|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That is my understanding as well. PF already nerved the Protection From Alignments spells this is based off of, where it no longer gives protection against some effects, and also no longer gives total protection, (now its a new Save), so to me it reads you just can't keep moving in and out to get a new Save. Even that, though, seems stupid, as it is a radius buff.
Inside your shielded, outside you are not. If stepping outside of the area stops it from having any effect, its a extremely useless spell and has no business being any higher than 2nd level.
Minor clarification. It will Provoke each square that they move through, and the one that gets the AoO can opt not to take it at each threatened square. They only get one AoO, regardless of how many the target moves through that they threaten, even with Combat Reflexes, however.
This could be important, because the first square might not be optimal, for example if they have an ally to flank with at the second, they can opt to take it later on if they want. Or if the creature has different attacks, and they want to use one that has less reach, for example, they can wait to see if the target moves within reach, not taking the AoO at the first opportunity.
Secondly, its not that they only Provoke once, its that others can only take one AoO against them, each, for moving per round, regardless of how many AoOs they can take.
Im a little confused, too.
Lets say a Druid finds a scroll in a game, but it is NOT on the Chronicle sheet. Can they buy it, at value, and then add it to their effective list?
If instead they find a scroll that IS on the Chronicle sheet. Can they later, (games later), purchase it and add it to their list?
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
It's unlikely, but what would be amazing is if Paizo did a sort of about face on how they normally do books like this, and basically ignore the classes that are already "wild" and instead focus on making other classes more playable in a "wild" setting.
my brain would explode if they did this.
In a good or bad way?
I really want to preorder this because I pretty much only play "wild" characters, but I'm also kind of leery. is there more wilderness than the jungle theme in this?
So, with that in mind, would you rather have a book that allows you to use more classes effectively as "wild characters" or more tools for a few existing "wild characters"?
I'd rather see, and this is just me, but I'd rather see, for example, ways to play a Cleric, Paladin, or Fighter in the wild than more Barabarian, Druid, or Ranger mechanics to help them do what they can already do.
I ran those three last Game Day. Interesting times.
It would be good if we could have a few more seasonal event days etc.
You know, it could be pretty amazing to have a Holiday Boon just for Online Gaming Events. We really should petition Jessie on this. . .
Jesse Davis wrote:
In face-to-face games, especially at Cons where there is a hard limit on time, you can call a game early based on time. You then basically award Chronicle Sheets based on what the party has accomplished to the point.
I've used this in the past game days, ending them early based on the deadline, then doing a sort of extended wrap up unofficially for the players, just keeping in mind that nothing can alter the Chronicle Sheet that's already been reported. It's more of a sense of closure.
There is also the magic item treadmill: You're going to be running into problems because you need The Stupid Six (Magic Weapon, Magic Armor, Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, Belt of Physical Stat, Headband of Mental Stat), and you'll need to blow most of your rather arbitrarily-decided-roughly-fifteen-years-ago (!) wealth by character level on improving The Sextet of Stultissitude just to keep up with the monsters' steady improvement. (So much for setting some money aside to buy your castle stronghold, hundred score magi to guard the dump, and the hottest cleric of some quasi-evil deity to serve as your consort, I guess, but that +4 corrosive burst dragonbane/aberrationbane katana's not going to pay for itself.)
Honestly, a few simple tweeks could fix this. If you remove the rule that a cast needs to have their casting stat at a certain level to cast spells of a given level, and make DC's based on caster's HD rather than their Stat, that can remove a great deal of the "I need a Headband of ______".
Ring of Protection and Amulet of Natural Armor are also not at all required. They are just common due to their relatively cheap prices vs other more circumstantial rings and amulets. Especially the Ring of Protection, though, it' just a far too common bonus, so to me, it's not really worth it most of the time. I'd generally rather have other things like Ring of the Sublime, Feather Fall, or even Sustenance.
Very few things can compare to the amazingness of a Magic Carpet, so I'd rather just buy some backup weapons than try to maximize one main one, and even Fighters nw get bonuses for Weapon Groups to help out.
@ the OP, something that Paizo has changed and an official rule that may help are the Spell Masterwork Transformation and the ability for anyone (not just casters) to create Magical Items. So, to a certain extent, you can already do a limited form of Weapons of Legacy, especially if you view things like +1 and +2 items as less magical and more rare/uncommon.
Understood. So far 9 players have outright declined to play CORE, mostly on the grounds that it disallowed many of the fun options they want while leaving others that are known issues, (pets for example) in.
Lack of Archetype options, favorite spells, or Feats that make some classes viable (Monk and Fighter where called out), not being able to use special earned races, or many of the books they have purchased, mostly JUST for PFS play just killed it.
My actual suggestion was to do Core for only level 1-3 or 4, finally allowing for everyone to be able to play together in level range (removing Tier 1-7 was a terrible idea) and finding those rare gems that someone had not played before. But even then, it would set player's builds/concepts too far behind, and well like I said, almost unanimous "I'm out".
