, you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component.
You don't need alchemical power components to cast spells. You can cast the spell without them, so you don't need them. They're completely optional. Therefore it's not at all certain that False Focus applies to them.
Do you think the monk player will enjoy the game more if his wizard colleague is lower level?
Do you think it will be more fun to play a wizard if it means you'll be lower level than your party-mates?
Personally, I wouldn't like either. I've had the dubious joy of playing an archer that was at some point level 7 while the rest of the party was level 3-5. So I got stuck playing the tank because they were all too squishy.
There's of course a big difference between CR and level. CR tells you how hard it is to defeat a monster using PC-style abilities and gear. It tells you very little about how well the monster would do against other monsters. It's a lot like comparing apples and apple knives.
Consider: a CR 10 vampire might be CR-appropriate for the level 10 party, who have magic weapons and anti-domination gear/spells. But if you put him up against say, a 10HD wight, he'll totally win that fight, because the wight's energy drain doesn't do anything to the vampire, and the vampire has DR and fast healing.
However, against other humanoids, who resemble the PCs in the sort of abilities they could have, CR is a bit more useful as a guideline.
If you're worried, maybe it's better to take slightly weaker monsters but with unusual abilities; the novelty factor of playing something you normally never get to play with should make it a fun game.
How about the following?
I'm not entirely sure if it should or shouldn't work. "I don't like it" is of course not a sufficient GM argument, especially in PFS. "I don't believe it's supposed to work that way" is a legitimate argument. The rules are at least somewhat vague after all, and that means the GM needs to decide how to interpret them.
A better argument against I think is this. Alchemical components are optional. You don't need them to cast the spell. False Focus allows you to bypass the need for a component. It lets you cast Burning Hands without the alchemist's fire. (Well, you always could.)
I do think the burden of proof is on the player in this case, to prove that you really can do this. Although I think it would be nice if it were true.
I was looking for a rule that would tell me whether you could summon a creature into a square occupied by another (because creatures with 3+ size difference can share a square). What I found though was this:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
Interpreting this overly literally, you can't actually summon aquatic creatures in water, only on dry land. I think that's where the common sense part of Rule 0 comes into play. I'd interpret this a bit more liberally:
So if that dog is small and that hippo is huge, you could summon the dog into the hippo's square. Sadly the PFS rules have no mechanics for smaller creatures climbing bigger creatures, despite those being widely represented in cinema (like Legolas climbing those elephants in RotK), so it's undefined whether you can summon the dog on top of the hippo.
EDIT: I'm not saying the rules are good rules, just how I understand them to work. :P
Sometimes the faction missions actually contain clues to the main mission, or goad you in a direction that's good for the main mission. Sometimes they provide context for the story that you wouldn't discover otherwise.
These faction missions I'll keep. I remind players that there are no consequences for failing them. However, I also assure them that I'm only handing them out of they're somehow relevant.
That said, how do you set up games? If you know in advance that you're going to play a social scenario, why didn't you bring a socially capable character?
The eldest daughter of the prominent Blakros family is set to wed an influential Hellknight, and the Pathfinder Society is invited to the festivities. Dressed for a wedding befitting royalty, a team of Pathfinders attend the ceremony on behalf of the Decemvirate, but will their presence ultimately strengthen the Society's relationship with the influential Blakroses, or will events at the wedding bring the already tenuous alliance to a breaking point?
If you saw that, isn't it fairly obvious that social skills will be needed to participate fully?
I'm not really sure what you want to do and why, but I think I should draw your attention to this bit in the equipment chapter of the CRB:
From the PRD/CRB, magic chapter:
You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.
We can keep the MoMS, but we'd have to restrict the dipping tricks. The point of the archetype is to have many styles, not one style without limits.
EDIT: I think fixing the MoMS is a job for the PDT though, not for campaign leadership. These problems affect the game as a whole, it's just PFS that's drawing attention to it.
In the meantime, I do think it's safe to un-ban Pummeling Charge.
It's my understanding that PFS allows things unless there's a good reason not to. I don't think any sufficient reason to ban it remains.
I get the desire for a different, low-magic flavor of the game.
And then sometimes people argue the game would be more balanced by making it more low-magic. But when you look at the proposed house rules, they're rarely more balanced; they yank the balance around, screw over one or more classes, but the end result usually isn't actually balanced. For example:
Overhauling PF to yank out big elements is quite hard. So why do people try? I think Bob's outlined the major reasons on that.
