|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Jeff Merola wrote:
You've missed the several scenarios where having a low Swim score can very easily get you killed, then.
Several might be exaggerating a tad, but I've seen maybe 2 or 3, and even then, it wasn't something a character that knew they couldn't swim couldn't avoid relatively easily.
The only two I can think of that it is even an honest threat are a single part of Song of the Sea witch and a particular part of The Hydra's Fang Incident (where listed tactics specifically say they attempt to push characters in the water).
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ah, I took that as an invitation and didn't realize that some had been hinted at. Please keep it up.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Since we met and discussed these already, the rest of the team agreed that it would be OK if I gave spoilers for some of the most asked.
1.) Does the Sacred Fist Warpriest Archetype retain it's Monk-like abilities when wearing Armor? Specifically the Flurry of Blows ability?
Flurry of Blows (Ex): At 1st level, a sacred fist can make a flurry of blows attack as a full-attack action. This ability works like the monk ability of the same name. This ability replaces sacred weapon.
2.) What does the Ecclesitheurge Cleric Archetype's "Blessing of the Faithful" ability do?
Ecclesitheurge’s Vow: At 1st level, an ecclesitheurge makes a vow to his deity to be protected solely by his faith, not by armor or shields. An ecclesitheurge who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to use his blessing of the faithful ability, use cleric domain powers, or cast cleric spells.
3.) Can the Shield Champion Brawler Archetype use Shields as weapons proficiently?
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A shield champion is proficient with all simple weapons. She is also proficient with light armor, and with bucklers, light shields, and heavy shields. This replaces the brawler’s weapon and armor proficiencies.
4.) What does the Feat Undersize Mount actually do? There is no rule in Pathfinder requiring a mount to be one or more size categories larger than the rider, and the Feat does not increase the mount's carrying capacity nor does it allow for classes that get a special Mount to choose a different option, so it seems to do nothing at all.
Actually, no, you do not have to be smaller than your mount. Like others have said, it was true in 3.0/3.5, but it doesn't exist in PF. It was pointed out when the above Feat fist came out.
Essentially the Fat doesn't do anything. You can normally ride a mount of any size, and because the Feat doesn't A.) allow a Cavalier (who is restricted with their Mount) to ride a smaller Mount, or B.) boost a smaller Mounts Str/Carrying Capacity, it really doesn't do a dang thing.
Except for the Cavalier, all you really need is Muleback Cords.
Yes. It would, (depending on the creature), be a DC 15 or DC 20.
It would draw at least 2 AoO's, one for moving into the threatened square and another for moving through multiple squares, as it's likely going to take multiple actions and you are moving at 1/4th speed, (or 1/2 if you want to take a -5 to Climb).
You loose your Dex, and are restricted to a single, one handed or smaller weapon. Every hit you take is a penalty on your Climb Check.
You can attempt an Acrobatics check as well, but it's going to be tough, as is Grappling. You can also use a rope/lasso to make it easier.
Well, to be honest, neither does strict adherence to lack of imagination. Is there any logical reason that a person that's a master of the hand crossbow couldn't shove one into the other arm armpit, reload the other, then swap? Or use a few fingers of the one hand to pull back/wench the string, drop a bolt in, and then repeat?
A spell caster can swap a weapon to the <light> shield hand, cast a spell, crab some components, and then grab their weapon.
Or if your playing with a DM who doesn't bother to read it and lets things fly. :)
However, I'd actually say the Paladin might be better at this than the Cleric, or anyone else really, just for the fact that they might actually have a decent DC.
@DM Beckett - How high was the hardness which gave your party problems?
Off the top of my head, one was 10 and the other 15. In one case, though, it was severely compounded by the fact that the creature had specific weaknesses, but Hardness applied even to those, and some issues with the Tech Guide's new rules involved.
I'm not sure I agree with that, as generally speaking, spellcasters have even more things to worry about from monsters than non-casters do, between energy resistance, SR, and the many ways through magic, items, racial abilities, etc. . . to be immune to spells. Also, what I'm more talking about is instead of having DR/ Magic, it returns to DR 5/+1, or DR 20/+4. (A +3 Flaming sword doesn't help, but a +4 sword does).
Not really. For Eidolons, and moreso with most Animal Companions, it really only applies a lot of times if they focus on going for multiple attacks that deal low damage over less attacks that are stronger. Not really sure that's a bad thing.
