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

Blackbot's page

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 506 posts. No reviews. 7 lists. No wishlists. 4 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 506 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Damn dwarves, diggin' up all that metal and gems and flooding the market...

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:

Since we're discussing cover, let's look at the cover rules (which should have been Step 1 when the question came up):

Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Cover wrote:
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

Got that? Now let's zoom in on some key parts:

Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Cover wrote:
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

See the asymmetry there? You use ONE corner of the attacker's square, and ALL corners of the target's square. That's going to make a difference. In fact, it's going to make exactly the difference you're looking for.

So the bad guy is behind the arrowslit and makes an attack. He picks one corner of his square: presumably, one where there's an arrow slit. Then, from that one point, you'll draw four lines: one to each corner of the target's square. If you actually draw this out, you'll notice something: none of the lines pass through the wall. Therefore, the unprotected target has no cover. Just like you thought should happen.

Meanwhile, if the PC wants to return fire, he's going to choose one corner of his own square, but then he has to draw lines to all four corners of the hiding slinger's square. If you draw this one out too, you'll see that although you might get a line or two in through the arrowslit, at least a couple of them are going to pass through the wall. And all it takes to turn on cover is a single blocked line, so the slinger...


I am of course aware of this rule, but for some reason I just blanked on it in this instance and went into full "But they BOTH GOT COVER!"-mode.
So the only real house rule that MIGHT be necessary is "You may choose any point on border of your square, not just the corner", but even that is a stretch.
Thanks, everybody!

(@Chess Pwn: Occured to me, too, but that only applies to cover to a maximum heigth of half your size or something.)

Silver Crusade

Hi guys and gals,

I'm preparing to run a adventure and it features archers (well, they have slings, but let's say they are archers) hiding behind arrowslits.
The rules say this:

PRD wrote:

Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.

Okay, cool. So the PCs have to cross the room while they are being fired upon and have to figure out a way not to get hit...BUT.

Doesn't it work both ways? The PCs could argue that they as well are hidden by the arrowslits, thus gaining +8 AC and getting more or less unhittable (the enemies have a total attack bonus of +3).

Logically the arrowslits should be something that favors the defenders - they hide, shoot through them and are more or less safe.
While there is no rule saying "The target does not gain the AC bonus if the attacker is adjacent to the arrowslit" it seems logical that it works this way. But I like to have a rule written down and not just made up, so tell me:
Is this written down anywhere? Am I the only one reading the rule like this and can you tell my why your opinion differs?

Responses are appreciated!

Silver Crusade

What do you have in mind? Stuff like "Whitechurch", "Stonemaw" and "Darkwind" or "proper" names like "Durash", "Tyral" and "Throk"?
Or can both be thrown together?

Is there a difference between the continents (Like in Golarion - Inner Sea is more or less Europe + Africa, far West is more or less Asia...; or Westeros - western area is more or less Europe with a touch of Middle East in the south, eastern area is pretty Middle Eastern) or are they supposed to be the same?

Silver Crusade

Spontaneous thoughts:
1. Yes, hexes are useful. But usually spells are more powerful. So you could start with one of those and throw your evil eye once the combat is in full swing. Also: If the combat is over quickly your hexes probably didn't make much of a difference, but when combat drags on they get more and more useful (because you just have to keep cackling to keep them going). Fought a rogue with misfortune for 6 or 7 rounds - poor bastard couldn't hit us at all.
2. Be very aware that there are scenarios with only or mostly undead. So any spells with Fort as a saving throw and mind-affecting spells are right out. So almost everything you bring to the table - be prepared for those occasions. (One scenario had humanoids which were immune to mind-affecting spells, vermin and undead - our witch had a pretty bad time, unfortunately).
3. You do have non-combat spells as a witch. If you decide that hexes are what you want to do in combat primarily,
4. Personal opinion: I hate slumber. Either it fails and the witch is grumpy or it's successfull and many combats are over in a heartbeat, considering you often fight only one or two enemies.

Silver Crusade *

Starglim wrote:
Anyone can purchase access to spells, or scrolls. You have to do your own scribing, which becomes relevant for certain cases.

Yes, I know. But not everybody knows. To figure it out you have to consult the forums and read a wild mixture of FAQ and messageboard clarifications. That's my point. ;)

Silver Crusade *

Can everybody purchase spells from NPCs between scenarios?