What about wayangs as a race? Just like elves and tieflings, good ability modifiers, but also the advantages of being Small.
I think you're selling Fabricate short. Before you start enchanting items, you first need to build them. Fabricate can shortcut the normally obscenely long crafting times of mundane crafting.
Making it harder to layer multiple buffs does sound like a good change, especially if you design the available buffs so that there's no single one that's always the best for every situation. Meaning that you really need to think about what buff to lay on.
I'm not sure if concentration is the best way to do it, because that way you can still buff other people (and profit from a Leadership-driven regiment of support casters).
A straight maximum on the number of spells that can affect you at the same time (X buffs, Y debuffs) seems nicer. If you exceed it a random previous one goes away. ("Hit me with some more Dazzle effects, maybe you'll randomly evict that Blindness curse...") That could also put a limit on the more obnoxious SoS builds (the ones that ruin all the GM's fun).
If you're gonna design limits, I think you should be honest about them; not hiding prestige classes behind a "can cast level X spells" if what you really want is to say "must be level Y". If Paizo had just said "you must be level 6 before becoming Mystic Theurge", we wouldn't have this embarrassing early entry thing. Although I think MT entry ought to happen around level 5, not 7.
Likewise, if you want to limit the number of buffs, just put a cap on them; making it harder just pushes people to try harder.
It's really only a few corner cases in the inquisitor that get hit by this. And if you were using those to double-stack Wisdom to some abilities, I personally think you had it coming because you should've known that was a little cheesy.
I think wraithstrike's points are good: typed bonuses are easier to understand than nested sources, but page concerns are of course a real thing. I think it could be solved with a CRB FAQ titled "so what is the exhaustive list of bonus types, and which ones stack with themselves?"
I do think Andrew has a point about the typed ability bonuses. They aren't defined anywhere except in the Ultimate Magic section, so you're not actually changing an explicit list of bonus types that people at large have been using. (Although now might be a good time to make such a list).
I also think that typing them "strength bonus" is less confusing than the nested sources technique. I think people don't know or expect nested sources to exist; it's not written anywhere and it's not intuitive. So if you want to base rulings on it you need to make it a lot more well-known.
Umm, does this not make just about every Inquisitor option redundant?
I don't think so. It makes the combination of some inquisitions (Conversion for example) with some archetypes (Heretic, Infiltrator) somewhat redundant, although not totally. The archetypes do more than just alter the abilities, and the inquisition changes some skills that the archetypes don't.
These are good points.
I think the early entry is pretty cheesy and should be discouraged. But in this case I don't think it's actually harmful, just cheesy.
Most of the time you can get the prestige as long as you follow these guidelines:
1) Do what the VC asked you to.
I played this a while ago and really liked it. Now I'm gonna run it next Sunday, and I'm really looking forward to it. I do think I'm gonna need a GM screen for this; I usually don't use one but I might need some trackers for stuff, and a place to arrange clue cards without people seeing how it's done.
Does anyone have advice on how to track time as a GM in a convenient way?
I wonder if it's easier to get a group to start using teamwork feats if they have an inquisitor? Solo tactics lets the inquisitor take a feat without the painful waiting time until he has a partner. Then, other PCs can take the same feat knowing they have at least one partner.
Anyway, teamwork feats are only a small aspect of actual teamwork. Most of the time I play with random PFS groups so we're not really good at working together. It's at its worst on low tier, because you get some inexperienced people, some people with pregens and often very cramped dungeons with everyone playing a 2H melee striker. At least we've got a decent amount of wand discipline. It's very easy to get Dutchmen to understand why everyone should pay for their own healing :P
At higher tiers it's better. People are already familiar with PF, and familiar with typical PFS challenges. Groups are usually formed in advance on Warhorn so there's a chance of a balanced group. If someone does use a pregen they tend to choose them based on what the group is weak in rather than based on what would appeal to a first-time player.
But a while back I had the distinct pleasure of playing in a mini-con where we played four games over three days, with a more or less constant group. Also nicely, the four scenarios (5-99, 6-01, 6-03 and 6-02) came to us in ascending order of difficulty. So by game three we were pretty well tuned to each other and by four we were an efficient machine. We still had a lot of melee strikers, but then you kinda need them in "robot scenarios", and we didn't get in each others' way.