It was a good idea, but just didn't target the right issue with PF bloat, in my opinion. I don't think it is going to increase play, but introduce further issues, and really, (and I hope I'm wrong), may very well drive people away. Especially in the areas where there are 2 or 3 tables, but are having the main issue I am, running low on valid Scenarios and each new player introduces a new gap that divides who can play together.
I'm not sure what part you are not understanding?
When you drop to below your Con score in negative HP, you die. So, if you have a Con score of 14, everything between -1hp and -13 means you are unconscious and bleeding out. At -14 you are dead. While you are dying, but not actually dead, you roll a check each round or loose 1 more HP.
Normally, any and all healing done to a dead character does nothing. Healing spells (like Cure Wounds) will not bring them back to life.
Raise Dead and the higher level Rez spells will, but they are costly and take a long time to cast.
Breath of Life walks the middle ground, allowing you to bring a Dead Character back to life after they have died, as long as it's within 1 round. It's not costly, and it only works if the Healing portion of the spell would actually heal them enough for them to be alive.
Does that help?
Yes. It would, (depending on the creature), be a DC 15 or DC 20.
It would draw at least 2 AoO's, one for moving into the threatened square and another for moving through multiple squares, as it's likely going to take multiple actions and you are moving at 1/4th speed, (or 1/2 if you want to take a -5 to Climb).
You loose your Dex, and are restricted to a single, one handed or smaller weapon. Every hit you take is a penalty on your Climb Check.
You can attempt an Acrobatics check as well, but it's going to be tough, as is Grappling. You can also use a rope/lasso to make it easier.
Illusions really kind of come down to just how your DM rules on how the work. I've seen some rule in ways that essentially made Illusions do absolutely nothing, and I've seen some that (in my opinion how they should work) basically treated as real until proven otherwise.
This in a sense, kind of made them like Enchantments, so if you made a "wall of stone" no one gets a save at all until they physically interact with it, such as trying to climb over it, bash it down, etc. . . Shooting it didn't help. Then, if you made the save, you recognized it was an Illusion. If not, your mind believed it, so subconsciously prevented you from acting otherwise. If you tried to push your hand through it, you would "feel" a solid wall, and your brain would essentially trick you into stopping from pushing more.
How believable the illusion was also played a part, but mostly if the caster was an idiot.
Zone of Truth!!! Worst spell ever.
In the best case scenario, (target fails save) it leaves you exactly where you would have been otherwise; unsure if the target is actually telling you the real truth or finding a way to lie without literally lying or telling you what they think and having it be false. Worst case, they know you are using magic that affects their mind, but are not bound in anyway to tell the truth, again, leaving you exactly where you would be had you not cast a 2nd level spell at all, minus the sense of false security this spell offers.
It either needs to be change to not offer a Save, or be a targeted buff that gives the Target a +20 (or higher) to Sense Motive or something.
Holy Smite (and similar) should probably be a lot more beefed up against Aligned Outsiders. No SR allowed, and Save only removes the status effect, not reduces damage. As it, it's pretty worthless against it's primary intended targets, and just doesn't scale well.
Death Ward was inadvertently nerfed to heck/uselessness as PF changed the way some many of the nastier Undead and Necromancy abilities work. For how little it actually does now, needs to be at least 1 target per level and probably a 10 Min/level spell.
Instant Armor is so close to being cool on many levels, but too many stipulations make it garbage. 1 Min/Level. It's a Force Armor, but it replaces your existing armor, and if you are a Cleric that's likely to cast this, that's probably an overall downgrade most of the time. Needs to either be 10 Mins/1 Hr per level or just a straight up Force Armor Bonus to AC that increases by level (+5 from 1st-5th, +6 from 6th-8th, etc. . .)
Favorite(s): Any of the "Blakros Museum" Scenario, 9minus Silver Mount Collection which doesn't count), Blackwaters, Night Marches of Kalkamedes, and Frozen Fingers of Midnight.
Least Favorites: Rivalry's End, Halls of Dwarven Lore, Silver Mount Collection, City of Strangers 1 & 2, Severing Ties, and Scars of the Third Crusade.
