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

David Haller's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 482 posts (533 including aliases). 2 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 482 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in Jiggy's camp - you just have to trust in an honor system.

It was the same issue with 3.5 organized play campaigns when the system got bloated - there's just no way for one person to meaningfully grasp all the rules and character abilities, so you just assume the player's know what they're doing (and aren't malicious).

And that's probably 90% accurate, which is good enough to keep a sustainable campaign.

It's more of a problem for GMs when running high-tier scenarios, because it requires far more prep, looking things up and reviewing unfamiliar abilities and spells (and planning for their strategic application). The option is simply to not run high-tier.

I'm ready for Pathfinder 2, myself, but until then, I'm just going to let my players do their thing.

***

René P wrote:
Unknown reason as to why he read it before hand. He has extremely limited GMing experience to my knowledge so I doubt it was for GM prep.

Well, in this instance, it's reasonable to assume he simply wanted foreknowledge of the scenario. Perhaps he wanted to see if it "fit" his character - who knows. But it's cheating, flat-out.

That said, PFS obviously does allow people with foreknowledge to play the game - namely, those who've GMed it or (in less common circumstances) will be GMing it soon, and just had to read it already (maybe they're running it tomorrow). Now, there are GM-star replayers as well. The Guide is pretty strict that these players have to play "dumb".

I'd prefer the person simply not play at my table - I loathe a cheat - but if somehow that wasn't an option, I'd completely forbid any kind of in-scenario prep (no purchases), disallow spell selections and other preparations which implied a knowledge of the scenario, and simply block any attempt to use knowledge of the scenario ("nope, there's no secret door in this room" "No, the cleric has no wands on him - why do you ask?") If this inconveniences the other players, I'd make sure they understood that it was a consequence of someone having read the scenario.

Cheating needs to be shameful. It really needs to be harshly punished, but the nature of PFS makes that challenging (it's hard to really ban someone from play, for example). I've seen Organized Play campaign in which it became "the culture" (Living Forgotten Realms) to seek out scenarios with favorable items and so on based on foreknowledge, and that's a very slippery place. LFR was so bad that people would publish spoiler lists of scenarios with listed items and boons so that folks could plan their farms (oops, I mean play schedule) accordingly.

I certainly hope this new player at least felt stupid, if not embarrassed.

***

If a GM feels comfortable revising the faction missions to accommodate current factions, I'd say "do it" - a major aspect of part IV is illustrating how "corrupted" the Society has become by internecine intrigues, and the need for "true Pathfinders" to transcend it. It just has to be meaningful.

Of course, this violates the PFS edict forbidding scenario rewrite. I'm chaotic neutral, though, so...

Here's how I'd handle it:

(i) "Guys, factions are a thing in this, so do you mind if I rewrite the faction missions accordingly?"

(ii) If "yes", do I feel comfortable rewriting them? In other words: can I write? do I understand game balance? do I feel I can retain the existing difficulty of the scenario doing this?

(iii) if "yes", rewrite.

Simple!

***

Zwolfe124 wrote:

Yeah I know they dont carry over, which is very unfortunate. But I do really like blood money idea. Whats a lil HP damage.

Yes, well, blood money is strength damage, which is sometimes a bit scary for (strength-dumped) casters!

Good idea to have a wand of lesser restoration on hand, and the ability to use it.

***

Unless the scenario has weather impacting encounters - that is, written in - it's simply a mechanical layer which slows things down, anyway. Home play? okay, I guess, but in a 4-5 hour game, you just need to keep things streamlined!

That said, I mention non-mechanical weather to set atmosphere (meaning no fogs, etc) as needed.

***

Lost Demiurge wrote:
Is there a list somewhere, that spells out the vanities? I'd dearly love the noble title one for my Taldoran swashbuckler, but can't seem to find anything official on them...

It's in the Pathinder Society Field Guide.

***

I think what the OP is asking is "now that we have some new classes, will we get access to some new races? Ideally, those well-suited to certain of the new classes; orcs, for example, seem thematically suited to the shaman class."

(And when IS the Pathfinder Society going to charter a lodge in the Hold of Belkzen? High time, if you ask me!) :P

Not an official answer: don't hold your breath for access to orcs!

***

It's not really an issue because Trade Prince is Qadira (Exchange) and Noble Title is Taldor (Sovereign).

