|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
 Recent Posts
Now would they even get the money if the robbers took the loot? Logically not, but I understand it'd be quite nasty to first rob them and then give them nothing. Better be a monk.
I'll give some quick ideas I have based on solely the information you've given. Baldurin Lornhall- Dwarf Oracle of Stone- Grand Lodge (Maybe Andoran or SC) This grim-sounding, no-nonsense dwarf seeks all truth in stone. Rocks and stones are eternal; wood breaks, flowers wither, metal rusts. Ancient ruins intrigue Baldurin due to the history they hold. The tales the stone can tell, imagine... Keywords serious, few-worded, protective, analytical. Rokhall- Half-Orc Shadow Witch- Shadow Lodge I'm unfamiliar what's a shadow witch, but I get the feeling Rokhall is something very sinister. Possibly his motivation for seeking artifacts and relics is their magical power? Tough one. Anyway, key words would be sinister, selfish, confident, determined. Mordrem Veilt- Dwarf Inquisitor- Silver Crusade (Maybe Andoran) A really interesting mix. A dwarf who had dwelled more among humans than his brethren. Might have been saved by helpful pathfinder humans, and in that light saw the organization as something to be part of? Naw, too obvious... Really hard mix, really. Iomedae, who was practically the follow-up of Aroden, the god of humanity. Can't help you with that.
I figured I should verify this, although I believe it to be an old finding. You take the inquisitor's infiltrator archetype's Guileful Lore and mix it with Heresy Inquisition's Righteous Infiltration and you get double wisdom modifier to bluff. Good or not? Righteous Infiltration:
Righteous Infiltration (Ex): You use your Wisdom modifier instead of your Charisma modifier when making Bluff and Intimidate checks. Guileful Lore:
Guileful Lore (Ex): At 1st level, the infiltrator’s will is bent toward subterfuge and deception. She adds her Wisdom modifier on Bluff and Diplomacy skill checks in addition to the normal ability score modifiers.
This ability replaces monster lore.
I haven't read the adventure; I merely played it. I really liked how things started. Lots of investigation and mysterious things and all, clear clues, and ominous portents. Yet once you got the sunken tower it deteriorated into one dungeon crawl with one combat encounter after another. And I really really really hated the statue. Our team did not have a single high-strength character (well, the only high-strenght character was poisoned earlier and... yeah) and only because my dwarf chose to grapple the statue were we able to win eventually. Actually our GM just fast-forwarded because it would have taken forever. Hardness is a b#%@@. Avoid using it. Rarely makes anything fun. The Eternal Obelisk used animated objects with high hardness and how's that scenario? Retired. I gave it a 3/5 stars. Entertaining, yet a downer. Oh, and the osirion faction mission is idiotic (however, GM forgot to mention I need to use a move action to take a piece; I spotted the silver eye and tried to get that, thinking it was the thing needed)
Ambiguous rules? Talk about the synthesist. It's probably the hardest thing ever in the OP environment. Firstly it's allowed and it's a whole archetype that reeks of ambiguous things. A GM can't say "you can't play that", yet there are numerous problems that the player and GM will encounter. Should the player collect opinions from GMs on paper and make notions based on them? Actually, I'd want to know; I plan on playing with a synthesist. Lay on Hands:
I already voiced my opinion on the subject on the relevant thread; I think the dhampir should be able to heal itself regardless of positive or negative energy. Ripping the class from its landmark ability would be unfair to the character.
So a dhampir paladin would be so overpowered if it were ripped of its greatest strength, self-healing? Don't be ridiculous. Even in game balance terms it's only fair to allow a dhampir to heal itself with LoH regardless of whether it's positive or negative. RAW there's absolutely no argument about the healing process. If one must, it could be entitled "spiritual healing". Yet I admit it ... maybe should be classified as positive energy. A useless mention anyhow.
is it just me? when i go to the Report section for pfs games, the style sheet seems broken by the instructions panel, so i can't select which session to edit or find other sessions. i tried it on firefox and ie, refreshed the pages a few times. no luck. anyone else getting this ? There's a way around it for now ... a pretty strange, but a way still. Browse the page by pushing tab repeatedly, it goes through every field on the site, including the session number finder thing. Found it by accident.
Of course. This method should not trump over the traditional.
The first part doesn't, in my mind, include anything out of the ordinary. I figure taking 'evidence' from someone deemed untrustworthy is within the limits of, well, modesty. While not something a lawful character would do, I'd allow the course of action and continue. The next bit though ... if I understood correctly he (I assume) drank the Blur potion before combat even started? Do note that the First Steps scenarios are free and thus it's easy to download and read one if you like. Same applies to cheating players. Anyways, the issue you described is blatant cheating. If I were you I'd pause the session and ask seriously why his character was about to drink a potion. Despite the OP environment robbing GMs most of the powers you are still allowed to make calls on these subjects, especially if the reasoning is clearly loose. My opinion? Confront the player and ask whether he had read the scenario in advance. He/she will most likely deny. Regardless keep a close eye on his actions and if it ever happens again, report the incident to, say, the store owner/local coordinator. Other GMs shouldn't have to tackle with cheating players either.