Wounded Wisp // Decline // Glory of the Past
As you enter the larger room, a large banner hangs over head, suspended by magic rather than strung to the wall. It reads "Secret Sorceries of a Savage Land", obviously with the intent that these Numerian artifacts and trinkets on display would bring the masses. In cases on both sides of the far left and right walls are an assortment of odd metal items, (not unlike the scraps of heap you left behind in the last room, actually, though without that strange silvery substance). Many have strange names listed above them, and honestly after reading through a few you get the distinct impression that someone was either drunk or trying to play you, "the customer" as fools. Names like "Technologically Enhanced Voltage Mallet" with the added notation "so-much-better-than-Mjolnir", "Life Model Decoy Display Unit", the "NIN-Tin-Doh Glove of Power", or even "Saber Crystal of Light". Another has a strange wagon wheel that looks somewhat similar to a Gnomish sprocket, and it's obvious at this point that someone wasn't even trying, as it's titled as the front legs of a cyclical motor stallion. I actually hate the Tech Guide, for what it did with the rules, but I'm trying not to let that spoil this for you guys. :) That being said, I just made all of the above up. It's not in the scenario, and NO YOU CAN"T GET A DAMNED LIGHTSABER! ha ha
At the center of the room is some sort of pathetic "bird" creature, though it fails at that very badly, and honestly looks (though only in the most abstract and well, you really need to be nearly blind) more like some sort of rounded fish, with four small fins at it's end, and a massive broken glass eye right in the center of it's body rather than towards the rounded point that should be it's head. Maybe a really fat and short arrow? You really don't know, but art it certainly isn't.
As Azeban and Faustus begin to step into the room ahead of them, suddenly they hear a female voice, not say, but frantically scream at you "Get the hell away from me you damned freaks!!!!" It echoes through the room, making it very difficult for you to spot where it came from, but it was close. And you don't see anything at all going on that would indicate some sort of commotion, leaving you puzzled for a moment.
Can I get a Perception Check from Azeban and Faustus?
Know Geography/Linguistics (trained only) DC 15:
The Feminine voice speaks with a strange accent, common to the barbarian lands of Numeria, who oddly rarely leave those lands.
Sense Motive DC 20:
Whoever it is, is certainly freaked the "F" out. They are likely in the grips of madness, the sort one finds in soldiers who have seen every other of their friends and "family" slaughtered, and might just attack anything that moves in their mixture of grief and panic. However, with the right words. the right tones . . .
I flagged it to be moved yesterday. :P
But I have to agree. I'm not sure I've ever seen a part where not a single character (much less most of them) had a Wayfinder. It is a bit pricey for what little it does, but it's also sort of a badge of office, and I can't say how many times I've pulled my cloak aside to reveal my Wayfinder for just a second to indicate discretely what I just said has a hidden meaning or the like.
As for how mandatory it is, not sure. Have not played/read the scenario, but I can say that needing to buy things just to complete a scenario isn't uncommon. I literally just spent almost 2,000 gp yesterday in Glories of the Past 2 for that same reason, and a good portion of that was wasted by the end. That's more on the top end of what I can think of required spending, but there are plenty out there where entrance fee's are needed, specific gear/bribes/items are called for, etc. . .
And while it's probably not fun for the OP, sometimes that's just the way things go. It kind of sounds like between running cold and the party refusing to make a suggested purchase (without metagaming knowing what it meant), they came to an impasse they couldn't cross. Not to be mean, but sometimes this happens. Luckily, in my experience it's not common, and I can say I have only failed one scenario. I kind of felt like there was nothing we could do, and it wasn't really due to poor player/character choices, we just couldn't get past a certain point. So I get it, but still, sometimes failure (or worse) happens.
I think there may be some confussion. Originally, Taldor was written to have outlawed all churches and followers of Sarenrae. This was done to protect itself, as warmongers within Qadira called the Cult of the Dawnflower had instigated Qadira to war, and Qadira had essentually backstabbed Taldor when it was weak from fighting another war.
It has more recently been errata'd so that Taldor only outlawed the Cult of the Dawnflower, (or maybe all of Sarenrae's faith hundreds of years ago, but it didnt last long).
The Scenario was written before this change, and just involves normal followers of Sarenrae, which at the time where, but are no longer outlawed. They are not Cultists of the Dawnflower.
Honestly, I'd much rather them put Occult Adventures on complete hold and focusing on fixing the ACG. On the one hand, I am really not interested in anything I've seen about Occult Adventures, from the classes to the concept of trying to incorporate RL psuedoreligion, charlatans, and the like. I just don't find it appealing.
What might have been cool is a Heroes of Horror style book that focused predominately on introducing options to the existing classes to fit into that theme rather that try to cram even more into what should be a right up that alley already.
We have the Cleric, Oracle, Witch/Shaman,and Inquisitor, do we really need any class that specializes in dealing with spirits as it's main theme, or can we not just get a few Feats or an Archtype or two that does that even better? Do we need a bunch of new classes to introduce psychic magic, cause I can think of a bunch of existing ones that could very easily fit the bill with a few options added in. Some new spells, a few Feats, and some trait options means that the entire book is opened to all the existing material (good) while making a bunch of new material that's mostly exclusive to itself means existing characters probably can't touch it regardless of how much sense it makes or the flavor fits (bad).
Since the ACG came out as poorly done as it was, my trust in Paizo has kind of been shaken, and I do feel the bloat. So yah, I would say we have hit that point.
Just for reference, "source" in regards to stacking, is mentioned only 1 time in the entire Core Book. Others appear as "a patron is the source of a clerics blah blah", or "light source", etc. . .