Okay, hear me out here. We all know that we do (Pay NPC wizard, pay scribing costs if you have them, done), but not everybody does. Because the word "rare" is still in the FAQ entry, suggesting that this is not the usual way to do it. I told a VL about it recently and he was surprised that this was even an option - he had advised a player to buy scrolls to do it. Not so bad on level 1, pretty horrible for level 4 spells.
Also, I noticed I brought this up before when looking for threads I could show him. A had completly forgotten that o_o
Another problem: That feature is hidden in a question discussing scribing between players, suggesting that the last sentence applies to PC wizards. Which is obviously not the case.

Silver Crusade *

ChaosTicket wrote:

Every play Video Game RPGs? Fallout 1 and 2 has 3 general specialties in combat, stealth, and diplomacy. You could focus on any one. Dont want to fight the Final Boss? Sneak in and set the base to self-destruct. Or use Diplomacy to make a character do so for you, or even even talk the Final Boss into killing itself. Ever hear of Talking the Monster to Death trope?

Yes. You are alone in Fallout 1, 2 and 3.

Now imagine playing Fallout wanting to backstab the Final Boss, another player wanting to stab its face and another wanting to talk him out of even being a boss.
Possible? Yes.
Feasable for every single encounter without bogging the game down?

ChaosTicket wrote:
Its additionally frustrating in that some of the players tell me how they used outside-the-box solutions, but those are not available in Scenarios and/or the Pathfinder Society Campaign.

You keep saying that, yet you keep refusing to tell us which actual scenarios you are talking about.

ChaosTicket wrote:
So character creation is determined by either making a specialist that performs poorly in PFS or a generalist that would perform poorly in anything else. I can think of PFS builds that wouldnt survive elsewhere, and vice-versa.

So your argument is that PFS has a problem because you have to build a character that can do more than just one thing? What?

ChaosTicket wrote:
The level limitations enforce that. Whats the point of building a skill-based character if you dont roll skill checks, or what about designing a Cleric that can summon Angels but never reaches that point in PFS.

If you never roll skill checks you or your GM are doing something very, very wrong.

Another note - I designed a barbarian who will be awesome on level 17 and my GM told me that our campaign would end on level 15. What a horrible GM! /s

(I apologize for tone here, but the "My character will only be effective in levels beyond PFS" coupled with "Stop giving me too general advice" when the problem is a general one is really annoying.)

ChaosTicket wrote:
I have more enjoyment in imagining situations I Could get into that what I am actually allowed within limitations. a Non-fantastic Fantasy game? I think that is the most Fatal Flaw you can have.

Those limitations are called "The world is not your playground". It is not a problem of PFS that not everything is possible always, that's always the case with role playing games. Sometimes the BBEG is just evil. Sometimes the compound is guarded and you cannot break in easily.

Yes, PFS is more restricted. But if you want to play the "On level 13 I'm gonna be so awesome" cleric then PFS is certainly not the place to do it. Most groups probably aren't because you will have to slog through one or two years of leveling before you reach that point.

Silver Crusade *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread is getting frustrating to a point where I'm not sure if there is trolling going on or an NSA scheme to flush out mind readers.

ChaosTicket, you visit the thread from time to time, throw in a few lines with no context, people write whole essays and ask questions for you to gain some context only for you to completly ignore the questions and throw in another anecdote without context.

ChaosTicket wrote:
I have outright been told that if I run away from fights I will be banned from playing at the table of at least one GM. I dont know if that counts as a "Toxic group".

No context given at all. Was it a losing fight? Did you just not want to fight? Did you feel like the fight was unneccessary? Did the other players force a fight that could've been avoided?

No context given. Maybe they were toxic, maybe you were, maybe one party just misunderstood the other one.

ChaosTicket wrote:
Im just going to bring up the hypocrisy right there. So I should have to be like everyone else, but they dont have to compromise?

Compromise on what? You are like a customer calling corporate, complaining that you "just feel like I shouldn't have to wear red, that's all" without giving anything for the agent to go by on what caused that idea.

You gave us one example of a scenario you played recently after multiple people asked you what kind of scenarios you played. They wanted to identify whether the problem was with the chosen scenarios, the GM, the lodge or whatever. You gave one. Which wasn't even a PFS module, further making clear that the problem isn't actually a PFS specific problem.

Hell, you repeatedly stated that the answers were too general. Guess what - your problem is too general. Every Pathfinder module, AP, scenario or whatever I've seen features combat from time to time. Almost every role playing game I ever played featured unavoidable combat at one point or another. Going into a role playing game which is about adventuring, killing monsters, defeating badguys and so expecting not having to fight is something you might be able to find a group for, but I know not a single group in my personal circle of friends that would do that. Sometimes the evil necromancer just have to meet a sword face first.

