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

"Devil's Advocate"'s page

1,333 posts. Pathfinder Society character for Beckett.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Warpriest says:

"Bonus Feats: At 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, a warpriest gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement. These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats. The warpriest must meet the prerequisites for these feats, but he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats (in addition to base attack bonuses gained from other classes and racial Hit Dice). Finally, for the purposes of these feats, the warpriest can select feats that have a minimum number of fighter levels as a prerequisite, treating his warpriest level as his fighter level."

1.) Was this supposed to be intended to only apply to the few bonus Feats they receive, or was it supposed to be all Feats?

2.) It indicates that "use BaB for these Feats" as opposed to the later treat warpriest levels as Fighter levels "for prereqs only". Do you get to retain that pseudo full BaB when using you Bonus Feats, or was that supposed to read more like "for meeting prereqs only, the warpriests act as if they had full BaB for their warpriest levels and also those warpriest levels as if they where Fighter levels but only for meeting prereqs of feats such as Weapon Specialization.

3.) If it only applies to Bonus Feats, then it's kind of pointless, as the Bonus Feats do not line up with the levels for such Feats, requiring you to retrain into them at later levels. Or to multiclass with Fighter, which is basically the exact thing the entire class was supposed to do for you.

Feats wrote:

"Weapon of the Chosen (Combat)
The influence of your deity guides your favored weapon.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus with deity’s favored weapon, must worship and receive spells from a deity.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can call upon your deity to guide an attack you make with your deity’s favored weapon. On your next attack in that round with that weapon, your weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction or striking an incorporeal
creature. If your attack misses because of concealment, you can reroll your miss chance one time to see whether you actually hit."

"Improved Weapon of the Chosen (Combat)
You gain even greater favor when you use your deity’s favored weapon.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus with your deity’s favored weapon, Weapon of the Chosen†.
Benefit: This feat acts as Weapon of the Chosen, except you gain the benefits on all attacks until the start of your next turn. Your attacks gain a single alignment component of your deity—either chaotic, evil, good, or lawful—for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. If your deity is neutral with no other alignment components, your attacks instead overcome damage reduction as though your weapon were both cold
iron and silver.

"Greater Weapon of the Chosen (Combat)
Your deity guides your hand when you fight with her favored weapon.
Prerequisites: Improved Weapon of the Chosen†, Weapon Focus with deity’s favored weapon, Weapon of the Chosen†, worship and receive spells from a deity.
Benefit: When you use your deity’s favored weapon to attempt a single attack with the attack action, you roll two dice for your attack roll and take the higher result. You do not need to use your Weapon of the Chosen feat to gain this feat’s benefit."

1.) These Feats where specifically intended for the warpriest. Was it then intentional to specify that they only work with a deity's favored weapon when that class moved away from that idea long ago?

2.) Weapon of the Chosen requires a Swift action to activate, for a class that is already extremely strapped for swift and other action types. It's a pretty mediocre benefit for how many class features it makes you loose in order to use it.

3.) Greater Weapon of the Chosen requires you to A.) make a single attack, and B.) doing so while using the Attack Action, which is a specific form of Standard Action. As written, that precludes you from using this with other feats like Vital Strike, (which can not be combined with others that require a specific action type). This really makes this entire chain a pretty bad Trap Chain of Feats, and a really poor option for warpriests who it was designed specifically for.

Feats Wrote:
"Divine Protection
Your deity protects you against deadly attacks.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings†, domains, or mystery class feature.
Benefit: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on all saving throws. If your Charisma modifier is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws."

Probably the single more contested option in the book. Would it be possible to rewrite the prereqs to something like

Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to prepair 2nd-level divine spells; blessings† or domains class feature.

It's actually a pretty nice new little toy for pretty much everyone except the Oracle (where it's pretty clearly broken as heck). For the Oracle who is so SAD and Cha focused, it's a no-brainer Feat choice that offers benefits that are better then all of the other Save boosting Feats (possibly combined). For pretty much every other Divine caster class though, they are MAD, generally very strapped for Feats, and not likely to have a Cha over 14 or 16, which means it may be a nice boost, but not a must have.