Here is where source can be found:
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties — a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Please note, this section is found on page 208. That's notable because the section it is in, and when taken out of context sounds like it might actually go along with ability scores being a source. But, it's talking about stacking magic spells and spell effects (only).
Here are the actual rules on staking. This can be found on page 13, under the Common Terms portion.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
No mention of sources. Why is that? Because "source" is refereeing specifically to the spells that are being talked about later in the combining magic spell and effects stacking portion.
Odd, as in Pathfinder, a modifiers "source" is actually 100% irrelevant. Well, unless you are using the 3.5 rules, (but then, why would you do that and ignore everything that contradicts Ability Score/Modifier = a Source?
I just CTRL + F'd the entire Core Rule Book document for all uses of "stack", "stacking", "source", "same source", and "sources stacking". And while I might have made a mistake, (please feel free to point me to it, I'm not perfect), what it actually is starting to look like is that the person that wrote the new FAQ, and all those rules experts they conferred with on the subject actually had no idea what they heck they are talking about, (and I do mean this in the least douchy way possible).
Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus",
Removing the irrelevant part about "source", the correct answer from the book should be: If they have a different or untyped Type, then yes, except when they come from the same spell cast multiple times on a single target. If they have the same Type they do not stack except in the cases of any of the following: dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, racial bonuses, and any untyped Bonuses, (as they stack with all other Bonus Types, including themselves).
Actually, if you read through most of those on the PF site, its usually BNW and a small grip of others saying no, because everyone else is a munchkin.
On the 3E CharOp boards, the arguement was never over if they could stack, but rather if the specific instances would stack based on the bonus types or the sources, and methods to achieve prereqs for it. Source has always referred to the specific spell, feat, class/racial ability, not the some undefined broad category. So two Enhancement bonuses to the same thing (Type) would not stack, but two castings of Bull's Strength (Source) would also not normally stack, regardless of if that specific source gave the same or different bonus type. The exception was if a Source could give multiple different choices, like with Bestow Curse, if they picked different options each time, they would stack, because all of them would affect the target at the same time.
So, let me first start by saying this probably isn't going to happen, nor is this any sort of official topic/poll/whatever. It's just an idea I was thinking about, and wanted to present to hear different sides on it.
I was thinking, why not make all 1-5th level (and 1st-7th for some older scenarios) scenarios open for infinite DM credit "replay". The idea is, that the lowest Tier is generally the most commonly run Tier, as more new players join in different groups. I personally don't mind running something I've already gotten credit for, so this is really more of an attempt to garner thoughts, though sometimes it does get annoying trying to remember if I've run something or just prepped it, did I play it and run, which character, etc. . .).
I've also noticed, on my part, that the more I run a scenario, the more he players tend to enjoy it, as I have more experience with things, a little more willing to make on the spot calls, knowing what that might lead to down the road, and for the multi-part scenarios, or those that lead into others, it makes it easier to blend the experience in together.
Another thing is that there are a lot of requested scenarios, and sometimes it's harder to find a DM to run them, especially for a new crowd coming into the scene, (home games or games store). So the idea is that if all of the low tier games allowed the GM to still get credit, while also getting better at running some scenarios and thus making the game that much better for the players, it might help to make more GM's willing to run more games.
Something I have encountered is that when it comes down to a situation where it would really be better to split a table into two groups, but not required, a lot of the time other possible DM's would rather play and get credit rather than DM and not get credit, (both because everyone wants to play, but also because for smaller groups, probably between 8ish to maybe 20ish people), it can start to create a gap where the various player's levels just don't match up, which begins to cause a problem with being actually able to play at a table with other players.
So, a few assumptions about what I mean with "all 1-5th level (and 1st-7th for some older scenarios) scenarios open for infinite DM credit "replay"."
This would only apply to the GM who ran, not be infinite credit for everyone. You can still not apply it to a character that already has either Player or GM Credit for that scenario. Like normal, the DM would get whatever Sub Tier would normally apply, but, in the cases of the 1-7 Tier Scenarios, the infinite credit can only be applied to a Character between 1st and 4-th level. Sort of like the 1st-2nd Tier games, where it's infinitely replayable by 1st level characters, but only once for a 2nd level character, you can only get credit for early levels, as the point to promote more DMs and games of the 1st - 5th ish level play (or 1st - 4th). This would not apply to Specials, Exclusives, Modules, and scenarios that already have their own rules for Replay. And this would not be retroactive, but (hypothetically) start at a specific date and then continue on from there.
What's even worse, setting GMT aside completely, it makes absolutely no sense why the Faction would have simply gone away after that. In fact, it makes perfect sense that they would both stay and probably become even more numerous, to watch out for further issues.
That whole debacle of a scenario/plot wrap-up was just extremely poorly handled, and probably needs to be retconned out, because it's that dumb.