Is there more unavoidable combat in PFS than in a "normal" Pathfinder game? Maybe, yes. (Though this could also steam from the fact that most "combat light" sections of "normal" Pathfinder consist of the party figuring out where they have to go. Once they are there combat density gets thicker...)

Do you have to pick a martial class to be "useful" in combat? No, and without you telling us why you think that our advice will have to be "too general" for you.

And again, I have screwed up more missions by not paying attention and not roleplaying than by losing a fight.

EDIT: Please not I wrote this before ChaosTicket posted his last answer. Reading it and revising the post as we speak. ;)

Silver Crusade *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You seem to be under the impression that everything but a martial class is useless in combat and that you get ostracized if you dare to pick anything with less then a d10 as a hit die.
Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion.
Pathfinder classes are (by design) all useful in combat. This is not Shadowrun or The Dark Eye where characters can be completly aimed towards something non-combat related (a Face in Shadowrun, a courtesan in TDE). Sure, not every character get Min-Maxed to hell, but as long as you don't turn up with a Wizard 1/Fighter 1/Cleric 1/Ranger 1 equipped with a dagger and nothing else you should be fine.

While it is true that most scenarios feature combat and are quite...let's call it guided, my groups never had that many problems with the combat. There were problems, however, when the whole group consisted of beatsticks, only wanted to flatten a few monsters, had no ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate or any Knowledge not needed to identify a monster and so on.

And even if it's a combat heavy scenario - the most effective sorcerers and wizards I've seen were the ones going at the problem creatively. Sure, on first level the wizard will probably not out-damage the fighter with a few magic missles. He can, however, turn the tide of battle with a simple Enlarge Person or Color Spray. And don't get me started with invisible enemies when nobody is able to cast Glitterdust...

Strength, Armor and Weapons is not all. It helps on the lower levels, sure. But they are pretty much useless outside of combat and even in combat not all that's important.
And I want to see the player who voluntarily plays a character that won't get useful until level 8 in a normal campaign. "See, I'm playing a druid - he's gonna be useless for the next one and a half years, but watch me afterwards!"

If you don't mind me asking, how many scenarios have you played so far?

Silver Crusade *

Wendy Bryan wrote:
There are no healers or rogues of any kind...and everyone is arguing about who is buying all the cure light wounds potions...

Why the rogue? To UMD?

Silver Crusade

Auxmaulous wrote:

After one more edition plus splats:

Pathfinder 3.14159265359.....

You say that as a joke, but TeX actually does that.

They reached version 3 and from then on always just added the next digit of Pi.
Current version is 3.14159265. The previous version was 3.1415926, the one before that 3.141592 and so on.

Silver Crusade *

That is something more suited for the Archives of Nethys. PathfinderWiki is about the world of Golarion, not about rules.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a tad bit reminded about Ephebe, a country on the discworld. They were a Republic.
Everybody could vote!
Except for women, of course. Politic is for men.
And slaves, nobody would want slaves to vote.
Mad people don't get a vote too, because that would be insane.
Or foreign people. What do they know about Ephebian politics?!
And poor people, don't forget about poor people.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do think this depends on the kind of game you want to play.
I know one of my first thought about Golarion was a certain sadness that there are no "classical" kingdoms - no castle to where the heroes could be summoned by a benevolent ruler to go forth and save the kingdom.

Though most fantasy settings take place somewhere in the middle ages (or at least the middle ages as seen in movies, books and similar things).
And the iconic ruling system in those times were kings, queens, nobles and the clergy. I'm not a great history buff (so maybe I'm part of the problem?) but I don't think there really was a republic in between the Roman empire and all those revolutions (France, Britain, America). Not in Europe at least.

Because sure, they CLAIMED to be heirs of rome ("Holy Roman Empire of German nations" leaves little room for interpretation there), but "democracy" is such an ugly word. God gave me the right to rule, and why should I share?

That said, there are plenty of settings I know of where there might be a king or emperor, but with limited power. Where he technically is the ruler, but is being held in check not by advisors, but by a council of people (though they are usually nobles as well).

And let's be honest - how much cooler is it to say "The king of the land honored me!" than to say "The currently elected leader of this one party honored me, but they screwed up the tax system in the years after and now they are not really elected anymore but oh well, I got this shiny medal out of it"?
I do think there is a reason some Western countries have kings and queens to this day, however limited their power might be.

