Blazej's page

I think the magus is better or just as good as any of the other options given.

And it also reminds me of Chrono Trigger so it gets points for that too.

I am happy to with a Magus getting a 3/4 base attack progression along with something like a bard's spell progression. In my mind, that gives them more room to get power through class abilities than just being a sack of BAB attached to a spell list. I think the alchemist and inquisitor pull it off without me considering them non-fighters because of their interesting class abilities along with their spells and I expect the same from the magus.

So go Magus!

Also, declaring that it's "locked in" well before publication seems a bit... eh, overly hardcore. But it's not my company.

If I had to guess about the biggest reason for this, I believe it would be because of the tendency for arguments to never stop. People continually suggesting names that are "obviously so much better" or even "perfect."

I'm going to guess that Paizo staff has already considered the pros and cons of the names suggested and the name chosen. The people arguing about it just present practically no new information that Paizo staff hasn't considered. So that after the new round of arguing, Paizo would just come to the same conclusion as before.

Congratulations!

Building the bard from the way you want it will obviously be difficult at the very least. All classes in the game get attack powers and almost all of them require you to attack and damage an enemy. Utility powers are pretty easy I think, but the attack powers are harder to mesh with that goal.

From the first level lists I have these few suggestions for power choices.

Misdirected Mark, it is an explosion spell, but if your party has a "typical," it should feel like a buff to the party when they gain more control over an enemy because of your attack.

Blunder (Even though it deals damage, I think it feels more like a 'leave it for the party to deal with him' ability), Fast Friends (no damage, just straight beguilement sort of like 3.5 fascinate).

Stirring Shout (damaging, but at least avoids defaulting to the blade. I would suggest that you/the GM don't describe the psychic damage as like any other damage. Don't leave him wounded or dead by the magic, just disheartened by you buffing your allies as they charge toward him. The power's healing magic doesn't even care if the enemy is affected by your shout even, so it doesn't really make you feel like you need to hit him for your buff magic to work.)

After this I started having a bit more trouble just finding stuff I wanted to pick at on here, but there are a few throughout the levels that I would also suggest.

There are powers like Increasing the Tempo (which is a 19th level daily power that "just" lets an ally take four attacks as a free action, but those seem to be rare. It is very very hard to take all your powers such that they just aid allies rather than harm enemies.

My shorter suggestion for this is to try picking powers that you can describe as not being a direct attack (even if they still require attack rolls) and powers that (although they damage an enemy) are more about forcing your allies to clean up the enemies (by giving them free attacks, putting them in better positions around the target, etc).

There are probably other threads on this, so feel free to redirect me, but what is it about the fighter/mage archetype that people feel isn't well covered by (multi-classing + Eldritch Knight)?

I think that my biggest issue with the archetype being covered only by multi-classing/Eldritch Knight is that it only really fights and casts spells. He doesn't really get any abilities beyond those two things and that makes the combination feel a bit bland to me or at least as bland as a 3.5 sorcerer or wizard felt to me. They are both were fun to play and covered their archetype well, but I like them better with class packages and abilities to help define them.

I want to see the class have a strong (in theme and not necessarily super powerful) set of abilities to define it beyond "I can cast spells while swinging around martial weapons."

If all there is to the Magus is "he is an arcane spellcaster that can fight well," I would feel just as apathetic about it as someone just describing the oracle as "a spontaneous cleric."

I want to play an evil, psychopathic half-orc that worships a deity of destruction of everything that the campaign sets up as thing the party will have to oppose many times. Of course I only found this out after they started playing the character but somewhat the same thing.

Now to set up the only character I have had to say no to before the dice started rolling. The player wanted to play a character whose form/mind randomly switched between two different people. The two different people were a man and a woman that hated each other and despised the fact that had to split their time between one another. They disliked each other so much that (actual example I was given) if one sensed the change into the other person coming, that they might strip naked and run into a public place to create problems for the second person.

In my own games I probably would restrict the use of weapons by creatures like dragons. Less for balance reasons and more because I don't see their claws being able to get a good hold on them (that and it makes them look a tad silly in my opinion).

I would say that it should be up to your GM on whether a certain type of monster should be able to hold something.

The extra space isn't a matter of WORD COUNT it's a matter of PAGE COUNT. Pull a non-essential piece of half page page art: BOOM second stat block.

I do not think that would be a reasonable solution for me. For me the art is essential or at least more so than multiple stat blocks. Pulling out art for more stat blocks will at best make the product look plainer. It would just make the product worse.