Huh? The Paladin, while it might not be able to Smite or Channel/Lay on Hands every round of every combat, really doesn't need to. They generally have the BaB, AC, and HP to go toe-to-toe and deal good damage without needing to buff. They are sort of like a Fighter, but can go even longer as they can heal, buff, and fix themselves if they need to when they need it. And a lot of their buffs are either "always on" (Cha to Saves, Immune to Fear, Disease) or in addition to something else they grant that's worth it on it's own, (curing fatigue, sickened, etc and channeling to heal).
Even when they can't cast spells, starting at level one they can also supplement with wands and scrolls (no UMD).
Diego Rossi wrote:
Not too terribly much in practice, honestly. Like the "Battle Cleric", the Warpriest is not likely going to have a great deal of variation on their prepped spells. They know up front they are going to have one or two spell slots per level devoted to their own self-buffing with Fervor, and probably going to want a few spells ready for "oh Crap I (or my friend), (yah, right, who am I kidding), just got hit with _________ spells just in case. That pretty much covers what a non-9thlevel spont caster knows.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I suppose you are arguing for a full BAB for Maguses an Inquisitors too, right? After all they too are front line melee characters.
The Magus gets the ability to attack and cast a spell, combining the two actions into one without being super limited how often they can do this, and often going for Touch AC. It really doesn't need full BaB, and as it combines a 1/2 BaB and Full BaB class, the 3/4 BaB it gets works very well thematically and balance pretty well.
None of that really applies to the Warpriest who combines 3/4 BaB with Full BaB.
When the Magus attacks, they tend to do much better than another martials normal strike. When the Warpriest does their thing though, it tends be more like they get close to on par with other front line classes, both offensively and defensively. Might be slightly better, might be slightly worse. But they are burning a very limited resource just to be in the same basic ballpark.
Undone, I don't mean this to be mean, but I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Based on your guide and your comments here and other Warpriest threads, I would guess that you are either using a very odd and arbitrary scale when you compare the Warpriest to a "Battle Cleric" or you do not have much experience with Clerics/Oracles/Inquisitors/Paladins in play, (but particularly the ones that are more martial in nature).
Having played both (and I freely admit I favor Divine Classes most of all) in PFS and less limiting games, the Warpriest is ok, but it really just doesn't compare to what a basic Reach Cleric can do kind of in the same role and a similar theme. The Warpriest is pretty extremely one-trick-pony and even more 15 minute work day orientated.
A very common tactic for many divine casters is go the Augment Summoning, Summon <Good> Monster, Sacred Summons route, which makes summoning certain aligned monsters a Standard Acton, (and a fairly cheap Rod of Quicken is not that much).
Quickening Divine Favor a tad earlier is, at best, ok. Not terribly good, but not bad. A cleric is typically casting Bless to give everyone in the party that +1 to hit instead of just themselves a +1 to hit and sometimes damage. Net result is the Bless is netting more "damage" than the Divine Favor, as every time anyone hits when 1 less on the attack roll would have missed, that's all on the Cleric (or whoever cast Bless).
Warpriest don't get access to any "unique" spells via their Blessing as Domains and Mysteries grant (with a few pseudo exceptions like the Animal Blessing), and while they have the same skill points as the worst of other Divine casters, they have a far worse skill selection than any of them, and skills are a huge part of the general game.
Sure, it can quicken Bull's Strength (possibly a bit before a Cleric could), but a Cleric is probably casting a Blessing of Fervor early on and then Extending some buffs for free while also allowing others to do the same thing long before hand. Warpriest might be able to stack Sacred Weapon/Armor with Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment, but a Cleric could be stacking those two spells with long lasting Bark Skin or other cool things with the right Domains, leaving the Cleric's Medium Armor and the Warpriest's Heavy Armor pretty dang close, though probably a bit higher for the Warpriest. All in all, different ways of doing similar things, with the Warpriest tending to have less of a pool to do it with.
A decently built "battle Cleric/Oracle" is going to be extremely close to a min/maxed Warpriest when it come to damage, but the truth is, as much as I hate it, (and this is just my personal experience and the vast majority of what I've seen or heard about the class in actual play), is that the Warpriest comes out at the bottom end even in that. But, and here is the kicker. That's based off of two important factors. 1.) It's a decently built other divine class vs a very strong Warpriest and 2.) The Warpriest trades out so much just to be on par with other classes in the same role/theme. Not better, really, just close to the same. The trade off is just not worth it, in my opinion, and leaves the Warpriest in a very underwhelming place, especially after the general feeling of the Warpriest related Playtesting.
Add in that it was very clear that no one that wrote the ACG liked the Warpriest, in the sense it got so little in the form of new spells, feats, magic items, and 90% of it's archtypes, it's playable, and in some niche cases good at things, but it's just not a hybrid Cleric/Fighter, battle Cleric, Divine Magus, or alternate "Paladin" we where promised.
Personally, I'm not interested at all in the "bringing the hybrid classes to the campaign setting" part at all. To me, that's the fun part of running a game, not reading about it.
What I'm really hoping for is that this book is more of an add on that starts working towards making the ACG the book it really should have been from the start, and focuses much more the general PF game system and not the campaign specific flavor of the setting.