Shadow Lodge

I find it amazing how all those folks that gave this book a 4 and 5 star review did not actually seem to have read the book.

Shadow Lodge ***

I didnt. I said things like a "reoccuring NPC" rather than gave names. Also the mission in question is given out right up front. No spoilers given. The complaint is rather things that it entails and the, in my opinion at least, likelihood of causing PvP. With anyone, but particularly S.C and L.E. characters.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't particularly like the new Factions, but I don't particularly dislike most of them either. Hate the new symbols. I'm really disappointed with what I've seen in play for some of the new Factions. 6-02's Darkive, in my opinion was very bad. Both in that it was not what the players wanted from a certain NPC in the bland player handout, and the mission goal and theme seemed to be the opposite of the Factions supposed intent. It also seemed like it was trying to force PvP, have the Darkive characters enslave/rob a well-liked reoccuring NPC, (and one that's, from past scenarios in the line become a strong ally and friend to the Society). WtF!?!?!?

I feel the Sovereign Court is just too vague to care bout right now. And the change basically ruins any sort of motive I had for building Taldor characters from before now.

Liberty's Edge, while I kind of like changing from just Andoran, the Faction has just been a terrible, terrible hypocritical mess since Season 2 or 3. And perhaps the most of any Faction, it has the coolest nation based vanities that just don't fit now with the nationlessness of the new Faction. Silver Crusade has basically taken everything cool and interesting from the Andoran/Liberty's Edge Faction outside of the Eagle Knights.

Really the only thing I have against the Scarab Sages is how much I just detest the name. I like the flavor, and of all of the new Factions, it probably has the most in depth and believable flavor, both as a group and as a transition, but that stupid name is bad enough to turn me off, and the symbol does not help.

Its really time to get rid of some of the Faction leaders. I don't care for the Taldor/SoftCourt leader. She strikes me as boring and just doesn't really fit well. Andoran's/Liberty's Edge's Faction head is such a corrupt hypocrite it basically invalidates the entire Faction. He really should have been at the top of his own list last Season, and the fact he did not assassinate or remove himself from power from the start just kind of makes it a big joke.

Shadow Lodge

I think the point was to try to see if a Warpriest actually matters or not rather than to exclude the Inquisitor.

Shadow Lodge ***

David_Bross wrote:

The last part was overstated, but generally PCs hate status conditions, and real threats of death. Besides Bonekeep, can you think of a particularly deadly scenario that reviewed well?

Most negative reviews for scenarios come from PC deaths and/or being unable to contribute to a fight.

I would say that players generally like the real threat of death, but hate status affects that either remove their control of their character like charm/dominate, or ones that remove the from play, particularly for an extended time.

Severing Ties seems to have reviewed pretty well, despite it being considered deadly on two separate accounts. One literally comes down to a single good or bad roll.

The Confirmation likewise seems pretty deadly at a certain point, and looks to be reviewed well.

I'm sure there are plenty of others, too, just the ones I recall of the top of my head.

The God's Market Gamble's BBEG if you have a lot of Humans or lack a great deal of ranged combat.

The Dalsine Affair. BBEG

Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment. Ridiculous BBEG and suggested rules mess with players a lot.

The Glass River Rescue with it's Drake with infinite Damage breath Weapon.

Weapon in the Rift.

The Green Market for one particular encounter that's huge and basically immune to everything, just because.

Fortress of the Nail's final plane hopping environment + enemies.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of me is just hoping that there was such a backlash against the new Factions, Season 6, the new symbols, and the like that they have reconsidered the whole thing.

:)

Shadow Lodge ***

While I do agree that I wish more people would rate scenarios, particularly with honest feedback in mind both good and bad, one thing I really wish that was an option for Scenarios is the ability to review it as a Player and as a DM separately.

When I run a game, I try to ask the players opinions on things afterwards, allow them to ask questions, and explain things I wouldn't while playing, then incorporate all of that into a review I give. Or if I'm a player, to listen to other peoples complaint, and keep an eye out during the game to wee what others are thinking. I then try to read up on the actual scenario afterwards, either to run it myself or to see if there was an issue if it was from DM mistake or the scenario itself.