Since you can't be a member of both factions, stacking isn't an issue.

Now, in the outlier case of "I was Qadira" (and got Trade Prince) but I switched to "Sovereign" (with access to Noble Title) then yes, you could have a nice string of titles.

In theory, you could have been Aldoran, taken Captain and Knight, switched in an earlier season to Qadira, taken Trade Prince, and switched recently to S.S. and taken a Noble Title, and be Knight Captain and Trade Prince Lord Velarrio the Faceless, Viscount so-and-so.

***

CyTerrin wrote:
stuff

Excellent ideas - it really needs to be player-driven, too.

A great use for any white space on a chronicle.

***

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the practice of "resetting" character knowledge from scenario to scenario is just laughably stupid - it's probably one of the main things I'd change about PFS's "GM culture".

It's two cardinal gaming sins rolled into one: it completely destroys immersion, revealing that the character is not, in fact, a character, but is simply a collection of abilities and skills which "reforms" anew from scenario to scenario and-

It completely invalidates player knowledge of the game and player attention TO games. Pathfinder actually *is* a game, and skill in the game and "paying attention" should be rewarded, not discounted.

In short, it makes PFS scenarios instances, not episodes.

Yuck.

(For the record, as a GM I will certainly respect the fact that your character encountered the oozes before, and "allow" them to have the entirely reasonable - since your character is a *character* with memories and experiences - strategic recollections.)

***

It seems pretty clear from the guide that you get a rebuild to current XP, including replacing equipment rendered unusable by the rebuild (ie. can be "cashed in" for purchase value).


Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Plus, if this was heavily exploitable how long do you think you would live if your GM was heavily opposed to it being possible?

Indeed, but the main issue with something like this - had it been viable - would be Pathfinder Society, in which GMs are bound by RAW and unable to customize scenarios.

And there's always the risk that further books will contains something which will change this argument in favor of spell batteries, and *boom*, there it is.

***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Having reflected on this, I'm fine with the Technologist requirement.

If you ever use a very, very advanced toilet in Japan, and you experience the mystification of how do I flush this?, you will know that even full mastery of one's own technology does not necessarily prepare you to use another's!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Q.E.D, then.

Puts away his beautifully crafted PFS GM Tear Collecting Bottle... perhaps after the next book.


Just to remind, you automatically dispel your own spells.

Per PRD: "You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself."

That ups the efficacy a little, at least.

***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One wonders if robots must take the Primitivist feat to make skill checks outside of Numeria.

"Ew, what is that!"

"*searching...searching*... "I don't know. How can these beings live in such filth and squalor?"

"Ugh. Let's go back to Numeria."


DRD1812 wrote:

This may be a semantic can of worms, but I was wondering if the dazing metamagic feat can apply to things like Stone Call or Ice Spears. By one reading, these spells don't actually deal damage. Rather, they create effects that deal damage incidentally (which is why they get around spell resistance). It's like suggesting that the fall damage from Create Pit or the projectiles from Fabricate Bullets would be suitable Dazing effects.

Is this an accurate reading?

That's an interesting distinction, but no.

Stone Call and Ice Spears cause damage directly through the spell effect; something like Create Pit causes a fall, but the fallcauses incidental damage, not the spell.

Similarly, a Dazing Telekinesis will not allow us to toss someone in the air, only to suffer a dazing impact upon landfall - the spell causes the fall, and the fall causes the damage.

I never really thought about it, but it's a subtle distinction - good question!

(Basic semantic distinction between cause (directly) and cause (indirectly) - the former is required for Dazing... otherwise you could cast a Dazing Summon Monster, and have a Dazing Tyrannosaurus on the loose!)

***

Archives of Nethys is a useful resource to (i) determine if something is PFS-legal (there's a little Glyph of the Open Road icon next to it) and (ii) see what book or resource it's in. (I think you can even click the links there and it takes you straight to the item on Amazon.)

***

I don't have the book yet, but just to clarify: even without Technologist, a PC (say, an inquisitor) could make a K: Engineering check and get the full range of identifying info, powers, and so on? (ie. not cap at 10 per untrained?)

That was one of the big complaints in an earlier thread.

It pretty much just impacts Disable Device and Linguistics, then?