TWF not so much. It actually rewards them a bit more than others if they play smart and diversify, making them more likely to be able to overcome DR with at least one of their weapons, than the Sword and Board or Single Weapon types who it's generally all or nothing. They both take a hit if they don't have the right tool for the job, but the TWF has a better chance of having that tool in most cases, and also tend to take less of a hit if they opt to fight at less than there max, (so just using that one weapon that works, for example).
William Ronald wrote:
It is a good idea to make players bring resources with them. Indeed, it is required.
While that's partially true, it doesn't really help that the main issue tends not to be if the source material is available as it is the need to read it fully in the middle of the game, and likely to cross reference with other material, again, in the middle of the game. And the more and more bloat there is, the more there are various options to interact differently than was originally intended or planned for.
The other side is that, especially with books like the ACG, there is no definite answer as to how a lot of things are actually supposed to work, so reading the source is not a solution, as it's the source that's jacked up.
PFS is kind of caught between a rock and a hard place on that account, and well, should be "interesting times".
Zone of Truth!!! Worst spell ever.
In the best case scenario, (target fails save) it leaves you exactly where you would have been otherwise; unsure if the target is actually telling you the real truth or finding a way to lie without literally lying or telling you what they think and having it be false. Worst case, they know you are using magic that affects their mind, but are not bound in anyway to tell the truth, again, leaving you exactly where you would be had you not cast a 2nd level spell at all, minus the sense of false security this spell offers.
It either needs to be change to not offer a Save, or be a targeted buff that gives the Target a +20 (or higher) to Sense Motive or something.
Holy Smite (and similar) should probably be a lot more beefed up against Aligned Outsiders. No SR allowed, and Save only removes the status effect, not reduces damage. As it, it's pretty worthless against it's primary intended targets, and just doesn't scale well.
Death Ward was inadvertently nerfed to heck/uselessness as PF changed the way some many of the nastier Undead and Necromancy abilities work. For how little it actually does now, needs to be at least 1 target per level and probably a 10 Min/level spell.
Instant Armor is so close to being cool on many levels, but too many stipulations make it garbage. 1 Min/Level. It's a Force Armor, but it replaces your existing armor, and if you are a Cleric that's likely to cast this, that's probably an overall downgrade most of the time. Needs to either be 10 Mins/1 Hr per level or just a straight up Force Armor Bonus to AC that increases by level (+5 from 1st-5th, +6 from 6th-8th, etc. . .)
I didn't mean it as negative as it may have come off as. While I don't agree with everything, Undone has done a great deal of work, and like I said, there are some really good ideas in there.
I've writer a Class Guide in the past, and so I totally get just how much it takes, not only to do the work, but put it out there for others to critique and pick apart.
While it is a powerful class, it's also a step below other powerful classes (Summoner, Druid, Wizard/Sorcerer, <Magus maybe>, dedicated archers, etc. . . ) and they get cool new shinny's all the time. So I don't really see the issue.
I flagged it to be moved yesterday. :P
But I have to agree. I'm not sure I've ever seen a part where not a single character (much less most of them) had a Wayfinder. It is a bit pricey for what little it does, but it's also sort of a badge of office, and I can't say how many times I've pulled my cloak aside to reveal my Wayfinder for just a second to indicate discretely what I just said has a hidden meaning or the like.
As for how mandatory it is, not sure. Have not played/read the scenario, but I can say that needing to buy things just to complete a scenario isn't uncommon. I literally just spent almost 2,000 gp yesterday in Glories of the Past 2 for that same reason, and a good portion of that was wasted by the end. That's more on the top end of what I can think of required spending, but there are plenty out there where entrance fee's are needed, specific gear/bribes/items are called for, etc. . .
And while it's probably not fun for the OP, sometimes that's just the way things go. It kind of sounds like between running cold and the party refusing to make a suggested purchase (without metagaming knowing what it meant), they came to an impasse they couldn't cross. Not to be mean, but sometimes this happens. Luckily, in my experience it's not common, and I can say I have only failed one scenario. I kind of felt like there was nothing we could do, and it wasn't really due to poor player/character choices, we just couldn't get past a certain point. So I get it, but still, sometimes failure (or worse) happens.
A lot of the issue kind of comes down to four things, so just take the guide with a grain of salt. On one hand, it is all theory craft, and all of the DPS math is just that, theory craft. It doesn't take everything into account, and it is also based on certain static assumptions. It doesn't really look at non-combat encounters at all, or versatility, but generally assumes that each build's one-trick-ponyness works most of the time and is enough to carry the class through.