A lengthy discussion has resulted in some quite good ideas regarding the reporting tool. Currently playing PFS online can be tiresome with all the print out a chronicle sheet -> fill spots -> scan -> send routine. It could be managed digitally otherwise, but the need of a signature often forces one to use paper. I, for one, don't own a printer and often need to print out everything at work. Not the most ideal solution. A local player owns a tablet and often prefers to run the games using it and no paper at all. So if the reporting tool would include a 'virtual' chronicle sheet where the GM could fill in the rewarded wealth and other prestige and then send it to the players in question after the reporting is concluded, some people would be really happy. This would also be very good for those who play a lot online. Also since the GM would use the reporting tool with his own account it'd easily count as a valid signature. Even if this proposition would encounter difficulties, I hope Paizo gives it consideration. Paizo is quite handy with PDFs anyway, so I don't think it'd be a technical impossibility.
Before my 2 year hiatus I heavily modified the scenarios out of frustration (lack of quality, mostly). Now however I run them as written and still way too often I feel like I made a mistake; the session's experience is clearly diminished if I run certain parts as written instead of giving it the certain spice I feel is necessary. Point 1: I am the local coordinator. I actually sent a venture-captain application some time ago but didn't get through for whatever the reason. Point 2: I'd love to adjust the scenarios, really, I wish I'd be allowed. But last time I was rebellious and almost completely disregarded certain rules given by Joshua J. Frost (campaign coordinator at the time). I don't want to disobey the coordinators another time. I prefer to see reviews and pick the best scenarios, but unfortunately the reviews aren't always ... very accurate. Last disappointment was Beggar's Pearl, from Season 1. Point 3: Even though the scenario might be bad, the players often make the session fun anyway. It might be just me who feels like the scenario lacked stuff; I can't tell from the players' faces outright. Solution to everything: Add alcohol, it makes all scenarios fun. ;)
As some have already said, there are no simple and easy ways of increasing difficulty for those GMs and players who wish that. All the presented methods all have their little problems and it all would just create another topic of how it's screwed up and the game sucks etc. Before my 2 year hiatus I heavily modified the scenarios out of frustration (lack of quality, mostly). Now however I run them as written and still way too often I feel like I made a mistake; the session's experience is clearly diminished if I run certain parts as written instead of giving it the certain spice I feel is necessary. I don't think the easiness of the scenarios is the problem, but the inconsistancy of the difficulty. As some have said most are cakewalks but in the midst of these are some like Crypt of Fools, Rules of the Swift, and a load of Season 0 scenarios. Since you never know if a scenario is deadly an experienced player needs to build a character by the highest standard. Afterwards he/she will encounter scenarios where his/her character is overqualified. If all the scenarios would be cakewalks without exception, it'd be easier to build a character and tell other players "Don't powerplay one bit, these scenarios don't need it". Then again I've met players who absolutely hate to gimp their characters. They don't want to take a lousy feat just to stay in level with the scenarios. I can't blame them, as I too hate to go by the lowest standard. Very often players under my control wish to play up ... actually nearly always. One particular example is Delirium's Tangle, in which Tier 3-4 is easy even for APL 1-2. They are willing to take the risk and seems like they'd be overjoyed if their characters would die! Go figure. Anyway clearly it's not just a GM issue, it's a player issue.
I admit being very negative about small cavaliers and medium mounts... and all pet classes anyhow. That's for starters. I don't, however, treat these characters unequally in games, though I do ask the player whether he/she thinks such a maneuver is possible. Also I watched those videos of dogs climbing ladders, slightly tilted... sure, but what about a strictly vertical ladder? You see them in sewes for instance. Most groups I've gamemastered have lowered the dog down with ropes. Actually I've never seen someone try to have the dog climb a ladder. And when it comes to the point of is the GM the boss or the rules, I've often heard the players advocating the GM to be higher on the ladder, mostly due to habit and, I dunno, courtesy? Diminishing GM's power gives a little too much room to people who are rules-lawyers and those kind of people can easily sour the session's mood. No first-hand experience, but still. Finally I think the only reason there are so many halfling and gnome cavaliers is strictly because they can their mount everywhere. I'm actually happy most leave their dogs outside and don't bring their muddy feet to spoil all the carpets... I hate pet classes. And I let my players know that, and I let my players play them regardless. It's still not my position to deny them that.