Mydrrin wrote:


Not sure your math. My math is, a 20th level Inquisitor get 3 shots a round base + rapid shot + haste. At most 5 shots a round. Even at self buffing to the max that still around 250 damage a round if they all hit. Your feat levels are low, your to hit is low. Can you post something with what feats you have and what your to hit would be like?

Manyshot adds an arrow to the first base shot, and I'm assuming divine power rather than haste for the "haste shot", because this should be without external buffs.

Also, with keen edge, you're threatening 10% of the time, which effectively adds 1.2 "shots" (0.6 of your arrows are "trippled" to 1.8, is one way to model it)... so in essence your per-arrow damage, sans bane, is being multiplied by 7.2, not 5, which would bring *your* calculation to 360.

Pretty close to my 354.

"Your feat levels are low, your to hit is low" - I don't know what this means? If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it (possibly your confused about my two posts, but one was based on my "actual" character (15th level), and the other was elevated to 20 to compare with a theorycrafted build. Possible confusion.)


For an inquisitor? Well, assuming level 20 (even though, who plays level 20 characters?), there's the judgement of destruction (+9 with slayer), wrath (+3 morale), divine power (+6 luck), and bane (+2), so that's +20 from direct self-buffs.

He can cast GMW on his non-magical bow, making it +5. So we're at +25.

He can attack with Deadly Aim, for another +8 to damage, bringing us to +33/arrow, and I offset the attack penalty with heroism (self-buff) and attacking invisibly (greater invisilibility, a self-buff).

With a +40 Perception (+/- depending on wisdom and feats), he can plausibly be aware of enemies with enough notice to buff up for 3 rounds, enough to cast his 3 short-term buffs.

Obviously, this depends on spell selection, although it's hard to imagine an inquisitor forgoing those I've mentioned.

In any case, it can be fairly routine for an inquisitor to add +33 damage per shot, plus 4d6 from greater bane, so ~+47/arrow, not factoring in crits (doubled in frequency courtesy of keen edge, of course); at 20th level, factoring in threat probabilities, damage output is in the neighborhood of 354/round. Build does have clustered shots, of course, important given no special materials or DR-bypassing judgements in-use.

Again, this is assuming no magic items - mundane items only.


In terms of actual play, especially from 1st level, it's pretty hard to beat a ranged inquisitor for crazy damage output, and they can also do so many other things: casting spells, skill monkeys, self-buffing, and so on.

In a home game, I currently play a 15th level ranged inquisitor. We're restricted to CRB/APG only, and we're "low magic" in that we have no magic mart, and only use what we find - part of the reason I played an inquisitor was knowing of these restrictions: I wanted self-sufficiency and versatility.

Buffed up and with judgements and greater bane active, and with no magic items, he can reliably output an average of 290 damage/round (+32*/+32/+32/+27/+22; *manyshot - 1d8+24+4d6/19-20(x3))... add in magic items and the whole Pathfinder ouvre and this can rise considerably.

(If he cast greater invisibility on himself, add +2 to all of those to-hits, and make the target flat-footed for even more reliable damage output.)

Just a very versatile character with high DPS.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's certainly the case that, traditionally - and in the US - the market for pen/paper RPGs has been heavily male/white. My comments will focus on the US.

I've gamed for 35 years, and in that time I've seen a considerable increase in female gamers, and have sat at plenty of 50/50 tables, but it's certainly an area which can be improved further. As for people of color, they are grossly underrepresented in pen/paper gaming - even here in Atlanta, which is demographically 54% black, I know three (serious) black gamers, which is almost crazily skewed.

This is interesting, because representation of minorities in online gaming is much greater - what gives?

Relevant aside: Many years ago I was a director at Borders, Inc, and served on its Diversity Board. One thing which puzzled us was why did our share of minority customers, and especially minority employees, trail US demographics? The basic answer turned out to be that we weren't building stores in minority neighborhoods: the retail marketplace reflects proximity. In the digital world, online sales would seem to obviate this, but retail placement still serves a marketing function which can drive online sales, so proximity of in-store displays, face-outs, and so on can affect the online retail environment.