Secondly, Undone did mention that his/her normal group almost never allows prebuffing, Surprise Rounds, or the party to get ambushes, which means that her/his play style(s) heavily influence the suggestions here and may not apply to anyone else's. That doesn't make it wrong or bad, but just take it with a grain of salt. As the guide is a group of suggestions, take what applies and leave what doesn't behind.
Another aspect is it's pretty clear that many of the suggestions are more intended for the later level of play rather than so much the path to those higher levels. What works really well early generally doesn't later on, and what is needed to be effective later might not be beneficial early.) Just like with the cleric, the entire paradigm really shifts after about 5th level, so just keep that in mind.
And finally, many/some of the suggestions are based on questionable rulings and interpretations. The overwhelming idea is that many of these are assumed to be in the Warpriest's favor, and also assumed as "how I say until proven otherwise". So, again, grain of salt. Eventually Paizo will get around to answering them, (in theory), but until then it is entirely up to you and your group (and in PFS the DM), to decide what is RAW/RAI/How it's going to work.
So again, take it with a grain of salt. Undone's views are not gospel. There are some good ideas in there and some others that are likely not going to work. Play styles vary.
Id say either under the products page or the GM Discussion.
Something to keep in mind is a Wayfinder is only 250 for Pathfinders. I dont have the scenario, so not sure. Other than that, Id say warn/hint to the players before hand, but if no one is willing to buy one, well, just like any other case where if you do not have the right tool for the job, either find a different way or it might be a failed scenario.
One way to do it is to look at some of the other Classes a bit, and steal. Druid for example, (probably the most powerful class with the Wizard), gets little things throughout, like Resist Nature's Lure, Timeless Body, and Nature Sense. Granting a Cleric maybe a +2 on Know Religion and Planes, Resistance to the Abilities of Outsiders/Undead, or something like that would be very cool.
Another issue is the Cleric is one of the most MAD classes in the game. A few ways to mitigate that would be great, but honestly I'm not sure how to do that. The easy answer is to make Channel Wis-based, but I also kind of think the basic Cleric concept should be charismatic. What might work is to sort of steal from the Inquisitor and let them use Wis for Diplomacy, but that might be too strong?
Domains, just need something more. A quick way to do it might be to allow a spell to be added tot he class spell list at certain levels, but doing so might also rob from some Archtypes, and also wouldn't really help fill out the levels. Another Domain ability, or maybe two added to most Domains. The Elemental Domains in particular. It would also be cool if the Domains gave you Specialization in a Skill.
The class really does need some choices to make after level 1. To me the easiest 3 types to identify would be a Martial Cleric, Spellcaster Cleric, or Channeling Focused Cleric, similar to the Ranger's Fighting Style.
Maybe the Martial Cleric treats their level as Fighter levels for the ability to take Feats for the Deity's Favored Weapon, and gets a free Weapon Focus.
The Spellcaster Cleric can Aid Another as a Swift Action a number of times per Day and gets the ability to trade out a new Feat for the ability to add non-Cleric spells to their list, (still must be proper Alignment). Alternatively, maybe an ability to treat a certain number of spells as Silent or Stilled, and to be Prepped even if they are not normally able to pray at their normal time.
Maybe the Channel Cleric ignores prereqs for Channel Feats (any Feat that alters Channel Energy) except for Level, d6 dice for Channel Energy, or Skill Point requirements. So a good Cleric could take Rebuke Undead (Negative Energy), but still could not take Quick Channeling until they had Know Religion 5.
I've been encountering similar issues recently as well. I did post up a topic talking about it a bit ago if you are interested in taking a look (all).
It was focused more on GM's credit vs players, but I'm always interesting in hearing more arguments for and against.
I think there is a lot more that goes towards the lack of cool factor for the Cleric.
Many of the archtypes are just poor, and that's really just because the base class itself simply lacks any features to swap out or trade.
The Oracle, Inquisitor, and Paladin have some many ways to just do the Cleric's job better, where generally the Cleric just lacks a lot of options to branch out.
It's kind of stuck in this odd place where, yes, it is a full caster, and yes, it is both a prep. and spont. caster, but a lot of the times it either can not qualify for feats and options designed for those specific types, or they can, but just do not gain much actual benefit from them.