Silver Crusade *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Especially considering there a certain scenarios written under the assumption that at least one character has a wayfinder on them...

Silver Crusade *

Did you delete unused Character slots?
Like if there were 4 players (for example), did you delete the unneeded two character slots?

Silver Crusade *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rule of thumb:
If someone is bothered, stop doing it.

If everybody seems to enjoy it, keep doing it.

I can see plenty of things being fun and memorable but quickly devolve into annoying when used too much. The singing is an example - if the mood is good it can enhance it, if everybody is annoyed at a fight taking long there will probably someone who will fight his urge to strangle the singing bard.

Silver Crusade *

Which is fine and dandy. My characters' backstories also tend to get quite long. As long as you don't get frustrated about how you can tell it everything is fine.
It won't come up in every scenario and usually not even in half of them.
But it can be nice to know about your backstory, and it adds quite a bit of flavor if the half-orc grunts "Don't worry about the frost giants. I know how to kill 'em. Did so quite a few times back in my homeland."

If you shout "THAT'S for my mother, you big ugly piece of ice" after killing one everybody can assume things about your backstory and maybe even ask.
But don't expect the opportunity to delve into a half-hour monologue about how you found her body after they raided your village because your little brother stole their frost sheep and that this all happened because you destroyed the barn when playing with a doll a mysterious stranger gave you who happened to pass by when the king died which was quite strange because he was healthy and goodness me, look at the time the slot is over.

Use your backstory to get a feel for the character and maybe sprinkle details into the game, don't get disappointed if it doesn't come up much is what I'm saying.

Silver Crusade

Friend of mine played a paladin of Shelyn.
He had realized her code stated nowhere that lying was forbidden, so he made lying into an art form. Not lying just for the heck of it, but if he had to choose between lying and confrontation he'd lie his ass off everytime to protect his enemies from an untimely death.
"Why of course we have the permission to escort these prisoners out of here, didn't the chief tell you about it?"
"No, we are not the Pathfinders you are trying to capture. We saw them a few towns over, though."

He was fully aware to expect table variation with his interpretation though (this was PFS).

Silver Crusade *

Just to make it clear (and good morning from Germany, my Switzerland neighbor):
You want to use the PFS scenarios without actually playing PFS, correct?
Do you plan on having your players be PFS agents? This would change some answers - the Confirmation, for example, is a great introductory adventure to the society. But it loses quite a bit of its charme (in my opinion) if it's just used as scenario without these connections.
Some scenarios work fine if you start them with "X hired you to do Y" (or something along those lines), while others are quite a bit more interwoven with the society (All those "Your predecessors screwed up, go fix it" scenarios).

It should also be noted that while all PFS characters have to belong to a faction, faction missions are gone from society play. There are sometimes boons in scenarios for members of a certain faction (e.g. "Zarta Dralneen asks Dark Archive members before the scenario to do X"), but it's far more in the background than before.

Silver Crusade *

He's a bard. His versatile performance allows him to use performance(comedy) instead of bluff.
While you might be right in saying that backstory-wise it would make sense to have at least one rank in bluff you could always assume he started out as a really bad liar and only started getting better once his...jokes improved...yeah, I have no idea where I was going with this.

Silver Crusade *

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Swiftbrook wrote:

3) the first item they sunder and destroy, (or the second if your a nice GM and want to bend the rules), tell the party you're crossing the item off the chronicle sheet they are earning and reducing the gold value for that item. (actually 1/6 the gold value I think).

On what grounds?

You may reduce gold if they fail to solve an encounter usually. Not because you feel like it.
You don't cross off potions the enemy drank, you don't reduce the charges of wand the enemy used, you don't cross off the items of an enemy you threw off a cliff.

Silver Crusade *

8 people marked this as a favorite.

While not a VO, I do this all the time. Primarily because I'm simply not willing to invite total strangers into my home and/or our faculty rooms at the university (because if something breaks I will be responsible because I let strangers in).

I also encouraged my brother and my girlfriend to run a few games in such a private setting because it makes them feel more comfortable as opposed to "Let's play at the FLGS where everybody can show up and everything can go horribly, horribly wrong!"

It's easier for introducing friends to the hobby because it's less a "Hey, come over to FLGS and play this game you don't know the rules of, though we have tight time constraints and you won't know anybody!" and more a "Hey Alice, I invited Bob and Clarice to play Pathfinder Society, care to try it out? We can explain the rules on the way and there will be pizza and beer!"
Also we can be much more inappropriate when we are alone and not in a public space.