Is it just me or do these Undead Lord archetype concepts keep popping up on these boards? As far as I know it's okay to make an undead lord as long as it's not evil. edit: ninjaaaaa'd
I'm a little curious as to whether games in Croatia are held in private homes or gaming stores. Gaming at stores is a very rare occurrence here.
What's with all the hassle here? Jiggy, if I happen to roll "in the dark" it does not mean I somehow try to insult you or any of your fellow players. Apparently. My native language != English. I often miss passive "yous".
What's with all the hassle here? Jiggy, if I happen to roll "in the dark" it does not mean I somehow try to insult you or any of your fellow players. My observations have proved that rolling in the open will catch the attention of metagamers and make them change their tactics if they notice the foe's attack bonus being very high. As a player I have absolutely no opinion on whether the GM rolls openly or in secret. If I can't trust the GM to be fair, that's not a good GM at all.
I roll in secret because I don't want my players to metagame a single bit. If I roll a 2 and call "Does 22 hit your AC?", they'll most likely suspect the attacker has True Strike cast on him/herself. I've fudged only once; I softballed, and gave a character minimum damage. That was enough to kill him though...
In total? 7. In "use"? 5. Thing is I had characters during Season 0 but after my 2 year hiatus I simply chose to abandon those characters... it had been so long since I had used them the last time, and they weren't constructed in a proper fashion... Anyway:
Running First Steps really gets you a lot of 2nd level characters.
+1 Named magical weapons and armors are inferior to ordinary if they aren't upgradeable. But then again it'd be a little confusing, the most simple way to go would be to deny upgrading named magical weapons and armors. So in fact, I'm okay with Mike's proposed rule.
I do understand the arguments for and against this proposition. I'm in favor of re-skinning (for flavor reasons only), yet I understand how some morons and idiots would abuse this to the point of ridicule. Starting from animals I'd most likely rule that the animal must still be from the same family (scientific classification, Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family), much like it is now. You take the stats of a cheetah, the animal should resemble some animal from the Felidae family. Thus I would wish (but not enforce) for the Elven Hound to be a dog. I did, after all, find this description of it.
Elven Hound:
The cooshee, or elven hound, is a huge, long-lived dog. Though if one wants to avoid the possibilities of making immature and dumb-looking companions, the summoner will pose a problem. Since you can shape it anything you like, you could be encountering a gray cube with legs, for instance. What I'd propose would be to not go by the lowest standard. There will be awful players who abuse the system to the max, and they will eventually find measures to do that. Prohibiting smart and reasonable players from doing things doesn't punish the abusive player as much as it punished those who behave.
I've often wondered "what do you do differently to get your characters killed?" There have been some scenarios that are quite deadly, I admit. Still I'd wish the scenarios would hold more risk and danger in them. Finland's death toll is 17 at the moment. A lot of these have happened in a convention environment where tactics and player cooperation doesn't work as well as in a private group where everyone knows each other well enough. Divided by scenarios:
Personally I wouldn't consider banning 7 player tables a bad thing. I despise them, loathe them, hate them. Every time it has been a serious hassle and has decreased at least my enjoyment. I'm going to be selfish on this matter and not give much thought about this at large. I have absolutely no idea how sessions at US conventions are managed and thus I can't give any good insight. Here we just announce games and wait for players to sign in, and every session has a maximum of 6 players (not enough space otherwise). Every person over that is considered to be on reserve, if one of the signed players doesn't arrive (either on time or at all).
Ben Kingsley as Amenopheus is quite good.
So you'd wish to see a percentage instead of a set sum? Say 50% of all your PP?
I believe he means that eidolons are the only beings on Golarion that require restoration spells to heal ability damage between scenarios. So cunning. ;) I should (or you could) mark that 2 points of strength damage your eidolon got. Just as a reminder, and something to remember.
Have faith. I'm looking to revamp the GM star system to make it more fair for everyone. I'm not going to comment any further at the moment but there are things happening to make it better. No sweat. It's merely a status symbol, not something I depend on.
I've heard rumors there have been plans to alter the open call submission rules. I, too, sent one submission some 2 months ago and haven't heard of it at all. Then again this was around when Mark Moreland was temporarily in charge and swarmed with paper work, so I think we'll have to wait a bit for these open call scenario submission rules to get revised. How the rules are going to change, I don't know.
Also... 1 star = at least 10 tables of credit
So non-US/Canada citizens are most likely unable to attain that fifth star ever.
Voice in the Void, if properly pulled, is indeed the most Cthulhu-ish one. Others I can think of could be the following: #5 Mists of Mwangi (in a way)
I don't know many more than that. Season 0/1 veteran ahoy!