All choices are made at level 1. They also lack any sort of Bonus Feats, later class features, skill bonuses, and I think most importantly, any sort of ether/or options a little bit later, (like a Ranger's Fighting Style, Druids Pet/Domain, etc. . . ).
There really is very little gear that is tailored towards the Cleric, and it's usually a bit better for other classes.
They don't have a single class feature that multiple other classes do not also get, but generally lack any way to get other class features from other classes that should fit very well for a certain build.
While there is a small handful of good/great Domains, most of them are bad/terrible. They really need to redo the whole Domains concept, probably add in a 2-3 more abilities to them throughout levels, and really rebalance them against all the knew materials and mechanics.
I don't think that the Cleric is uber powerful. It's on the stronger side of moderate, and probably doesn't need a big bump in straight power level, but does need a pretty big one as far as options, cool factor, and shiny things, which is kind of where it falls near the end of the line.
Not really being debated. Also, not sure changing the way that a single 1cp item works, in PFS only, counts as "many things being moved back to Move Actions".
Different people different ideas on what "easily accessible" or how many items can be easily accessible at a given time. Outside of the can you reasonably be assumed to be sleeping in armor thing, it looks like just about everyone kind of agrees.
The Xenomorph evolves based on the type of creature it grows from. The Black Goo, (it not the movies goal to explain the Black Goo and more than any Alien(s) movie has explained how they can survive with molecular acid blood, or survive even extreme environments), from what we can tell, breaks down the body and was used to seed other planets with DNA. Alien Transenspermia is a s real world "theory", not one created by the movie, and I don't think that was the point of the movie, just the lead up to what occurs.
It's not too far of a logical stretch to assume that the black goo could have been used to seal the early stage xenomorphs in, as their instinct is to impregnate other creatures with themselves, in some sort of suspension.
Altering the atmosphere, (or maybe the robot accidentally or purposefully activated them when he opened the door), probably broke that suspension.
So, let me give everyone that's not getting the movie a quick run through.
A pair of scientists/archaeologists discover a painting with the same symbolism as other throughout the world, but this one predates them by a long time. The repeated symbolism was a cluster of stars, and particularly interesting, a system that none of those ancient peoples would have any means to know about, but now, in the future, humanity does have a method to travel to. There is a single planet that might be able to harbor life and try to get funding to go explore, believing it will be the greatest finding of all time.
Unable to get the funding the want, they instead get it from the Weyland (spelling) corp, who secretly has an agenda. Or a few really. The guy that okayed it, sadly has passed on by the time they wake up from hypersleep, only to find his less sympathetic daughter in charge and changing the deal. They had also hired a variety of other experts in fields to go too, (in the Aien(s) verse, deep space explorers tended to be the ones that didn't have friends and family, as their career involved them hypersleeping for months to years there and then the way back).
Anyway, they get there, fully believing that they are going to the Engineers home world, and find that something has basically exterminated them, (that's what they think).
Finding signs of construction (Nazca Landing Strips), they go explore.
There are monsters and mysteries.
A lot of people die.
Turns out a lot of people have different agendas and it looks like the Engineers where not benevolat.
Also turns out old man Weyland has been alive the hole time, and has programmed his son, the robot, to do everything he can to find a cure for old age/death.
His daughter, a real girl (and willing to prove it) doesn't like that her father has always cared more about the robot, and has been waiting and waiting to inherit it all.
All the other scientists are there to get paid.
They finally find an actual living Engineer, find out the entire planet was just a weapons storage (for the Aliens), and the caves they are in are actually a space ship. A lot of people die. Engineer attacks. More people die.
The last survivors think they know the true Engineer's homeworld and make their way back to the ship and fly away.
Well, to be honest, it is not how it has ever worked. In 3E source had been more defined and multiple other official FAQs/explanations did explain it. Pathfinder, like many things did not copy over the entire text, but also did not include the many notes on things that 3E did.
So it really matter if by "for many years" you are referring to the d20 system or the not so many years ago Pathfinder rules. There are two issues here. The PF ruling is counter to everything that has been put out on the subject previous to it, but it also fails to use what what is actually written to explain itself, either before PF or within PF up until this point.