Silver Crusade *

The views are certainly interesting. I never viewed having low CON as bad behavious. I tell every new player "Look, I play this game a bit longer than you do and believe me, you WANT to have at least 12 CON as a new player, or even 14."
If they refuse, they have been warned.
Personally, if I pick 10 CON on a character (and I don't think I've ever done that, though most of my characters are melee anyways) I am quite aware that he could die horribly, though I never considered the effect on the rest of the group. I might have to think about that in the future.

That said, I have seen quite a few utterly suicidal characters. A player (as far as I know the only one had multiple character deaths at my lodge) was unaware the age rules do not apply in PFS play, so her concept was an old (or even venerable?) cleric. The character was fixed, but even then she had little to no CON and still wore padded armor because before the fix everything else was too heavy for her STR.
Characers like these have a big "PUT ME OUT OF MY MISERY PLEASE" printed on their forehead. If a goblin has no trouble hitting you (as a cleric!) and can screw you over even without crits you have a problem.

Silver Crusade

Seems to be fixed, I just downloaded a file from

(Well, the download is still crawling along wigh 20 kb/s, but you know what I mean)

Silver Crusade

Also, it really depends on the AP. Rule of thumb: The older the AP, the less stuff from newer books you'll need. For example, I ran Carrion Crown and didn't need anything aside from the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Player's Guide (and Bestiary I and I think II) to run it. All rules needed to run an AP are available in the PRD as Feros already said.

Most APs also have supplementary books you can use to enhance the experience (Rule of Fear is a book detailing the life in Ustalav, for example), but these are absolutely not necessary.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Aside from that - welcome to the wonderful world of Pathfinder. Get ready to be amazed by how quickly players can go from "I don't understand the rules at all!" to "Hey, look at this combination I found that totally breaks your game and OW STOP HITTING ME WITH THE CORE RULEBOOK!".

And get used to seeing the image of the goblins fighting the computer. It's an image you tend to see quite often around here. ;)

Silver Crusade *

They should really put a huge "THIS POST IS 2 YEARS OLD" in red letters above the thread title when a thread gets necro'd.

I read half the first page and was all like "Why do these idiots completly forget the warpriest?" before I noticed the date.

Silver Crusade *

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

EDIT: I really, really hesitate to say this, because it's acquired a negative "buzzword" feel I don't like, but: PFSOP is sort of like a video game.

Not in a bad way. It's just that it gives you a preset scenario and there's not much opportunity for deviation from the base rules.

Believe me, you only say this because you've never experienced a player who complains (or tells anecdotes) all the time how this would work in a video game and that you'd only enter the dungeon to kill things and not to discuss anything and that this whole plot is unnecessary and how he'd just replay the scenario to gain the maximum out of it and that he could farm that scenario and how this would work in a video game and how that would work in a video game...

Quite eye-opening in how even PFS is totally not like a video game. ;)

No, I know what you mean. I agree to a certain point. The important words are "sort of", though, because you still have FAR more freedom.

Silver Crusade *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a great example told by Spoony.
He told the tale of him GMing some older form of organized play (maybe LG, maybe something else). I his story he complains how it is not fun, not hard enough et cetera and while the encounter in his story IS kinda laughable, it outlines the problem:

In this scenario the PCs were attacked by 3 wizards. These wizards had all prepped magic missile. In the olden days wizards could (so I've been told) cast one spell per day (thus one magic missile per wizard) and every wizard had 4 hp (these wizards had at least).
Not fun because easy, right?
So he changed the spells to - I'm not sure anymore, but at least one wizard had sleep.
He managed to kill two PCs (and got booted from the event).

While I quite like Spoony's tales, this is the exact reason why PFS is what it is. GMs who take up a "them vs. me" mentality are a problem even now in PFS sometimes - could you imagine how horrible it would become if they had free reign? "Oh, the party is quite strong - I'll just add a second orc" can easily escalate to "Ah well, I'll just double the number of demons, they can handle it."
And then one PCs (or even the whole party) dies.

In a home game you can retcon such a thing easily, or introduce a new character at seventh level, so not much is lost. The show goes on.
In organized play you can't. The dead player has to start from scratch.

That said - I've GMed the same scenarios for multiple partys and you'd be surprised how different they try to solve the problems at hand.
It is true that you cannot get too creative with the scenarios themselves - because as other people said not every GM is created equally and there are far more GMs over- than underestimating their skills. Even if you're a perfect GM there have to be rules in place to prevent the bad GMs from screwing things up too badly.