It really bugs me to see a lot of the 5 Star Reviews, and to a point the 1 Star Reviews of products as, at least it seems completely BS. More like they where either a friend of the author or didn't actually play or run the scenario, and just didn't or did like a concept, theme, or special rule in it.

It's also pretty clear with some that a given scenario is awesome, from the DM perspective, but players generally (in my limited experience) hated it. Mostly because the nature of the beast is that GM's get a lot of the backstory and explanation that many times does not make it to the players, and can leave the players confused and annoyed.

I'd really love to see this sort of thing done that differentiates between Player and GM perspective.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?
Gabriel Smith-Dalrymple wrote:
Not really. Let's look at mathematics:

I think you took my response out of context. The idea presented was that, as a logical explanation for the Feat and Skills change, it makes sense that a character that has never seen a robot or technology should have a penalty to rolls interacting with it. But, by that logic, unless a character has specifically interacted with a given type of trap, dragon, golem, or whatever, shouldn't they then also take that same penalty?

It also falsely assumes that technology and robots and stuff are rare, unique, and unknowable, (but wait what if my character is from Numeria or whatever), but that other things in the setting, lets say Dragons, (which according to the setting are extremely rare), which is covered by the Know Arcana skill, any character with 1 Rank in Know Arcana has a chance to know every fact about a dragon that there is. But it's a robot, something that's probably not as rare as an actual dragon, and for some reason, they can't use their skills, which are intended to be non-specific in application.

But, if that's the logic, then shouldn't a character that wants to use Disable Device on a trap they have never themselves encounter, then take a -5 penalty and not count as having the right tool for the job too? Well, unless they take a Feat that lets them get around that?

Shadow Lodge

Lady Redfield wrote:
It's a good time to be a World of Darkness fan!

I certainly sounds that way!!! :)

Shadow Lodge

memorax wrote:
Too bad White Wolf is still going ahead with a new edition and rereleasing the core with the GMC stuff inside and a whole new set of core books. http://theonyxpath.com/the-world-of-darkness-second-edition/ Notice that nowhere do they mention that the new edition is backwards compatible.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here? The article does mention hat it has been altered, so maybe you read the original one and it was different. But from the article:

"It’s been ten years since the new World of Darkness debuted at Gen Con 2004. With a decade of experience creating and running these games, we’re in a great position to improve them."

"the difference between the two was academic, and the success of that book proves there’s demand for updates."

"No rules or setting will change, and Blood and Smoke won’t be outdated."

All sound pretty amazing to me. And this is coming from a company that is actively supporting two fully separate gamelines at the same time.

The nWoD doesn't really need to be "backwards compatible", per se, as the nature of it's system is extremely kitchen sinky and filled with optional rules already. From he looks of it, though, it's seems to imply pretty strongly that it will not invalidate older material, and will simply incorporate 4 books down into 2. But, with the nWoD, the base assumption is that there is a single core book for all the basic rules for all games, (the "blue book") and that each individual game, (Vampire, Mage, etc) also has it's one main book that builds upon the basic rules for that particular game line, but within the main system.

Both the "blue book" and the Vampire line had a major book come out that gave new options and mechanics to bring them more in line with the other game lines, (the God Machine Chronicles and Blood and Smoke). This is somewhat similar to maybe the APG for the "blue book" and then Ult Magic and Combat for VtR. The main issue is that, Vampire is the most popular of all the WoD games, and it came out first. As the other lines came out, they had the opportunity to learn from the mistakes and advantages of VtR, and incorporate new ideas, (many of which really work very well for VtR, but as it came out before those new concepts, had not been included).

So nWoD 2E seems to focus on finally incorporating the newer smoother rules from the later books into the core system for both nWoD blue book and VtR. Something that fans have been asking for for a long, long time.

Disclaimer, I'm not actually a fan of the nWoD, but to me, this sounds freaking amazing, and something I will absolutely give a shot, and might just become one finally.

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
The CRB is in its 6th printing. The revisions are a by-product of that, not a cause. The printings 1-5 sold out.