Not arguing that the FAQ/Errata is non-existent, but rather that its very poorly sone and implemented, and counter to everything else. This isnt an interpretaion issue, but rather one where A is used to justify B while A and B are two different and unrelated things. It would be better to leave out completely any mention of either Type or Source, remove the FAQ/Errata, and simply state that unless it says otherwise, you can not double-dip ability mods. No confusion, no possibility of screwing up other things, it sets a clear presidents, and basically it covers what looks to be the actual goal of answering the FAQ.
True, but its not that is in the Magic Section. Its that it a part of the section talking about how magic and spells effects work when combined or used against each other. You actually need read what comes before and after that and not take a single little part out of context, like it applies to everything. There never was a general rule in Pathfinder about sources, except for spells, just like there is actually no rule saying a suitable mount must be larger than yourself. Look through the Skills section, or the Feats section, or any other section and find a reference to not stacking due to the same source. There are rules about Types, but not a single one about Source, its not even mentioned. Instead what you will find are that some can be taken multiple times. Some of those will even stack, but only if it says so.
It's actually referring to this, I believe: (sort of a fix for Humans of Golarion that was expanded upon in Varisia but forgot to actually reference where it's was really found).
At 1st level (for clerics) or upon gaining a domain as part of Nature Bond at 1st level (for druids—a druid who instead opts to take an animal companion cannot use the Shoanti shaman archetype), pick one of your Shoanti quah's totems. You can use an image of this totem you carry or wield as your divine focus in addition to using the normal divine focus you might utilize (such as a holy symbol). In addition, you add that totem's domain choices to the list of domains you may choose from when picking a domain. If you are a cleric, you must still choose one of your domains from those normally granted by your deity. If you are a druid, your totem domain options replace the standard domain options granted by nature bond.
Let me point out again, that singular mention of "Sources" in Pathfinder, is actually in the stacking magic spells section, not the general stacking section, and is referring specifically to how the special affect of spells work with each other.
So you can't cast a spell that gives a +1 Dodge Bonus (which would normally stack, even with itself) and then cast that same spell again to get a total of a +2 Dodge Bonus.
Outside of spells, in Pathfinder, source is irrelevant. It's all about Type.
jon dehning wrote:
There are store owners, other venture officers, and people who care about the environment who have all sided against unlimited replay (or for this argument, re-credit, for lack of a better word). There is a reason we feel this way. From Drogon's perspective as a store owner to mine own as an organizer and VC, there is one common thread to all of our thoughts and reasoning. We do not want to see PFS be undone by replay.
Again, where is this coming from? Not the fear of it, but the idea that replay, or more specifically to this GM "recredit" is a bad thing? Or would ruin PFS?
Actually, that's exactly how I remember it being marketed. A direct link to the original Alien movie, but not really focusing on the "aliens" monsters.
But, with that being said, I was deployed at the time, so I didn't watch any previews or anything. From what I do remember, and is pretty true, is that it is very tied to the original Alien movie, but not any of the sequels.
Anyway, I liked it well enough, and would watch a part 2. I don't really care one way or the other about the cast.
Yah, I'm not really sure what didn't make sense? Throughout the Alien movies, it has been implied and then expanded upon that the "aliens" basically mutate based on what life form they develop in, and where designed to be the perfect creature.
It's pretty clear that the Engineers "transenspermiated" other planets, creating life from themselves, and specifically human life.
For some unspecified reason, they decided to destroy them afterwards, and created a bioweapon, (the alien), which would spread, kill, reproduce itself, and then when there was nothing left to kill, basically go dormant.
The planet they go to in the movie was literally a weapons cache that they lost control of, (and is also a set up for the original Alien Movie). The weapons cache was a space ship that should have been sent to earth to release the black goo on earth and kill everything. But it never left, and has been sitting there for thousands of years.
When the team gets to the planet, they reintroduce an atmosphere to an area that had been sealed, which awakens the "face huggers" in their original form.
It's not specifically revealed, but the "zombies" I think are supposed to show a evolution of the Alien, from disease to parasite to the later "queen" reproduction, to the various other incarnations later, with the end result as them having their own sexual reproductive system.
In a lot of ways, Promethues is actually extremely similar to the original Alien movie, almost to the point of being a reimagining.
Personally, I thought it was pretty good. 3/5 Stars, and I've watched it again Not my favorite, but not bad either. I just don't understand where the confusion comes from about it?
The only thing I was confused about was why the Engineers wanted to kill everyone, but that was also purposefully an unanswered question of the movie.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Right now, a 2-star GM can re-GM two games for Chronicles. (And if she has multiple copies of the "Extended Narrative" convention boon, that privilege resets every time she runs 3 games.) That seems satisfactory to me.
