|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Rule of thumb:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friend of mine played a paladin of Shelyn.
He was fully aware to expect table variation with his interpretation though (this was PFS).
Just to make it clear (and good morning from Germany, my Switzerland neighbor):
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.
He's a bard. His versatile performance allows him to use performance(comedy) instead of bluff.
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.
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!"
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."
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.
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.
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. ;)
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.
There was a great example told by Spoony.
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).
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."
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.
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.
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.
So. The situation was this:
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).
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.
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.
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!". ;)
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.
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.
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.
Suggestion: He's not proficient with heavy armor, perhaps he could lose some of his Armor Training class features?
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 tribe...so he attacks.
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.
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'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."
While reading the Pathfinder TVTropes entry and looking up some stuff about Taldor I noticed some retcons in Golarion.
This are some things I found.
Please do add your own!
James Jacobs wrote:
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.
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.
(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.)
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"?
That contradicts other parts of the Guide then:
Season 7 guide, page 37 wrote:
Step 8: Have the player note all items purchased or sold, including spellcasting services, in the notes section (V). If the character gained an ongoing condition like a curse or disease during the scenario, the player should note that here as well. See Dealing with Afflictions on page 38 for more information on noting conditions gained and cleared during a scenario or after its conclusion.
Season 7 guide, page 38 wrote:
So while this is applicable here because the affliction would result in an unplayable character this is not the case for all curses, diseases and afflictions.Nevermind that the Conditions Cleared box was removed a long time ago, of course...
I suggest stopping this discussion and to open another thread to not derail this thread further.
The alignment bit is irrelevant, a curse is a condition that must be cleared by the end of the scenario or you are reported dead. Also, this particular werebear is most definitely not good.
This is incorrect. This particular curse would "result in an unplayable character" (at least I think so because werebears are not legal for play), so it has to be cleared. But curses do not have to be cleared at the end of the scenario as a general rule, only noted on the chronicle sheet if they are not broken.
In addition it is called Curse of Lycanthropy. As such normal means of removing curses should work regardless of the time taken. Neither Heal nor Remove Disease would normally be able to remove a curse and so I read the section as adding extra options rather than limiting existing means of dealing with a curse.
That might be the case and lycanthropy is classified as a curse.There are however reasons why this shouldn't work.
A cleric has to be 12th level and cast remove disease within three days to cure it. This would be pointless if any 5th level cleric could just throw out a remove curse and be done with it.
The problem is that there is a line from 3.5 missing in Pathfinder:
This is actually adressed in Classic Horrors Revisited. I only have the German version, so I'll try to translate it back into English as back as I can:
"Almanach der klassischen Schrecken wrote:
Magic effects such as remove curse can be used [to remove the affliction], but are only effective during the full moon when the werewolf is at its strongest.
Seems to me like they only forgot to include that line in the bestiary. The same rule is also stated in Broken Moon.
Bearing in mind I GM mostly for newer players, my players tend to stick to the core classes. Exceptions are my girlfriend (witch) and one D&D 3.5 veteran and powergamer (magus kensai bladebound/fighter).
When I GM in our FLGS the owner tends to play an inquisitor while the VL goes for an investigator.
I feel like I missed something between scenarios.
Scions I: The kobolds prayed to the guardian. He was hibernating until [INFO FROM Scions I REDACTED] woke him up and he kicked out the kobolds.
Scions II: Irrelevant.
Scions III: The kobolds are back downstairs and pray to the guardian, yet he starts attacking the PCs as soon as they enter...why, exactly? This part does not make sense to me. He turned back to tolerating/ignoring the kobolds (or even hibernating, this is not quite clear) but immediatly attacks the PCs?
Never bothered me much. Let's agree to disagree!
(It really is a tradeoff between AC and mobility. There will be situations where you curse your slowness and situations where you curse your lower AC. Guess it depends what you feel fits your character better.)
Give Painlord's What to Expect at a PFS table a quick read. You should not treat it as gospel obviously, but it give some good suggestions - a silver morning star is great because it's both bludgeoning and piercing, for example.
Torches or (in my opinion better) sunrods are always a good investment - last time my party went into a dungeon they were surprised how little a light spell really illuminates. Not to mention the headache it generates if only one person has it prepped.
Other than that - consider buying a few scrolls. For example, comprehend languages is something you rarely use, so you probably won't learn it. But if the need arises and you have a scroll handy you will be celebrated.
As for throwing weapons...I hate those things and always go for a bow, sling or crossbow. But in my experience as a melee character you rarely need to go ranged in low levels (I know, blasphemy!) and if you do the fight is often over after five to ten rounds.
Minor thing (and unlikely because the temple is quite narrow), but is Asvika or one of her looter friends supposed to be carrying the sack of loot? Or is the sack inside a backpack (which would make little sense to me)?
Theoretically it's possible for the three to sidestep the PCs and withdraw from combat, taking the loot with them. But all three need both hands to effectivly fight (the looters with their shields, Asvika with her dagger + her casting hand), so...they refuse to give up their loot, start combat, drop the sack and try to get out of there without their loot? Makes even less sense to me.
I mean, there are sacks with backpack straps, but I imagine this is not meant here.
question is pretty much in the title:
If a paladin smites an evil creature, does his attack count as good?
Background of the question is a monster with regeneration 5 (good weapons, good spells).
I think that RAW the paladin is not able to block the regeneration by merely smiting the monster, instead he'd need to cast bless weapon for the task or beat it to a pulp and suffocate it.
Also note that while "at my table I'd allow it" is a valid and appreciated answer (because that's how I would rule it at my home game), this is intended for PFS play. So answers based on rules are very valuable. :)
Come to think of it, I really like names in Discworld. While obviously a fantasy setting, most names are easy to remember, the weirdness often applies to last names and many characters have a nickname:
Another thing you only find in Germay:
My home group had Leonard , Fur, Besh, Nyssa, Olo (Yolo Olo if he did something extremly risky) and...Exelius. Guess which name took forever to memorize.
My local lodge is also conservative with names so far, all quite short and nothing too weird. But now that I think about them, I can only remember Will the witch, and that's because I watched Buffy. And Wolfang, the brother of Leonard. I always hoped one of them would die so that I could deliver the tragic message to the other IC.
LAST NAMES are quite a different matter. I keep getting weird looks for Bodo Mudfoot because his name is so thoroughly unassuming.
SPOILER Kylo Ren wrote:
If you put spoiler marks around something, please note what it's a spoiler for.(Star Wars Spoiler, if anybody wants to know. Not a major one though, I suppose. Haven't seen it yet.)