I meant in the sense of original +5 new printings. The important part is that they include all of the new errata and rules changes, so are not just "reselling the same book with no changes". I guess the difference is that Paizo has decided to do this, incorporate their errata and clarifications into the next printing rather than issue them as an attachment sort of PDF like WotC and other companies tended to do.

The point being really that it depends on what you view as a new edition at to just how much of that we have already had from Paizo. If you mean it more as a completely new game and system, then little to none, and I think almost everyone here agrees that it's not what they want.

It however you take a new edition to mean the same system, but updated, streamlined, and fixed, but all in all still the sameish game, I think a lot more people might be on board.

Particularly if you remember that it's probably going to be a whopping $9.99 US, (or $40-50), and not $100s+.

Shadow Lodge

memorax wrote:
Gamers don't like buying the same rpg twice with no changes. With apps and the SRD it's going to probably be the first time imo that 0the PFcore is not going to sell as well imo.

I'm not sure we have an example of a selling an RPG twice with no changes. We do have plenty of examples of reselling an RPG with moderate to heavy changes, and from the looks, they tend to do very well. 3.0 -> 3.5, nWoD -> The God Machine, oWoD (which was out of print and no longer supported) -> the 20th Anniversary editions, WotC rereleasing the 1st-3rd Edition core books, which as I understand all sold pretty well. Even Paizo and Pathfinder have rereleased their Core book in what 5 different "printings" editions, and by all accounts their fanbase and sells keep growing exponentially.

Shadow Lodge

True, it doesn't, (mean you will get the changes you want), but IF there was a decision to make a new edition, there would no doubt be a lot of talks and interaction with the fans before hand, and there are a lot of topic that keep coming up.

*Alignment issues/Paladin basic code of conduct
*Reach, and how PF changed it in regards to diagonals
*Monk issues
*Fighter issues
*Rogue issues
*Cleric issues
*That the Core game and classes need the APG treatment
*Light and Darkness
*Stealth (and Concealment removing Sneak Attack)
*2+Int skill points
*Far too many Traits (and other things) that either do the exact same thing, or are just worse than another Trait
*Feats with Prereqs that really don't help with the Feat you want to take, are unrelated, etc. . .
*Feat Chains that are not really worth a Feat, and would be better served being a single or a fewer number of Feats in the Chain that naturally upgraded
*CMB/CMD being a kind of poor system that doesn't scale well with levels, (even maxed out, combat maneuvers become worse at higher levels as monsters CMD gets much higher than CMB)

So there is no promise that if they did a new edition it would fix any issues, it's probably pretty safe to assume that that would be a main focus, at least for some. It's also pretty safe to assume that such a book would focus on not invalidating older material, particularly story and setting material (although the setting is doing a great job of that on it's own). And based on Paizo's history of such things, with the possible exception of the ACG, it's likely that A.) they would do a really good job, and B.) most would like it, and C.) it would bring even more fans. Personally, I would be very interested if they even looked at trying to improve even half or a quarter of these things, or however many that are often brought up that I didn't list.

It wouldn't split the fanbase any more that Unchained (or the announcement of it) has, not any other books like the APG, UC/UM/UE, or ISG. I kind of think it's ridiculous, at this point where it's just a hypothetical to assume otherwise unless you are of the opinion that most of the PF books since the CRB are garbage.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, some folks think a New Editions means something more like from 3E to 4E where it's a completely new game that would also invalidate the vast majority of setting material, forcing you to rebuy everything, while others take a new edition to simply mean an update to the existing system.

Others think that a new edition in a few years is a good idea, while others think that one far off day might be ok, but not now. When you do a yes/no sort of Poll, it leaves a lot of things in the middle, and gives odd results.