If this is the case, then it seems to me that as far as most (non-elven) surface dwellers go Golarion drow are completely unknown and are just going to be identified as some strange looking dark skinned elves? It also seems to me that if people are assuming that they're 'just dark skinned elves' that unless they are engaged in obviously hostile activity, that drow will not meet with an automatic hostile reaction unless elves are?

If I recall correctly the drow are not unknown to the surface races, they are just considered to be a myth. The dark myths attached to them likely would help most people make a judgement on them if spotted.

I believe I lost interest in interacting with the "discussion" long before the Leprechaun when I saw the tone of some of the arguers.

And now I believe I have lost comprehension of the thread as I'm not sure how many of the posts are being sarcastic or not.

I haven't seen it, but I believe that the Assassin class on DDI uses the shadow power source. I'm not sure though if it is out yet or if my information is correct though.

Sadly link

... I feel pretty icky that a good number of people will only find out after they have bought the book.

With this and other recent printing hiccups, I am a bit concerned about this continuing with other products. If a page of the APG is missing, will it just be called good enough and sold anyway? If the covers of the Bestiary 2 are curved such that it can't lie flat, will it still be sold at full price?

I wouldn't have really thought that these would happen, but it is a bit worrying that the a printer can make this mistakes and still leave them to be passed on toward the customers

Some white space is always going to be present with how stat blocks are done now (never splitting them over 2 pages for example).

While it may always be present, they could just write more description information and edit to fit. If they did it that way they could have no creatures splitting over the page while having minimal white space.

Still I'm glad hearing that their is less in the Monster Manual 3.

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Brother Elias wrote:

Side note - My PFS character's very first module, he failed a will save in encounter 1. Went temporarily insane with the compulsion to kill all of his party-mates. He and his animal companion had downed every other party member except one, who got in a luck shot and stopped him before he single-handedly (okay, him and his dog) killed the entire party.

One will save, and will was his best save.

It was just one of those things that you get to talk about if you survive.

:)

So which scenario was that, so that I can avoid it? And if that had been my first PFS game, I would have either never wanted to play at another table run by that GM or I maybe would have never played another PFS game again.

Not sure that was a PFS scenario or a GM really bending the rules... sounds more like Cthulhu.

If I had to guess it was

I'm just going to relax and get ready for my Pathfinder game tonight. Then get ready for the D&D game tomorrow.

Str: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 6) = 14
Dex: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 2) = 9
Con: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 1) = 4
Int: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 2) = 10
Wis: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 1) = 11
Cha: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 5, 2) = 13

Umm... a sorcerer that stays far far away that anything that can touch him

So while I under, Blazej, that you're frustrated, I would encourage you to play more sub-Tier 1-2 scenarios #24 or higher (though #29 and higher are actually for PRPG and not 3.5).

Thank you, I would love to play in them except I've (as far as I could tell) already played in or run all the current Tier 1-2 scenarios from #24 on.

Still seriously, thank you. Getting a response like this even if nothing changes for this character means apparently a lot to me.

Blazej wrote:

Now the cheesy death can get to learn about the cheesy copy-paste resurrection of a character 0 XP.

I don't understand what this sentence means, but I understand your pain. Our party had a 1st level 50%PK in a certain adventure that turned out to be notable for TPKs. It's frustrating, to say the least.

Thanks. I just meant I rebuilt the character by just adjusting the character number on the sheet up by 1. I don't really like it because it feels cheap, but this kill doesn't feel like it deserves any respect from me.

Thanks, I probably have been a bit too whiny about this, the only reason I have is the keeping my mouth pretty much shut for three weeks kind of let it explode out.

No, we are not.

No, she cannot.
Even that won't do it.
(And, Blazej, there have been worse TPKs in Season 0 for the fresh-faced Level 1 Pathfinders. Fortunately, the Decembrivate has asked Venture-Captain Juberto Savarre to stop sending newbies to look into a haunted house where they might encounter a combination of 5d6 shocking grasp and 5d6 lightning bolt in the surprise round.)

The fact that there have been worse does not change the fact that I believe that this is a continuing error. If this is how one presents the Society to a new player, then I don't expect that player to come back (and very much agree with their decision). You can't make an error while refusing to correct it and maintain the trust of the players.

It certainly sucks to die, but frankly level 1 is the best time to die, if it's going to happen. You don't really lose much.

Yeah. Because of that the character is all back now. Now the cheesy death can get to learn about the cheesy copy-paste resurrection of a character 0 XP.

I'm just going to sit here and watch the insanity at this point.