Looking at Atlanta - again, a city whose greater metropolitan area is 54% black - I note that there are no game stores in predominantly black neighborhoods. I mean none - and we have about 20-odd game stores. So, there's basically no proximity marketing of pen/paper RPGs to black consumers in Atlanta. There are other sales venues, like Barnes & Noble, but again, mostly those are in "white" neighborhoods. The driver of RPG sales to black consumers (and I'm focusing on the black market share because I'm familiar with Atlanta) just isn't present.

Now, I have been the CEO of a publishing company, and I considered - being a gamer - launching a game publishing division, so I looked into the realities a bit: game publishers are uniquely at the mercy of physical outlets - game stores, book stores, conventions - to market their products. Paizo, too, is dependent on this framework of market proximity, and so its "target market", realistically, needs to reflect its market reach - and that's where game stores are, which is "white" neighborhoods.

That said, Paizo itself is pretty amazing in featuring - through its iconics - great variation in race and gender, so it's actually well-positioned to market to a very wide segment, demographically. The physical reach just isn't there.

Hence your "privileged white" GenCon environment.

(Internationally, you have plenty of demographic variety in gaming, because you have proximity to those groups in those nations - the Turks, for example, who are quite mad about gaming! If you go to Istanbul, I'm confident you will find game stores in Turkish neighborhoods...)


Mike Labny wrote:
Misfortune specifically states you must take the worse result. Do you not have the fortune hex?

That's the witch's misfortune hex.

At discussion here is the dual-cursed oracle's misfortune ability, which (oops) lacks the "take the worse" wording, thus opening a buffing exploit.

(Ninja'd because of my italics usage! :P)

***

I'm running this in a couple of weeks - now I'll be obsessed with finding the perfect Muzak.

That, or ambient music from the Vault in Fallout.

Or something like Brian Eno's Alternative 3 for that spooky, retro-tech vibe.

Decisions!

***

Da Brain wrote:

so am I understanding that your advice to me would be to avoid these three scenarios as I am a skill focused character without (so far - I will take it later) this feat?

(oh, and by the way, I enjoy both role-playing and roll-playing to resolve challenges... I do have a problem when...

No, you're not understanding my advice.

If you're the sort who enjoys puzzling things out, you'll enjoy them (probably).

If you're the sort who insists on doing everything via skill rolls, and you lack the technologist feat, then (probably) you won't.

It's been made pretty clear (from extensive discussion and a dev post) that these scenarios ARE solvable without "rolls", so you can presumably enjoy them.

"I poke it with a ten-foot pole"

"I put the hat on and jump up and down"

"I take a sip... do I feel anything?"

Old Skool!

***

When you have a game, the content of which draws from a comprehensive set of rules and details, you have two options:

(i) Go ahead and let players bring what they have to the table, with the understanding that it might only be a subset of the whole, and this could impose asymmetrical challenges relative to what other (more "equipped") players may experience.

or

(ii) You require that all players have access to the entirety of the game's ouvre, possibly at considerable expense. This assures fairness, since everyone has everything.

Also, it's not as though Pathfinder has sprung, whole-cloth, into being, like Athena from Zeus' forehead - it's an evolving game. At this very moment, scenario authors are writing encounters which may be impacted by future rules of which they are unaware. Promises of future threads, surely.

So, some scenarios have been developed which are harder-than-intended, because of lack of coordination between scenario and rules development. Some (I, for one), will enjoy a bit of role-playing in lieu of roll-playing to resolve challenges; others will not, and they can't be faulted for this - it's just not their game. Fortunately, PFS has nearly 170 scenarios, not counting specials and modules, of which only three have presented players with this little surprise.

1.8% of scenarios are impacted - hardly worthy of crisis.

The path seems clear enough - run 6-01,2, and 3 with the skill restrictions posed by Technologist, and nod understandingly at players who avoid them. It might even be courteous for organizers to mention the feat in their game-day blurbs and postings, so players can better plan around them.

***

pauljathome wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Please don't characterize the Paizo development teams' work as "stupid BS".
Mostly because it's that bad of an idea.

I actually quite like the idea of there being very rare knowledge's IN A HOME GAME. It adds flavor, it differentiates characters, etc.

But I think it is an awful idea in PFS where I have to make characters that are capable in a huge range of scenarios from all seasons. As stated, it greatly disadvantages some builds. It also makes for a significantly poorer game when lots of information isn't available, when the only sane lockpick is the adamantine weapon, where items on chronicle sheets are all but useless, etc

Kind of in line with my thinking.