I figured one thing that'd make the scenario playable and less murderous, but this would need a certain blind eye towards some parts of the Darkness spell's description. The unnecessarily confusing part about non-magical light and all that should have been erased during designing. If you merely rule that darkness decreases light level by 1, deeper darkness by 2, regardless of other factors, you're good to go. Then all the creatures and characters with darkvision are still viable where as others are blinded provided the darkvision characters are given normal lighting within deeper darkness. This way the last encounter won't hose the whole party.
If you still need help with this, email me tomorrow at mike.brock@Paizo.com and we wil get you squared away. Get your GM to rewrite and sign the new chronicles. Shouldn't be too much of a hassle.
Spotted another thing that bothers me: Spoiler:
If the PCs allow Miregrold to die, they face an unusual predicament. The Decemvirate appreciates the PCs’ recovery of the aureolyte sample and Miregrold’s notes, but are angered that there is no one lef to blame for the situation. Irate that they can’t punish Miregrold for his sleights, the Society leadership instead takes the sum he owes them, the cost of restoring the lodge, and the cost of funerary rites for him and the dead pathfnders out of the PCs’ share of the spoils, which accounts for 20% of their total earnings for the scenario. As soon as word of Miregrold’s death reaches Basia Kalistof, she immediately heads to Miregrold Manor to assume control of the lodge. Upon her arrival, she makes good on her promise and rewards the PCs accordingly. What the heck does that mean? Punish the players? And more importantly does the last part (emphasized) account for? Does it have any effect? Rather shafting. Also, Tier 1-2 Zoathrias' Death Throes DC should be 13, not 11 (10 + ½ HD + con mod). I'll use the 11 regardless, as it's a bit too awful to blast 3d6 on the noobs' faces just like that.
Do note that in the blinded condition states the following: "Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them." This hasn't been specified anywhere so it remains as a GM's discretion argument.However, he is talking about a PFS character, so there is no room for GM discretion. He could pick up the blind-fighting feat as a surrogate for adapting to blindness, but this is the sort of character which is easier to accomodate in a home campaign than organized play. What does it matter? If the player wishes that his/her character is blind purely for fluff reasons, let him/her have his/her fun! It'd purely be fluff. Fluff! Flavor! Though I don't think there is any reason the player couldn't pick real blindness with all the penalties to a character. I just couldn't understand why.
Well, the fame system has made the whole idea of finding items within scenarios completely pointless. You see chronicle sheets where you find no new items. I agree that discovering new, superior items would be more beneficial and exciting. The NPC gear allotment whatever seems to trump this harshly, since as Mark demonstrated a NPC barely can carry anything of great wealth. Kinda hollow, I know, but there aren't many ways to correct this.
I'm planning on running this this Sunday, and I'm keeping a close eye on this thread for this week. Oh, and it was rather hard to find the thread as the title is typoed. Grr. Map:
Boy did the artist love round corners. Not my thing. Also, the bedroom F4 is probably the most idiotic design I've ever seen.
Also I assume there are no light sources ready? This'd be relevant in area B3. Spoiler:
The Charade
I understand that these mooks aren't supposed to be combatants. With that mindset I understand them. Yet if they are thugs I'd expect them to have at least some abilities contributing their 'profession'. Spoiler:
B1
The stairs between Tier 1-2 and 4-5 seem to have no difference, except for perception/disable device DCs. I doubt this is intentional? Spoiler:
B2
The boxtext says the organ is on the northern wall, although the map says it's on the western wall. I'll go along with the map. Also as much as I like Diva as it is, I agree with other that ISW is a bit too much on Tier 1-2. However, the tactics say she should stay out of melee... sure, but what's she gonna do then? She has absolutely no attacks. I just can't fathom what Diva is supposed to do once the fight breaks out... 1d2-2 damage? Don't make me laugh... And the Cheliax faction mission's saber says it has poison... yet it doesn't work like a poison. I'll most likely use the Dark Creeper's poison here instead. Feels more logical. Spoiler:
B3
A scroll of darkvision ... that oughta be good in the last fight. Spoiler:
The puzzle is the worst I've seen ... because I can't understand anything about it. I even tried to write a thing about it but noticed I still hadn't a clue how it worked. Mark, fix this mess. Meanwhile I'll come up with something completely different.
Your character may be blind, but I don't think you'd need to give your character the condition blinded just because of that. I assume you want your character to be a bit in line with Daredevil or some other blind fellow with supernatural powers? You could, for instance, disregard blindness penalties when in combat. Do note that in the blinded condition states the following: "Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them." This hasn't been specified anywhere so it remains as a GM's discretion argument. Of course if a foe would cast a spell or effect that'd cause blindness, it'd affect you as well. Maybe cloud your supernatural senses or the like.
This is precisely why the decision should be taken before the scenario starts. I like this compromise. Very solid and doesn't seem to trump on anyone's toes, really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