Just wanted to point out that every single attempt to trade for one of those Boons has failed, and I haven't been lucky enough to get one myself. Most of my GM Star Replays are gone before I found out they would not renew. Not that it really matters, (to me) as I'm perfectly willing to rerun ones I've already run for no credit.
It does seem like the above mentioned, not receive GM credit until you want to idea is a bust, as you must in fact apply credit immediately, even if you don't have a character that can use it.
Rereading what you posted a few times, I do understand you are against it, but I really can't seem to find a single reason why it would be bad. In fact it seems kind of the opposite, that a lot of what you say is shows some of the benefits for the idea being a good move.
The only thing really was the idea of giving more favor to 1-5 scenarios over 3-7, but I'm not really seeing how that would be a problem. As in care to explain? If the idea is to encourage more GMs, the assumption is there is already a game being run, (which may be 3-7 or 1-5, or 1-7, who knows). The only real factor then should be if the players have played it before or not. I just am not sure that one would equate to the other in any real way? On the other hand, as far as I have ever heard, 1-5th is by far the most requested area of play, which would probably be a much bigger factor than anything for favoring 1-5 over any other tier, but really doesn't have any impact on infinite GM credit. In games with random players, it's going to be purely on what the players want/need, where as in a home game style, infinite GM credit is going to go away pretty fast or the entire group is going to be making a lot of new characters just to play in that range.
I find it silly that people refuse to DM ANY scenario more than once. If there is a scneario I can make entertaining I love running it over and over again. I do not enjoy the extra chronicle, but I do love sharign the great expereince with people.
I'm actually not against it at all. I've done it plenty of time, and in fact just volunteer to do a few in the coming Game Day. Most of the time I do run, I actually go out of my way to ask what everyone wants to play, and really don't care if I've run it, played it, or not, myself.
I agree with most everything you said in your post Chris. I think unlimited replay/rerun would be an overall negative for the campaign.
How so? Honestly, I'm interested in hearing. and exploring this. Much more so by far than if someone does or does not like it, why would it be good or bad for the game? I keep hearing here that it would be bad, but no one really seems to have a reason why. That's doesn't really make them wrong, but it just doesn't really show anything.
You do realize that you replied to my post specifically discussing 3.0. 3.5, and PF?
We may get a bit sarcastic or whatever with our posts but its all good. I spend 90% of my work time at my desk so a lively rules debate helps the day go faster. For me at least it is all in good fun.
No, you and many others claim that it has always been the case. I and a few others, apparently including BNW, been arguing since 3.0 that this interpretation is wrong. That when something says "you add your <insert ability> bonus to X" that the ability, i.e. str, dex, con, etc... is the source.
I'm sorry, but it has never been that way. But, I'm not going to argue with you about it.
So don't keep telling me it has always been that way. That is what we (not you and I personally but the 3.0-PF communities) have been arguing about for all of these years. Here you are saying that those holding to my position were wrong all along and your view was correct until the PF dev team came along and changed the rules. Because it seems to be just unthinkable to you that those of us saying that the claim "Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .)" is wrong were actually correct and the dev team has just confirmed that.
Ok, you are right. Everyone, including the guys that actually wrote the rules is wrong, (ie, not Paizo), and everyone is happy you and Paizo where here to set them straight. Good job. :P
Actually, no. We are speaking about 3.0 - PF here. Until now, Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .) that altered or granted the modification. Remember, Paizo didnt make the rules, they took them, but even in PF, there is no indication that anyone was changing this aspect until the FAQ/Errata, (again specifically about what a Source is). So its not that everyone, majority or minority, that said differently than what the current ruling is was wrong. Its that it just now changed, if that makes sense. In the practical sense doesnt really matter, as we have a ruling now. It may change, it may not.
Actually, if you read through most of those on the PF site, its usually BNW and a small grip of others saying no, because everyone else is a munchkin.
On the 3E CharOp boards, the arguement was never over if they could stack, but rather if the specific instances would stack based on the bonus types or the sources, and methods to achieve prereqs for it. Source has always referred to the specific spell, feat, class/racial ability, not the some undefined broad category. So two Enhancement bonuses to the same thing (Type) would not stack, but two castings of Bull's Strength (Source) would also not normally stack, regardless of if that specific source gave the same or different bonus type. The exception was if a Source could give multiple different choices, like with Bestow Curse, if they picked different options each time, they would stack, because all of them would affect the target at the same time.