Indeed, I'd like to make a character specifically for Season 6, and makes me realize that PFS would be much better if it were simply designed as a seasonal campaign designed for new characters each year (and scenarios ranging from 1-5 at the start to 7-11 at the end), so that a given character (and player) would actually sense a cohesive narrative.

Well, like a more episodic version of an AP.

But, it's not! So if I do roll a technologist, he might be inexplicably sent - on occasion - to such improbable realms as Tien, or the lands of the Mammoth Lords.

***

Joana wrote:
It's here. (You have to scroll down to the Ts, as the new PRD won't link directly to spells.) But by my reading, it's only useful to identify "items in your possession," not things you're fighting.

Hmmm, indeed.

Still useful, but not in the middle of a fight (unless maybe you can grapple and pin the robot - "it's in my possession!" - and have a liberal GM!)

I still say it's a good time to dig out the old Gamma World 1st Edition "Artifact Use and Operation" charts!

"Oops!" :P

***

Fromper wrote:
Natertot wrote:

One of the new spells from the Technology Guide is "Technomancy", basically detect technology. It allows the caster to make a Know:Engineering roll on Robots without having to have the Technologist Feat. While not much, it is better than nothing.

A scroll of that (with detailed explanation in the scenario) would be useful in some of these scenarios.

Oh, that's perfect.

What level is the spell? If it's 1st level, what a handy, 2-prestige wand to have.

***

I was reflecting on this earlier.

I, too, kind of like the idea that you need more than just conventional knowledge to understand alien technology - indeed, I'm already planning on having my inquisitor take "Technologist" at level 7 (when she'll also ramp up her K: Engineering.)

That said, I find it unfair to send characters into a situation in which their *players* are uninformed, vis-a-vis new books with radical new rules about knowledge skills (and others).

What I may do, when I eventually run said scenarios, is have the feat "provided" to the party, perhaps in the form of a loaner ioun stone (or a couple, if needed) which grants "Technologist" (akin to stones granting such feats as "Alertness", for power comparison.) I can certainly imagine a small group of hithertoo-unknown Warehouse 13 style scholars in the Pathfinder Society who have been crafting arcane means to penetrate this alien knowledge barrier. That way, I kind of "require" the feat without an expectation of retraining at the table (which is hardly reasonable).

Creative solution.

Another approach - less generous - is simply to allow a "temporary" and minor rebuild, allowing the players to swap out an existing feat for Technologist. Suspension of disbelief for purposes of playability. Kind of metagamy (okay, very), but it "works".

***

I'm sorely tempted to find my old 1st edition Gamma World boxed set, and use the "device" tables so that players can roll to figure tech out.

(I suppose that's well outside the PFS GM's authority though, alas...)

***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a great prop for "I'm evil!" disguises.

"Hi, I want to infil - join - your evil cult"

"Hmmm. How do I know you're evil?"

"Check this out!" *brandishes Orphan Slayer*

"Whoah... come on in!"

***

They're confined to Numeria - I'd say they're rare, yes. DC (15+CR)

I'd consider a unique creature rare as well. I'd probably just call it 15 + CR, but just not give away very unique things (like class levels or whatever - I'm not familiar with 6-02 so I can't consider specifics.)

It's important not to be too harsh about DCs, because some character mechanics depend on at least knowing the type or subtype (like inquisitors, for example), and there's no cause for penalizing them unduly.

***

Andreas Forster wrote:
just fyi, there's a table in "Blood of Fiends" with lots of examples for cosmetic features, and translucent skin is among them. So of course that's ok. You shouldn't describe what the visible organs look like in detail, though, especially not if there are minors at the table. You never know if they are grossed out by gory descriptions ;)

In my experience, adults are much more likely to be disturbed by gore than minors are, who usually find it awesome! :P

***

I kind of hated the idea of season 6, but now that I'm pondering character builds to deal with robots, I'm getting kind of excited by the prospect.

THAT SAID, I'd prefer it were a mini-campaign within PFS. I'm not that keen, for example, on laser pistol-wielding PCs in, say, The Worldwound. Just have season 6 be all about Numeria, and you roll a character at the start to play through the whole season.