So, for me personally, the category I would say yes to would be the one that said "YES, a new edition that did not invalidate other material, but updated some of the core systems, fixed things that are most commonly discussed issues (on these boards) such as Alignment, Paladin Codes, Fighter/Monk/Rogue/Cleric/Monk/Monk/Monk/Fighter/Monk/Rogue, Reach, etc. . ., but did not require someone to rebuy the Inner Sea World Guide or Bestiary's , well maybe 2-4, but not Bestiary 1, didn't require any single AP to need to be reprinted, (well if we can get Age of Worms non-Golarion edition, that's just a win for everyone, rpger or not that makes the world a better place, because lets face it, it's the absolute best AP Paizo has ever created, not that RotRL crap they keep pushing), and if they literally started today, even without a public playtest, (regardless of your or my personal opinion of them based of the ACG), it wouldn't be our until likely 2016 at the earliest, thus giving the PF Unchained, (but not PF Unearthed) book plenty of chances to fail to be what we actually wanted (damn it, did I say that out loud) to do it's thing, as well as everyone the chance to play through the AP that b@*@%slaps Cheliax and House Thurne or whatever, and fixed some of the few issues that 3E as a system sort of created", my answer is that one. But if particular aspects of that are not true, my answer might be no. But, that exact option was not presented in the Poll.

Shadow Lodge

If people wouldn't mind, bout half way up the page, I tried to break up the poll into a few more, and hopefully more clear and neutral categories. It's not official or anything, I'm just interested.

Shadow Lodge

Doubtful. Paizo has said multiple times that the Paizo message boards are not at all the majority. What harm is there in posting a link to the poll in other places for people to take a look and maybe give their opinion, either here or there.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
There politely disagreeing and then there shouting people down so they don't get heard while telling them to go elsewhere. Which happened during the playtest of the core. Which I don't want to see happen again. In a playtest everyone should be heard. Not a very select few very vocal posters. I'm surprised that you would think it was a bad thing.

I think that the problem with that idea that they are sort hinting at is that everyone is going to have a different idea on who "those people" are. So it sounds great in theory, but in practice it's basically just using a different method to over shout other people whose ideas one might not agree with.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

5.) I DON'T CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

Shadow Lodge

4.) NO, at least not in the near future. Maybe 2025 or later.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

3.) NO, as in never.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

2.) YES, but more like an update, or a Pathfinder 1.5 that would not invalidate older setting/story material or be a mostly new system.

Shadow Lodge

1.) YES, a totally new Edition.

Shadow Lodge

How about changing the poll a little bit to, (and I don't mean to take over or anything) some thing like:

Shadow Lodge ***

Imbicatus wrote:

We almost lost our second Prestige point yesterday in Scars of the Third Crusade because of this.

** spoiler omitted **

I really hate gaming with chaotic players.

Well, in their defense, (and I can totally feel for you), a great deal of Season 5 and that scenario is a prime example, leave a lot of players/play styles/character types out in the cold. I've had two groups in face-to-face games ask me and the other DM to avoid running these as most players find them unfulfilling and boring, and it encourages them to do stupid things (half way through the dialogue "Ok, I don't care, I attack him just for something fun to happen", followed by over half the party, "I move here, me too."). A lot of the issue is, (from what I've seen) is the lack of fulfilling and well rounded scenarios lately and the abundance of ones that require players to be highly invested in a particular story and love RPing, not so much other aspects of gaming.

They tend to do a bit better in PbP games, maybe because it's harder for some players to steal the spotlight as much in dialogue, I don't know.

Shadow Lodge

Pan wrote:
Amino acids? You got to be kidding?

She/he said they where into a lot of anime. . . :P

Shadow Lodge ***

For you. Clearly for many others it is.

Shadow Lodge

captain yesterday wrote:

i don't get why people get hung up on the "Undead are always evil" aspect of Golarion.

last i checked Paizo staffers weren't knocking on peoples's doors saying "those Zombies Better be evil m&!*%$!@+~!$s!"

if you don't like a rule dont use it, house rules exist for a reason:)

For me, because Id love to be able to play a cleric that raises the fallen to to fight the good fight once more (with their permission). And to have that in PFS or whatever game where the GMdoesnt default to Golarion canon.

Its also a wonky idea (that all/most Undead are auto evil just because they are undead). Personally, in my opinion, it stifles options and creativity rather than invites it.

Shadow Lodge ***

I want to say that last season they released it a week or so early for people to prep, but I cant recall.