This quote from the PFS Guide has been sticking with me, "Obviously, we hope (and are striving to balance the scenarios in such a way) that a total party kill never happens—..." and I wonder that it doesn't deal with the what to do do when the scenario isn't balanced in the that way?

Is the GM allowed/encouraged to modify a scenario to not create a TPK situation? If the GM believes that the scenario was grossly unfair, can the GM "hand-wave" the death as an error of the scenario? Do I have to prove that the scenario is not balanced for a 1st level group to get all the deaths cause by it expunged?

Or do I just have no options reclaiming this character no matter what the scenario sent at him and I really should have just not played at all?

Making a scenario that is challenging to someone with 1250 worth of gear @ level 1 that won't pulverize a group of characters with only 150 GP worth of gear @ level 1 is a challenge, but they are both valid groups of level one characters.

I understand that there can be a wide variety of power between individual level one characters, but their ACs, saving throws, and hit points aren't that far enough apparent even if they spent all 1000 gp they earned. They aren't that far apart. It might mean a +1 AC or saving throws along with a 1st level wand and +1 to attack rolls with their weapon. That is not a lot of change.

But yes. Building for multiple levels can be a challenge. But there should be extra caution for these lower levels, when hit points are at their lowest.

I have both the Monster Manual I and II and I feel kind of meh on getting the third. I do believe that the III book has better designed monsters than the predecessors, but right now it feels like that if I just wait a bit more for Monster Manual IV that book will be described as being better than than III. Right now it seems to me that 4e Monsters are in a ongoing and significant evolution at this. I'm think I want to wait a bit until the number of improvements made slow enough that I don't feel as if my MMs are being outdated. Yes I know that I can still use the MM, but if I had to pick one of my MMs to come with me, it would be the MM2 just because I feel it handles the subject better.

I will definitely have to check it out, but one thing that might help in my decision is the way the layout of the book. Do a significant number of the pages have chunks of whitespace at the bottom of the columns?

This one is probably not one I would run a group of 1st level PCs through. Of the season zeroes, I'd choose Tide of Morning, Decline of Glory or Prince of Augustana as new-PC-friendly adventures.

I think this is one of the things irritating me. Should I have to ask on the forums about scenarios before I play in them, just to see I really should be playing it. Right now the scenarios seem more like a mine field now, and figuring out the right scenario to play is how to avoid a kill.

To me, if it is supposed to be new PC friendly, it has Tier 1 on the adventure. If it isn't, well, why shouldn't I demand my character not be marked off as dead just because the adventure was mistaken about who it was appropriate for?

My point is that the people who made the movie didn't change Nick Fury's appearance, they just used another version of Nick Fury already established in the comics. If the people who are making Spiderman made him black they wouldn't be using a version established in the comics they would be taking their own creative licence with the character.

So... does that mean that it is completely fine if they make a black Spiderman in the comics and then make the movie?

I'm probably not posting very coherently. Bored out of my mind at the office and typing all of this on a blackberry. I may be misunderstanding the thrust of his thread.

From my understanding, the thrust of the thread is that if you are ever changing a spell because it ruins a challenge in your world, you are doing it wrong.

So far, the arguments I recall from you are limited to just pulling the rug from under a player when they try to cast a spell to solve a problem.

The difference that I see is that one allows for a GM to alter things at some point to fit their game, while the other cannot seem to tolerate it.

You are still not matching his example. The dm prepared for the spells his party had so the challenge would not be trivial, while leaving them a chance to learn before and adjust tactics.

Cartigans example was:
'You're in a desert. You need water to survive this trip.'
'I'll have create water prepped.'
'I'm changing that spell so find a different way.'
'WTF?'

Which seems to be not matching most of the other examples here which seem to be be: "I am running a campaign in a desert and wish a lack of water to be a threat, which is why I am modifying certain spells that would have made it a laughable issue."

I'm also confused by your linking yourself with Cartigan, because you seem to be agreeing with him while your arguments are not harmonious with each other.

While I like the idea of randomly determining character attributes (such as ability scores and hit points). Far too often it happens that a person will get a set of bad rolls that will just mean they will be a fifth wheel until the character is soon killed.

If I could get a combination of random and relative balance between scores, I would prefer that to point-buy. But until then, most dice rolling is way too swingy.

I can see many people finding this difficult, but calling it too difficult is very hard to gauge.

This scenario can go south very fast, depending on party make-up, and dice rolls. I remember my early scenarios and finding them very difficult. Recent adventures (and different character builds) have resulted in many adventures becoming much easier, but PFS and challenge are often synonymous.