Indeed, from a standpoint of narrative cohesion, I'd love to see PFS 2.0, whenever it comes to pass (I suppose with the release of Pathfinder 2.0), unfold as a series of annual mini-campaigns. That would give one a much clearer idea of story arc, as well as the feel of participation in said arc (versus the current model of a PC who plays a Year one one day, a Year 3 the next, then maybe Silent Tide (hey, I missed that one!), and then off to Numeria. Or whatever.

Have a cycle of retiring Season N while you launch Season N+2, so you're always running two overlapping, but out-of-phase, campaigns. With enough players (which I think there are, now), it could work.

Until then... pew! pew!

***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, but lasers?

How am I supposed to create a PFS version of Marvin the Martian without an Acme Disintegrating Ray Gun?

(It's not as though I'm asking for an Illudium PU-36 Space Modulator...)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll throw in with Acedio.

Robots:
- are constructs
- are not animated objects
- are not objects
- remove hardness from incoming damage
- take full energy damage, which is then mitigated by hardness or other applicable resistances
- are not subject to shrink item or other spells or effects which apply to objects
- are not subject to sundering (to call out a specific effect above), though they may be in possession of things which are (though not integral weapons, which are their "natural" weapons - this may be arguable, though.)

I'm sure this can be added to, but I think it covers the basics.


The Fox wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Just jumping in to say that I agree with Andrew Christian. And yes, that means ranged weapons do half damage before applying hardness. I recommend the purchase of some durable adamantine ammunition.
Just to be clear, ranged energy weapons do 1/4 damage?

If so, malfunction becomes a far less useful spell.

"Okay, the robots are confused, and locked on each other! Everyone stand down, and let them duke it out."

*10 rounds later, as the spell winds down*

"Okay, the robots, after 10 rounds of pitched laser duel, and done... 8 damage to each other? Huh."

***

I think the idea of planetouched races is that there's a demon, devil, angel etc. in the bloodline a few generations removed, rather than as an actual parent - I mean, it's plane touched.

Actual devil/demon/angel parentage is where you get half-fiends and half-celestials, a whole other kettle of fish!

That said, I am partial to the whole "Rosemary's Baby" origin story for a tiefling.

As for being a skeletal being with a translucent skin and musculature - and a full on "Slim Goodbody" display of internal organs - I'm all for it if the player's willing! You're not reskinning something which has an open descriptive.

I would hope the player would be okay with me, as a GM, playing to the appearance - I mean, that's definitely coming with some baggage! (aka "roleplaying implications"). Just because there's no "mechanical effect" doesn't mean there's no effect on mechanics (like circumstance bonuses to diplomacy or intimidation, which I'd happily apply as a GM!)

As a player, I'd go a step further like having tracings of infernal runes on the bones, maybe listing the character's infernal lineage, or having subtle agonized faces - the remnants of damned souls ("devil DNA") - occasionally manifesting themselves on an expanding lung or pulsating heart. Those energy resistances must come from somewhere.

A walking anatomy lesson, you could (as a player) buy a Pathfinder Chronicle (K:Planes) and "lend" it to other characters by saying they can "read" planar lore in your revealed anatomy. (Okay, that's reskinning, but I'd go for it as a GM - I'm such a scofflaw!)

***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Okay, Thulsa, your turn. Haha, my villain is ensconced within his emergency force sphere! What do you do?"

"Pew! Pew!"

"Ah, that. Very well, roll your touch attack."

I await the arcane archer EMS-arrow/laser weapon combo, The Killing Jar.

***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing - the gamers who attend cons are not drawn from some wealthy, privileged class of people with an ease of leisure to attend conventions: they generally make quite an effort to attend them, saving money, arranging vacation time, and so on. Typically, this planning begins a year in advance, necessary to book a reasonably proximal room.

They are either taking their families along, OR they are vacationing independent of their families - each day of con attendance is one less day to travel elsewhere. GenCon or the beach? Origins or Paris? It's tricky.

In other words, convention attendees make sacrifices to go.

Anyone can do it. When people complain about not being able to attend cons - usually in the form of complaints about convention boons - they're really just saying "I'm unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary for con attendance, but I want the stuff from there."

I, myself, don't attend cons. I spent this past weekend in Paris, attending a wedding there. In consequence, I have no star recharges and no android. That's fine - I don't really deserve them, having not bothered to arrange my situation in favor of GenCon.