I myself take my fun not only from running combat (I like the tactical aspect) but also from presenting the scenario in a fun way. Describing the places, getting a bit creative with the NPCs (which sometimes necessitates a "Look, time is running short, could you please go back to fetching the MacGuffin and stop trying to learn everything about this NPCs aunt second grade?") and such things while not really deviating from the scenario at hand.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in most home campaigns the PCs goal is far less clear most of the time - most modules I've read start out with the party figuring out what the hell is going on and what they're supposed to do to fix it. In PFS the PCs are pathfinder agents - they get a mission and they have to solve it. They are quite free in how they do it (going full murderhobo, going the diplomatic route, going the stealthy route) sometimes, but they have a clear goal. That alone limits how far they can "stray from the track" because if the group suddenly decides to take off in the other direction they can do that, but they'll fail the mission.

If you love running freehand, getting creative, making your own adventure up on the fly - that's great too. But PFS is probably not the place where you can do that.

Silver Crusade

21 people marked this as a favorite.

Group was engaging kobolds.

Me: "The kobolds hurl insults at you in a language you don't understand."
Bard: "I speak draconic, what do they say?"
Me: "Um...your momma's so fat she had to hatch from two eggs!"

Silver Crusade *

Blakmane wrote:
If you search for 'readying an action outside of combat' you will see a great deal of threads talking about it.

I will look those up, thanks. This was one of the few cases where I had no idea what to search for.

Silver Crusade *

So. The situation was this:
The party goes through a jungle and approaches a swarm.
The scenario is contradictory at this point - it states that the party can go around or wait for the swarm to calm down. The swarm tactics, however, say that " ...they attack the PCs as soon as they come near enough to witness the scene."
I decided that they see the swarm crawl around and that it doesn't immediatly attack.
They pull out some alchemist's fires and go closer to throw them. I ask them how close they want to go, deciding that if they approach closer than 4 squares the swarm attacks. They go far enough to reach that square and the swarm attacks.
Initiative gets rolled, the swarm wins, it moves first.

Long story short: No major damage, nobody poisoned, swarm gets killed farily quickly (partly because I messed up the splash weapon rules - I thought you only needed to hit the swarm's square instead of the swarm itself), a bit of healing required afterwards. The scenario overall was also well received, so this is not about some day-ruining argument or anything.

However. A few players were fairly unhappy about the swarm acting first because they clearly approached it with the intent of striking first once it reacts. In the end I called "even or odd?", they called even, I rolled odd, so the ruling stood and the swarm moved first. No hard feelings on either side. Though I got thinking: How would you have ruled in this instance?

My reasoning: You cannot decide that all of a sudden you're in combat. They inched nearer and nearer but were still surprised at how quickly and suddenly the swarm attacked them (displayed by initiative).
Their reasoning: "Implied" initative, they moved & readied their action to throw constantly. Thus they should've been able to throw once it was the swarm's turn.
I feel like this reasoning is a difficult one - it opens the door for things like "We approach the guys working at the docks. The fighter and the paladin ready an action: If they turn out to be aggressive we want to hit them as soon as they enter an adjacent square.", making initiative useless for fights where both combatants are aware of each other.

So...your thoughts?
(I'm not sure whether this should be in the rules question forum, but because it strongly interacts with some PFS scenarios [and because we're bound by the tactics noted] I feel like it should be here.)

Silver Crusade *

5 people marked this as a favorite.
godsDMit wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:

No more "I check for a tea set" in every room.

Right. Now we have faction cards, so it's:

What country are we in?

Is this guy a slave or captive?

Do they allow slavery in this country?

Yeah. I hate players who want to know where they are. And those who want to know more about that country or even NPCs they interact with are the absolute WORST.


Silver Crusade

Yes, that's something I wish I had done back when I started. It just seemed so...contrived that people from all over Ustalav (and in one case Lastwall) were invited to come to a funeral and all arrive JUST when the funeral begins.

Additional ideas: If they choose to wait and lack any direction some traveller could talk about "Some old fellow dyin' over in Ravengro, terrible thing, a Professor or something" in the tavern. That might get them going. Bonus points if Lorrimor mentioned that he thinks he's onto something and it might get dangerous in his letter.

Silver Crusade

Mr. Dodo wrote:
On the carriage thing: how should i justify it? Like, why are they on that carriage, instead of trying to reach the Ravengro on their own? Who paid the carriage? why did they meet in another town? Who introduced them? >_<

They could gather in a town because the Professor wanted to meet with them. He doesn't show, they take the carriage to Ravengro and arrive just in time for the Professors funeral.