To clarify. I am fine with a challenge. I am fine with difficult. This was beyond those.

I have run a good number of scenarios and I have to say not one that I have seen comes close to what I saw in The Third Riddle. The hardest encounter I've seen in other scenarios seems to be the average for this adventure and I feel it was not remotely fair.

Blazej wrote:

I am really curious what they did in this scenario different from our group. Please tell me, what exactly happened?

** spoiler omitted **

Thanks! It is nice at least knowing our party didn't do anything really wrong. Even though it doesn't really help the scenario be actually balanced.

- They noticed the encounters were more of a riddle then a combat (not a spoiler, unless you consider the title of the adventure a spoiler as well ;-) ). If you just go in and charge, then yes you are going to have a hard time.

I realized it was a puzzle, however that didn't really aid with the fact the very tough monsters were very often between us and the puzzle pieces.

'Should I run at the very first sign of trouble now?' is a sure way to get everyone killed. 'How are we going to handle this' is the way to go! Work as a team, not as individuals.

I feel we did do that. But after the first round, tactics mean less when almost half the party is down or grabbed. That is the issue that seems to be core to the adventure.

It doesn't matter that I know I need to get to the other side of the room when it will provoke an average AoO that will likely take me out. Neither does it help that I know I have to do that puzzle thing when a creature is about to murder a downed PC. No tactics could have saved us.

Yes, running would probably kill whatever PCs was left in the room, but the alternative seems to have been having my character killed. Running seems to have been the correct decision that would have saved my character.

I am really curious what they did in this scenario different from our group. Please tell me, what exactly happened? Because nearly every monster in the dungeon took out most 1st level PC with one of their accurate attacks. It is unclear how tactics avoided this.

One thing that is in my mind is...

We need 'Don't feed the trolls' signs around here. :)

Sadly they feed one another.

I am just glad I stayed clear of arguing in this thread.

That said, I think their view of "one book, one system" is going to be rather tested as at least two more PF rule books are coming out this year, and I bet if these go well there will be more after those.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to.

Are you bringing up the Pathfinder RPG books that continuing to come out, the one that has a subscription indicating this is probably a continuing thing, the line that they (if I recall correctly) said will have three books per year, possibly divided equally among a GM books, Player books, and Monster books? I'm guessing I'm wrong because your statement seems to indicate that they are being somewhat covert about continuing to publish this books when that doesn't seem to be the case.

If that was your intent, one could have said something like "It is only one book because of how new it is. Paizo is continuing to publish more rulebooks as time goes by." After that one could compare the rate of new supplements from each company, but betting that Paizo will make more rulebooks if the next few are successful is, to me, like betting that the sun will come out tomorrow.

Don't give up on the Society yet: I have had hundreds of hours of great fun as a result of PFS! Once you get into it, it tends to be quite addicting...

I'm sorry if I was too dramatic with how I brought it up. I'm pretty certain I will not be quitting because of this scenario. I'm still going to play, I just want to know what is to be done in situations like this (characters killed for joining the wrong scenario).

That being said, some of the scenarios are tougher than others. The Third Riddle is certainly appropriate for either second and third level characters (for tier 1-2) or fourth and fifth level characters (for tier 4-5.) It is a total deathtrap for first level characters.

If that is the case, then it would be appropriate to repair the scenario to read tier 2 instead of 1-2. Those numbers are the primary way a GM can tell what levels a scenario is for, if they are off, then TPKs will happen without the GM nor the PCs being at fault.

It's certainly the case that characters with no experience points just start over again -- why not? -- but I do believe that raising 1st-Level PCs with their experience points intact does require a spell.

Yeah I think so too, and that is what I will have to do. I will be essentially copy-pasting this character at 0 XP and starting gold. I don't like it, but the scenario that killed seemed so unfair that I don't really care that much. If I could, I would even rather have it so that this character is just reset the registry character to zero instead of having the clone next to the dead character.

Are you asking for advice, just gripin', or what? Do you recall the name of the scenario?

Griping I guess. It has been a long five weeks playing this on a PbP game and I have been venting a bit for a while. I know that my options for what to actually do are limited: quit or keep playing.

I guess what I'm looking for is an acknowledgement that some scenario might be unbalanced and that something might be done about it. I want this game to sort of be worth something in the end.

The scenario was The Third Riddle. It was season 0 scenario.

Non-Stealth Edit: Also I was pretty sure if I didn't post something like this, every time I would look at my screen of PFS characters I would remember that I didn't do anything about this.