Zach Klopfleisch wrote:
Interesting. I'm still not entirely sure about "•Unlimited replay is Bad, we know from experience." How is this based and what is it based on? Is this just your opinion? From another game? I'm actually extremely interested in learning. I think I have asked 3 or 4 times already with no answer. There are only a handful, really, of examples in PFS, and well, they tend to be, as far as I know, the absolute most played and purchased scenarios and modules out there, (even after discounting that most of them have been free).
Zach Klopfleisch wrote:
•GMs have to be careful about taking/wasting credits|Gms can choose not to take credit when they run a scenario. Unless I misremember the Guide to Organized Play, the latter really resolves the problem. If you don't have a character that you want to apply this specific chronicle to at this time, then just don't take the chronicle and you can pick it up the next time you run it. I've almost completely stopped taking chronicles unless I have a specific use for one: The last chronicle I took was in August in order to bump a character up to level 7 so he would be eligible for the 7-11 I was scheduled to play in the next week.
Hum, I'm not sure that's true. If so, nice to know, though. I was under the impression you had to apply it immediately, and a more recent change allowed you to apply it to a 0XP character (getting a max of 500GP, 1XP, and 2PP). Something to look into just to know.
Zach Klopfleisch wrote:
All that being said, I think the last con really is dominant in this situation: Lack of repeated credit is only a constraint in a small set of circumstances. I don't think the situation is generally broken, and this is one change that will only affect a small subset of people in specific circumstances. It's not an unquestionably positive change, so I think we should hold off on making any changes until the issue becomes more general. This, of course, it colored by my experiences so others might be having more problems with it that I've seen.
Again, interesting. I'm not assuming my opinion is the best one, just wanting to hear all the different sides. I'm personally unsure if such a rule would actually make Paizo more or less money overall, kind of thinking it would mostly be about the same, but still thing to consider.
Not sure if I should read this as "the sky is falling" or not. My intent in limiting the hypothetical proposition to 1-5/1-7 was because in my personal experience matches up well with the overwhelming majority of what I hear from others, that those or the Tiers most played and requested. 3rd -18th, not so much, though it's also a lot more difficult to find GM's for higher level play in general.
But, honestly, (and Im not actually "advocating" this, mind you), outside of specials and a certain 4 parter, what would rally be the harm in making everything grant GM credit each time you run it?
Hold up a sec. Sending anyone home wasnt even a part of the example. Where did that come in?
The example was, and its just an example, that with all players in, it makes two, (or however many really) tables maxed out, or close to. That is to say there are 12 - 14 players and two tables. Its legal to play, but it would probably be better for everyone to make a 3rd table so that everyone gets more spotlight and fun, and combats are challenging.
No need to turn anyone away, but it would really be better to have an extra GM.
Maybe I can rephrase it a bit. I can see plenty of reasons that making all lower tier scenarios, (well, non-specials and the like) grant infinite credit to DM's that run it. Many I posted above in the original, (and interested in hearing others, don't get me wrong).
But what would be some of the actual possible or foreseeable downsides if this where to happen? Not so much that you like or dislike the idea, but why? Why would it be a good or bad thing?
*Possibly a money issue.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Not really sure where people are getting the idea I want more GM credit really. I don't. Like you, I have plenty of characters, many with plenty of levels on purely GM Credit. I run a weekly game and also plenty of online games. I don't really have a problem, myself, but was more looking at the ups and downsides of this, as a completely hypothetical situation, hence posting as Devil's Advocate, and trying to point out that this is not some sort of poll or anything.
I guess the goal is to try to get more DM's to run more often, but more specifically in the cases where it's not strictly required, (like when a table or two are close to or are maxed out), and another table would probably be the better option to make things more fun for everyone. When this happens, I think, and this is just my opinion, is that the largest barrier is those other GM's getting credit or not, especially when a lot of the people I play with have a very limited selection on what they can get credit for and how.
Again, trying to just see the different views for and against. I can see the money, buying scenarios/modules side of it, but, I can also see it being just as likely that this might increase some people's purchasing of scenarios, too. So, I don't know. Between myself and a few of the regulars I play with in homes and stores, we already have nearly everything, and it's perfectly fine to share scenarios for running them, so from my perspective, it's not a huge deal, one way or the other.