Flip this around, and look at things from the con-goer's viewpoint: "Hey, I spent thousands of dollars (a significant chunk of annual income, since gamers tend to be below-median in income) and spent my vacation time coming here, rooming with 4 other guys, not sleeping, to get this rare boon. Yay!... wait, why does that guy have one?"

If you really want boon, attend a convention. Anyone can.

***

If you have the chronicles, you have the credit - physical chronicles trump online reporting (which is really just for data mining.)

You should have your PFS number, though - it's written (or should be) on your chronicles.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't see any reason to punish players for being engaged in the scenario and using creative solutions.

I always reward players for creativity. In your example, yes, I'd give them the 10gp (it would just be added to the BBEG's treasure).

Obviously, you can't edit the chronicle sheet, and you should adhere to the PFSGtOP, and you need to respect the players' comfort level with "outside the box GMing", but you are *still* a GM.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:
TGMaxMaxer wrote:

Nope. It means a Free Quickened spell (1st level, but still), which is why it's not available.

If a player were going to do something cheesy by abusing a 1st-level spell, they'd have taken Magical Lineage, meaning the IV ring would also cause this problem.

True, but bear in mind that the Ring of Wizardry types I to IV predate Pathfinder.

Most of the magic items in Pathfinder are legacies of a previous game, so they don't necessarily reflect mechanics peculiar to Pathfinder.


An actual conduit to the elemental plane of electricity (or wherever electricity elementals come from); essentially, the "electricity version" of a decanter of endless water. Pricing could be identical. You could have a variation on this in the form of a cell which can be attuned to the plane of electricity, in homage to Tesla's notion of broadcast power - mages could vie for control of a power cell via opposed spell craft checks, reminiscent of a "magical hacking duel".

A magical battery with inexhaustible power; I'd buy one!

Another option would be to create a passage (a la Ring Gates) between the sun and Golarion, using the tremendous heat to generate power via turbines - kind of "direct solar power".


I think it's the same reason there are no wands above 4th - you start getting into an area in which being able to throw a ton of spells at a certain level might be a problem.

For example, you could use a Ring of Wizardry V to prep a bunch of quickened true strikes - pretty strong!

I'd definitely get one for my sorcerer (lvl 18), just to double the number of times she can cast telekinesis, on of the stronger spells in the game. Obviously, the rings of wizardry are especially strong for sorcerers.

I'd love it as a player, and dislike it as a GM, which is my metric for "overpowered". That said, it's not particularly overpowered - I just know that in the hands of certain players, it could be nasty. Likewise with wands or 5th level and above spells.

Mostly it's an arbitrary division, though.


No - it's no longer a Charisma-based check. It's an Intelligence-based check now.

I wouldn't work for Diplomacy using Clever Wordplay, either (or any of the other traits which allow intelligence to be used as the bluff or UMD stat).


Demoyn wrote:

David,

You can't retrain traits in Ultimate Campaign. There isn't an option for that.

Well then, you're "stuck" with the trait (which is reasonable since it reflects your origins and background). Fortunately, if you want some *new* traits there's a feat for that, so you could retrain out of a feat for that, or take it upon a gained level.

Demoyn wrote:


Also, you're completely wrong about your wording of scroll purchasing. You don't have to buy the highest level. You have to buy the BASE level. Meaning that you always take scrolls from the cleric and wizard lists if they exist, then druid scrolls, then paladin and ranger scrolls in that order.

Yes, I could have phrased it better - the base level. Which in almost all cases IS higher level, so I'd hardly characterize the answer as "completely wrong". The key point to remember is that when you see that the cleric version is 2nd level, and the paladin version is 1st... you still have to spring for the cleric version (150gp versus 25gp, in the case of, say, lesser restoration) Likewise, wands, which is financially significant in the case of 1st vs. 2nd level spells.


Takhisis wrote:


... he just has started his scroll collection by obtaining a Paladin scroll of restoration.(We figured we'd need it in undead-land so our cleric/paladin has...

Remember that in PFS, you have to buy scrolls of the highest-level version of a given spell, so you can't buy scrolls of paladin versions to get a lower level (and cheaper) scroll.

1 to 50 of 482 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.