Not going to happen, but one can hope.
Wounded Wisp // Decline // Glory of the Past
Both Savage and Storm Tooth step up and try to attack, but before Storm Tooth is able to swipe with a claw, th nearest Sahuagin beats the little raptor to it.
AoO vs Storm Tooth (AC 17): 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (1) + 4 = 5 <miss>
Kryssa circles around the other side of the crates, using her allies as cover until she comes out with a strong swing, severely hurting one of the fishmen. Rhuul makes a comment about Kryssa's lack of chaps from the rear, inspiring his allies to greater heights of murdering and hoboing on the side. Horef attempts to do a cartwheel around the foes, but missteps. Luckily, none of the enemies where able to catch his opening in time.
With targets before them, the Sahuagin attack back.
Bite vs Horef (AC 19): 1d20 - 4 ⇒ (6) - 4 = 2 <miss>
Bite vs Kryssa (AC 19): 1d20 - 4 ⇒ (17) - 4 = 13 <miss>
Bite vs Storm Tooth (AC 17): 1d20 - 4 ⇒ (19) - 4 = 15 <miss>
Back when PF Core was still coming out, there was a massive push to try to have Spontaneous Cure/Inflict replaced with Spontaneous Domains, which would have had a very similar effect. But they chose to basically revert back to the 3E Cleric, with a crapload of spell nerfs instead.
The Alpha/Beta versions of PF had the Cleric getting Domain spells as spell-like abilities, and it was pretty amazing.
The worst, but also the absolute best I've seen was back in the good ol' 3.5 days. We where starting a new game, and being that by that point everyone was sick to death of frequently starting new games (we had a lot of people often switching in and out, so it was difficult to keep a story going week to week, and well, just got tired of low level play), one of the guys just marked out that entire section and then explained to me that he had up until yesterday, (out of character at this point), been a 38th level character, but while on the final leg of his quest to Ascend, got level drained (3.5 style) all the way back to level 1, then, to rub it all in, the BBEG had erased his memory and taken all of his gear and wealth, with the exception of about a hundred gold, (starting gp), stuffed under his pillow at the inn, that apparently he cradled at night, but doesn't know why or where it came from. Not liking walking around "feeling naked", he stopped by a smith and grabbed some armor and weapons before strolling in to meat the other players.
He just woke up, now level 1, this morning, and has no idea. Go.
A few thing I can think of:
7 person tables
That they removed 1-7 subtier. Probably one of the worst things in PFS, in my opinion.
The whole Pathfinder Society as an organization thing.
The wonkiness of alignments: and doing [Evil] spells, and because a VC asked you, and etc, etc, etc. . . make evil, evil or make aligments not matter at all and switch all the divine spells/classes/stuff mechanics. one or the other.
How Factions basically don't matter any more.
Haunts. Could have been great, but half-assed, inconsistent rules and rulings basically ruined it.
That unwritten but heavily enforced DM rule that you can't kill the various VC's that are dumb@#%*^'s as a <non-player> character attribute.
May Contain Meerkats wrote:
Iomedae is not on good terms with the Society after they stole her crown and refuse to return it, moving it from lodge to lodge to keep it from her and her faithful, but its kind of hand waved in PFS.
The way I see it, a lot of people see that the Pathfinder Society as a group is neutral, and take that to mean that it's mostly comprised of neutral characters and npcs, but is bothered to allow those pesky good characters in.
But that's not what a neutral organization means. It means that they do not actively seek to advocate, fight for, or instill good or evil in the world. As an organization, the PFS's goal is simply to study and record, and sometimes "collect", and as a matter of practice is willing to employ all manner of people, holy, secular, political, unaligned, good, evil, religious, arcane, etc. . ., because all of those bring unique abilities and specialties to the task at hand.
Out of game, the entire and singular point of the Pathfinder Society, both in the setting and also in the organized play module is just to have a single, easy jumping in point for all players. Instead of needing a convoluted backstory before jumping into a game, it's literally you are just members of a adventuring guild. One that has no actual authority over you, anyone else, or truly any nation or land in the world. In fact, the vast majority of the world and it's governments and people do not like the Pathfinder Society (mostly for the right reasons) because they think they are above the law, are thieves, trouble-makers, and adventurers. Even the good ones, and even the good ones that have done good things, and even the good ones that have done good things and are actively trying to use the Society's resources to accomplish good and untarnish that deserved reputation, spread freedom, or order.
So, with all that in mind, the PFS does not favor non-good characters. They do not expect that the non-good, shady, not-quite-legal way of getting it done is the right, best, or accepted way. They expect a team to work together, and that goes for everyone, not just the guys and gals that don't have a moral or political issue with doing something. They are a dime-a-dozen anyway. What they do need are characters that either have a code of ethics that will not dig the society down even further in the world's eyes, or for those that don't hold to such ethics, to be able to at least pretend and play nice until it's not required to do so.