Makes more sense than "You gather from all over Ustalav and arrive JUST in time!". ;)

Silver Crusade

Did they read the Player's Guide?

Also, how much do they know about the AP and Pathfinder in general?

If they know that CC is a horror adventure path and they are experienced, they can pretty much guess they will face undead first because most other horror creatures kill low level groups outright.

If they know the title of the module they can figure it out.
If they are experienced Pathfinder players they should be able to handle it.

On the other hand I feel like the module slowly introduces undead and if you buff up the shopping abilities in town they should be able to buy stuff to counter the undead.
Another idea I read was that the characters should start out on the carriage going towards Ravengro. This way they get to know each other and you can set up what they should expect without trapping them with the monsters (for example, you can throw in a broken down carriage with two zombies in it or a swarm which disbands naturally after a few rounds) - introducing them to the monsters and setting up the mood without actually endagering them too bad.

Silver Crusade

You couldn't have picked a wronger forum. Yes, that's not even a word, I know. ;)

Pathfinder Society is all about playing "by the rules", no homebrew-stuff there. You're looking for the Homebrew/Houserules forum. I flagged the thread so that it will be moved there. :)

From first sight, though: It seems as if the fighter loses very little (first feat is predetermined, no heavy armor) and gains very much (2 skill points, new (arguably better) class skills, more choice in bonus feats - he's not even forbidden from using his bonus feats the "normal" way but instead gains it as an option.
Honestly, as it is written I'd just choose it as an archetype for most of my fighters and just would not bother with picking up investigator talents. That's an indicator it's a little unbalanced. ;)

Suggestion: He's not proficient with heavy armor, perhaps he could lose some of his Armor Training class features?

Silver Crusade *

Thanks for answering and giving insight into the writing process of trilogy scenarios! :)

Silver Crusade *

I have decided that this happened:

Scions of the Sky Key I&III:

Before Scions I - Sharrowsmith destroyed part of the ruins. This not only majorly angered the kobolds but also awoke the Golden Guardian from his hibernation. He noticed that he kinda dropped the ball by letting all the kobolds into "his" city and proceeded to kick them out.
The kobolds decide that they have to appease their god and because obviously the miners are at fault they will be appropriate sacrifices.
During Scions I - The PCs come in, rescue the minors and slay some kobolds. Now they have no sacrifices and dare not kidnapping more miners. They decide to use their mining capabilities to get some gold.
Between Scions I and III - The Golden Guardian calmed down somewhat and decided that it's kinda cool to have his own tribe of worshippers as long as he doesn't have to do anything about it. It's beneath him to help them clean up their city, but as long as they present him with some gold he kinda likes his new life. Hey, he's CN - he can change his mind like that.
During Scions III - He still is not in the mood to clean up the caves. But as the PCs enter something changes - these are not primitive people like the kobolds but obviously people on a mission. These folks are usually bad news and he has to do SOMETHING to impress the he attacks.


Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mr. Bubbles wrote:
Taldor doesn't discriminate against Sarenrae anymore?

This is exactly why I wanted to start this thread. If most people (me included) read a thing once it will be "valid" in our heads until we read a contradiction.

Also, please not let this thread devolve into ANOTHER discussion about why Erastil's (or any other) change was good or bad. As James said, it was an error, plain and simple. An interesting one perhaps and nothing prohibits you from using him this way in your own campaign, but an error.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.

It was not my intent bringing up content with a "We were robbed of this!" outcry. That's absolutly not what a retcon is for me.
I think it's more the different perception of crunch and flavour: Both things fix errors that have been made, but one thing seems to only exist in the present (as in "That's the rules now, they changed") whereas the other thing changes the world how it always has been - a retroactive change, thus retcon. The changes happen in subsequent books, not in an errata document attached to the original (Like "In Book X, change "All gnomes have green hair" to "All gnomes have green hair until adulthood" or something like this).
I'm not saying these changes are bad changes - in fact I think most changes fix errors or problems with the world.

I've seen time and time again people digging up older material as evidence for things that have been changed since then and nowhere to point them to and say "Yeah, but in official right-now Golarion this has been changed."

I thought it would be cool to point out these things as "Look at how much Golarion has changed, how it evolved, how the canon changed to remove errors that have been made."