I recently have been privileged to play in a scenario for Tier 1-2 with a 1st level character (and a band of the same level). Sadly, several of the encounters were quite difficult.

Throughout this, my biggest thought was of disbelief. I mean, I never thought that they would actually send these things to kill the party.

The issue seems to be that players assume that the game is going to be remotely fair to them. They don't expect to have the Tarrasque charging at them when they start on their mission without a way for them to escape or beat it.

I'm not sure what to do in scenarios I play in now. Should I run at the very first sign of trouble now? Because after this scenario, it feels as if I should make a coward that will ditch the party after the first round when something seems dangerous?

It would make me a complete jerk though, but that is the only way I think my character could have possibly survived this scenario.

The scenario faked me out by pretending to be appropriate for me character. It then stole my character from me because I trusted that the game would be balanced. I want to ask for my character back because if this is how it is, I will just accept the fact that PFS wants me to run from every encounter right when it seems dangerous. If a scenario is broken, there should be a better response than, "well I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do. Your character is dead."

IMO kids like power gaming and don't care much about game balance.

3.5 and PF allow them to play the most powerfully broken characters that they can get their DM to allow while in 4e it's impossible to create a character that completely overshadows all others and monsters.

So of course they want to play the game where they can be better than everyone else over a game where they can't.

*raises eyebrow*

*waits to see which regular posters treat this as they would treat a similar attack on 4th edition and which, sadly, do not*

While it could be some sort of cyclical evolution and reflect a developemental rejection of the status quo, I am more inclined to take them at their words. They have reasons for what they think and ask for.

I really do trust your judgement over mine in this case, even just for the fact that you know them and I do not. I appreciate the nice response even after the initial reaction the thread got.

Tempted to argue about settings with lots of detail or enough to get you by, but not tempted enough to argue it in this thread.

Alright. Just a little bit more until the weekend is over and the chances of this thread being dealt with increase.

Dork Lord wrote:

Someone may have to explain this forum smurf phenomenon to me...

Edit: And now my avatar is a smurf as well. Interesting.

No one?

It was added one day such that if your post had the word "smurf" in it, the avatar would be changed for that post into a random smurf.

Part of me doubts that this is less a reflection of kids as a whole and more a representation of how they make decisions to not be associated with things they have outgrown or are not cool. I would say that it could have been easily them saying no to Pathfinder with other "talking points" like, "it's a poor revision to a poor system," and "if I play D&D, I will play D&D. Not some a version stolen by another company."

I believe that while they could, as a group, decide not to play 4e and, just as easily, another group of kids could all get drawn into the game. Even if it even, I think that it would still be in the favor of the game in the long run because years down the road, these opinions might have changed and all of them will still have a stronger awareness of D&D than if they had never played at all.

Request: Please, please don't do this over the weekend.

Bigger Request: Please don't do this ever.

Any news on these binding problems? Will the third printing solve this? If it's been asked before, answer again please.

If I recall correctly....

Short answer: Maybe.

Longer answer: It was estimated that the vast majority of the Core Rulebooks in previous printings had no binding problems and that they were random aberrations rather than a problem with the printing as a whole.
But, the third printing does use a different printer. It is unknown if the number of books with problems will be even less or more than in previous printings until after the books are printed and used.

I would say that nonlethal is a type in party just because some creatures are immune to non-lethal. It is easier for me to think of it as a type that can be added to others.

Edit: There is also the energy that a vicious weapon deals, which is just mentioned as disruptive energy. E2: I guess it would fall into just being energy damage (just to give a type) that there isn't an immunity for or resistance to.

Good, Evil, Law, Chaos (aligned weapons to pierce damage reduction)
Magic (as in magic weapons)
Divine (as in flame strike)

So, the "Pathfinder Chronicles" line has been renamed "Pathfinder Campaign Setting"?

Yep. A few other things have changed as well. More information here.

It feels like a few of the arguments seem to be comprised of extreme inaccurate criticisms that don't seem to take into account actual reality (Dogs will trash your house and ruin every single thing that you own) and responses that seem to swing the pendulum the other way by trying to establish that the problem never will exist ever because the thing is perfect (Dogs will never ever damage a single thing of yours. If your dog did, it must have been your fault).

I'm pretty sure that I would like the arguers to both come closer the reality in the middle, because right now, it seems everyone is a bit crazy about this subject.

I will append this opinion to the opinion that I gave above.

The thing that I am fine with is a black Spiderman, but I don't want a black Peter Parker.