I don't know, maybe that's just how I see it. But the key point is that it goes both ways, and that neutral (with evil tendencies) is not the default assumption. Not being good doesn't make a character more right, or more in line with the precepts of the game, or excuse them from playing friendly, having fun, or working with other players any more than it does for a paladin, or a cleric, or a good character.
Trying to talk them out of fighting.
Not sure if your buddy made the save vs Charm/Suggestion.
You made your Sense BS check.
You yourself are Charmed.
Anyway, for me, it wasn't even that I got the intangible benefit of preventing them from 5ft Stepping or forcing Casting Defensive. I just noticed a lack of chances to use it. Enemies would Acrobatics around, or step only when it would either place me in a disadvantagious position to follow or when I couldn't 5ft into their square.
I've sometimes seen a similar thing with my Reach Cleric and Combat Reflexes. Sometimes, some DMs I get to use it, sometimes I get to have a limited form of mundane crowd control, and sometimes it seems like every enemy knows to either avoid coming close to possibly provoke or use only ranged and avoid combat like they know I have it before combat starts.
Not complaining, just making an observation, which may be false.
Kadasbrass Loreweaver wrote:
I was expecting a secret 8th faction of spies, sneaks, and other people of questionable motives (or just simply dissatisfied with the other factions) to be revealed during Gencon and retroactively added into the Season 6 guide. Something to fill the void left by both the Sczari and the Shadow Lodge
To be honest, you can really go with any faction for that, and I suspect that at least 2, if not 3 of the current factions have a Shadow Lodge backing/influence/partnership. One of them even took a large part of the old symbol.
I don't particularly like the new Factions, but I don't particularly dislike most of them either. Hate the new symbols. I'm really disappointed with what I've seen in play for some of the new Factions. 6-02's Darkive, in my opinion was very bad. Both in that it was not what the players wanted from a certain NPC in the bland player handout, and the mission goal and theme seemed to be the opposite of the Factions supposed intent. It also seemed like it was trying to force PvP, have the Darkive characters enslave/rob a well-liked reoccuring NPC, (and one that's, from past scenarios in the line become a strong ally and friend to the Society). WtF!?!?!?
I feel the Sovereign Court is just too vague to care bout right now. And the change basically ruins any sort of motive I had for building Taldor characters from before now.
Liberty's Edge, while I kind of like changing from just Andoran, the Faction has just been a terrible, terrible hypocritical mess since Season 2 or 3. And perhaps the most of any Faction, it has the coolest nation based vanities that just don't fit now with the nationlessness of the new Faction. Silver Crusade has basically taken everything cool and interesting from the Andoran/Liberty's Edge Faction outside of the Eagle Knights.
Really the only thing I have against the Scarab Sages is how much I just detest the name. I like the flavor, and of all of the new Factions, it probably has the most in depth and believable flavor, both as a group and as a transition, but that stupid name is bad enough to turn me off, and the symbol does not help.
Its really time to get rid of some of the Faction leaders. I don't care for the Taldor/SoftCourt leader. She strikes me as boring and just doesn't really fit well. Andoran's/Liberty's Edge's Faction head is such a corrupt hypocrite it basically invalidates the entire Faction. He really should have been at the top of his own list last Season, and the fact he did not assassinate or remove himself from power from the start just kind of makes it a big joke.
In my opinion, Burst of Radiance, while a tad bit overpowered due to the range, is pretty much the best, and by that I mean most iconic, most in flavor for a character that is supposed to call down divine wrath, and just outright coolest spell) that paizo has given the Cleric. I might even say the single most awesome thing that paizo has ever done for the Cleric, and I wish that they would do more like it.
I partially agree with Undone, and partially disagree. Magic Vestment, and this is also very true for Greater Magic Weapon as kind of must haves to even make the Cleric viable. It allows the Cleric to get a +1 Armor or Weapon, and then add properties to it, and then use those spells to increase the AC/Att/Damage magical bonus at near the same rate other classes do that don't also have to spend money on things like scrolls to fix other player's conditions. The key here is, and this is the only thing that makes it worth it, is that both spells are measured in hours. (the problem is that most armor and shield properties, well, just suck. They are just far too expensive for the trivial abilities they grant).
Pretty much anything that is a Remove this, Cure that, is extremely circumstantial and can therefor be a wand or scroll. If not one that other character buy to be used on them.
Invisibility Purge can be nice, but with it's casting time and range, it's not nearly as great is it could be. At much higher levels, it's better, so for a 15th-20th level Cleric, it starts to come into it's own.
Blindness targets basically the best save that an enemy you most want to use it on is likely to have, and it's an all or nothing spell. So as most Clerics tend to have crappy DCs, it's usually not great.
Prayer, while nice, is also one of those spells that A.) doesn't stack with a great many things, and B.) due to it's area, tends to (rightfully so) piss off DM's more than it's actually the fairly minor benefit it grants.