It's something that is rarely seen - most worlds I know tend to sweep things under the rug but not really change them (Uberwizards who just don't get mentioned anymore, for example) whereas Golarion actively gets changed to a new, improved state with a blatant "Yes, we thought this was a cool idea, it didn't work, so now we changed it."
So quite the contrary, I believe some elements gain traction because they don't get mentioned and many game world tend to do that with content they'd rather forget, not with content that is deemed changed. So often times people will say "Yeah, it's this and that way, I read it in an old campaign setting book!".
I think it can be important pointing out that certain things have changed because that's part of what makes Golarion such a great world, that you guys tend to rethink aspects that don't work.

Silver Crusade

  • The Slohr - A ghost busters reference. Potentially legally actionable according to James Jacobs. Phased out.

  • Silver Crusade

    8 people marked this as a favorite.

    Hi there!

    While reading the Pathfinder TVTropes entry and looking up some stuff about Taldor I noticed some retcons in Golarion.
    Now, James Jacobs has said numerous times that if they decide to change something about Golarion they just "phase it out" and stop talking about it.
    I think this is confusing - if something is described in a source book but not in the next one, did it change or was it just ignored for space reasons?
    For that reason (and because I find it fascinating to see how Golarion changed over the years) I'd like to collect retcons, big and small ones.
    Sources would be appreciated.

    • Paladins of Asmodeus - Let's start with an error. As far as I can tell it was Mother of Flies, a module in the Council of Thieves AP that Asmodeus has paladins. Obviously kicked out because of alignment problems.
    • The Darklight Sisterhood - From what I can tell the Darklight Sisterhood were some kind of Chelaxian anti-pathfinders. The Aspis Consortium got the job.
    • The bearded/unbearded class structure in Taldor - Deemed needlessly complex and silly, thus removed (or it was in place once, but is not in modern times).
    • Erastil's misogyny - This seems to have been added when building Golarion on James Jacobs' original notes and has been retconned out later.
    • Tiefling/Aasimar ages - A minor one because this seems to have been an error, plain and simple. Aasimar and Tieflings are supposed to age at the same speed as humans do but have quite a long lifespan statted out in the ARG.

    This are some things I found.
    Please do add your own!

    Silver Crusade

    James Jacobs wrote:

    1) The whole bearded/unbearded thing has been retconned for some time now. It's not a thing in modern Taldor—like the church of Sarenrae being outlawed, it's now a part of Taldor's history that's been abandoned by the people of Taldor for the most part. The nation still has a class structure, though. It's just not mired in a silly beard/no beard thing.
    4) We're not done talking about Taldor, but we have no Taldor-themed books announced at this time.

    Okay, one follow-up questions:

    Inner Sea World Guide doesn't mention anything about the bearded class structure, neither that it exists nor that it has been abolished.
    I cannot find information on Taldor besides The ISWG and Echoes of Glory.

    So, I assume there a list of all the retcons that happened so far. Does Paizo plan on releasing this at any time?

    (It's quite frustrating not finding information on a subject and the only mention of it being retconned is on TVTropes or buried in some forum thread. Also for the historic value. ;))

    Here's the leery-post. As I said, it's a bit old and I stumbled upon it while looking up some Taldor stuff.
    And I just noticed you elaborated on why you chose Andoran/Taldor as answers immediatly afterwards. I need to clean my glasses.

    (EDIT: If my post comes of as confrontational or annoyed, this is not the intention. It's just the way I write and you're awesome for answering all our questions.)

    Silver Crusade

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Hi James,

    some Taldor questions. Some referring year-old comments of yours I stumbled upon while looking stuff up.

    1. You said you want to retcon out the whole bearded/unbearded thing because it's too complex. Does this mean the whole "rigid class structure" is something you want to remove?

    2. If not, how exactly would one go about to raise to the bearded ranks? If a character joined the Taldan army trying to rise through the ranks, could he ever truly become a noble?

    3. You said you are getting leery of Taldor (though that was quite some time ago). Is this still the case and why is that?

    4. Is there another book on Taldor planned besides the now almost 7 year old "Echoes of Glory"?

    Silver Crusade *

    You might want to notify your players in advance or set up a few dummyaccounts so nobody is forced to create an account while at the table, though.

    Silver Crusade *

    To the best of my knowledge - no.

    You need to use miniatures of some kind, but if you decide to glue some chess boards together and use chess figurines as stand-ins for the characters that works.

    Silver Crusade *

    LorneGrey wrote:

    So there is no further possibility to uncurse the character, if I failed to do so during the session itself (for whatever reasons)?


    Your GM was mistaken, it's that simple. I'd recommend writing to your VL or VC.

    1 to 50 of 506 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.