Even going back to the 3.0 boards, certain entire spell levels of the Cleric list have had major issues. 3.5 was able to fix this by all the splat books, but Paizo has really dropped the ball.
Honestly, I'm a bit confused that we still don't have an answer to this, the Faction change issue, the Tech Guide issue, and the like sine before Gencon.
I just mean it's kind of odd that we haven't really even seen something like "We know and are looking into it", rather than "drop everything and do it now".
I dont hate WotC, and outside of Age of Worms, could mostly care less about APs. None of them really catch me, though I will admit, destroying House Thrune (and maybe Cheliax if we are really lucky) and fighting Giants has got my attention.
In my opinion, Golarion as a setting is a bit meh, so its not the setting either. I hope one day they do another fantasy setting that throws all of Golarions basic assumptions out the window, personally.
In the end, I play Pathfinder because I liked 3E. Id actually play 3.5 over PF if I could. 4E, after playing for a while, I found just too lite and well, boring. It just wasnt for me. From what Ive seen of 5E, its looking like it might go the same way. Just not for me. Ill give it an honest go, but I dont plan on investing in it before hand like I did with 4th. If I play and turn out to like it, its a different story.
If PF 2E abandons the 3E system, I most likely will not continue. Which is ok. It will just no longer be something Im interested in. I do think you underestimate how many people like the d20 system or went to PF not because they hated 4E or WotC, or because they liked the APs, but just because they wanted to continue playing 3.5. It wasnt that WotC dared to make 4E, it was that they turned on their own fan base and condemned 3.5 fans when they tried to push 4E as such a superior game.
Im not interested in rules lite or mostly narrative games. Just not. They are not engaging enough, not satisfying, in my opinion.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?
Gabriel Smith-Dalrymple wrote:
Not really. Let's look at mathematics:
I think you took my response out of context. The idea presented was that, as a logical explanation for the Feat and Skills change, it makes sense that a character that has never seen a robot or technology should have a penalty to rolls interacting with it. But, by that logic, unless a character has specifically interacted with a given type of trap, dragon, golem, or whatever, shouldn't they then also take that same penalty?
It also falsely assumes that technology and robots and stuff are rare, unique, and unknowable, (but wait what if my character is from Numeria or whatever), but that other things in the setting, lets say Dragons, (which according to the setting are extremely rare), which is covered by the Know Arcana skill, any character with 1 Rank in Know Arcana has a chance to know every fact about a dragon that there is. But it's a robot, something that's probably not as rare as an actual dragon, and for some reason, they can't use their skills, which are intended to be non-specific in application.
But, if that's the logic, then shouldn't a character that wants to use Disable Device on a trap they have never themselves encounter, then take a -5 penalty and not count as having the right tool for the job too? Well, unless they take a Feat that lets them get around that?
Well, some folks think a New Editions means something more like from 3E to 4E where it's a completely new game that would also invalidate the vast majority of setting material, forcing you to rebuy everything, while others take a new edition to simply mean an update to the existing system.
Others think that a new edition in a few years is a good idea, while others think that one far off day might be ok, but not now. When you do a yes/no sort of Poll, it leaves a lot of things in the middle, and gives odd results.
So, for me personally, the category I would say yes to would be the one that said "YES, a new edition that did not invalidate other material, but updated some of the core systems, fixed things that are most commonly discussed issues (on these boards) such as Alignment, Paladin Codes, Fighter/Monk/Rogue/Cleric/Monk/Monk/Monk/Fighter/Monk/Rogue, Reach, etc. . ., but did not require someone to rebuy the Inner Sea World Guide or Bestiary's , well maybe 2-4, but not Bestiary 1, didn't require any single AP to need to be reprinted, (well if we can get Age of Worms non-Golarion edition, that's just a win for everyone, rpger or not that makes the world a better place, because lets face it, it's the absolute best AP Paizo has ever created, not that RotRL crap they keep pushing), and if they literally started today, even without a public playtest, (regardless of your or my personal opinion of them based of the ACG), it wouldn't be our until likely 2016 at the earliest, thus giving the PF Unchained, (but not PF Unearthed) book plenty of chances to fail to be what we actually wanted (damn it, did I say that out loud) to do it's thing, as well as everyone the chance to play through the AP that b+%#~slaps Cheliax and House Thurne or whatever, and fixed some of the few issues that 3E as a system sort of created", my answer is that one. But if particular aspects of that are not true, my answer might be no. But, that exact option was not presented in the Poll.
There politely disagreeing and then there shouting people down so they don't get heard while telling them to go elsewhere. Which happened during the playtest of the core. Which I don't want to see happen again. In a playtest everyone should be heard. Not a very select few very vocal posters. I'm surprised that you would think it was a bad thing.
I think that the problem with that idea that they are sort hinting at is that everyone is going to have a different idea on who "those people" are. So it sounds great in theory, but in practice it's basically just using a different method to over shout other people whose ideas one might not agree with.