Shadow Lodge

GM Xabulba wrote:
Skill ranks are based off of hit dice, you need three ranks in intimidation to get boar strike, an ECL3 character can put 3 ranks into a skill thus allowing them to get the Boar style feat at class level 1.

Don't want to go to far off:
What you are saying is a bit confusing. If you had a Level Adjustment (and thus an ECL), and where also (ECL) level 3, that means you did not have 3 character levels, (and thus couldn't put 3 Ranks <or 5 Ranks in 3.E>), and the DM was correct. Your ECL is your Class Level/Racial HD + Level Adjustment.

-
If you mean that you where a 3rd level character (class level plus racial HD), then that's fine, assuming those all added up to 3rd level. But since there is no LA, there is no real reason to say ECL, because you don't have a different effective character level than your actual character level. Does that make sense? It's the + LA that makes the ECL important, and that LA does not allow you to increase Skill Ranks, it just treats you as a higher level for XP needed.

Shadow Lodge ***

andreww wrote:
The problems with rogues are pretty well known by now. They are a primarily melee class with only 3/4 BaB,

I would say that you summed up the actual problem with Rogues that plagues the forums perfectly, in that people continue to mistake the Rogue for a primary melee class. Rogues are not Fighters with a crapload more skills. Rogues are just fine, and still a pretty commonly seen and fun class.

Shadow Lodge

It's kind of a throw back. In 2E, a Ranger had to attack their favored enemy to the exclusion of others unless it was completely impractical. In 3.0, you had t be evil to select your own race as a Favored Enemy unless they where normally evil (like Drow), (I think it was something like that). In 3.5 that mostly went away and a bit more social effects where added in. It still retains the Favored Enemy rather than something like Favored Target/Subject.

Shadow Lodge

Xabulba wrote:
Playing a ECL 3 character with 1d8 unarmed attacks The DM's own creation; two-weapon fighting doesn't work with unarmed attacks. When I try to pick up the Boar fighting style, you need to be 3rd level for that and I don't care what ECL means.

That's actually the way that ECL works. Level + Racial HD + LA = ECL, but only the Racial HD/Level count for qualifying for Feats. So if you are playing a +2 LA creature with 1 Class Level, your an ECL 3, but you only count as a 1st level character for anything but XP purposes.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And just outright false for others.

Shadow Lodge ***

WiseWolfOfYoitsu wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Battle Phases:

The rules for mass combat in this adventure are broken down into four major phases: the Movement phase, the Tactics phase, the Ranged phase, and the Melee phase. Completing all four phases (as applicable) represents a full day of campaigning, after which the phases repeat the following day.

Movement Phase:
During this phase, each unit commander (PC and NPC armies) moves his or her army up to its speed in hexes. To determine the order in which the armies act, each army rolls 1d10 and adds its Speed and commander’s Charisma bonus to the roll. Armies act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. When one army enters the hex of an enemy army, those armies are considered locked in combat and cannot move until the next day. If any armies are in combat, proceed to the Tactics phase; otherwise the day ends.

Melee Phase:
The armies finally clash with melee attacks. Each commander selects a strategy using the Strategy Track, then each army makes an attack against another army. Repeat the Melee phase until one army is defeated or routs, or some other event ends the battle.

My understanding is that once combatants are locked in a combat, they must continue to fight until one is Dead, Routed, or Withdraws. They only get one Melee Phase (normally) a day, but it doesn't put everyone else not in combat on hold. It just generally means actively fighting combatants get to advance to the Tactics -> Ranged -> Melee Phase each day, while everyone else only gets their Movement Phase in a day.

My understanding, and the way it was played with our group was you follow initiative to conduct the movement phase. Once all units have completed their movements, all units select their Tactics. Once base Tactics are established, resolve Ranged combats in order of initiative. After this starts the Melee phase, which repeats until an army is defeated, routed or withdraws. Until the Melee phase can no...

I dont believe that is right. Reading through the Ult Camp, it looks like there is no Movement Phase, its only Tactics, Ranged, and Melee. But an army only gets one of those a day, (which all resolve at the same time). But Mass Combat itself is Day by Day, (so just like a normal basic combat round, one standard, one move, etc which is Round by Round),you only get one turn. You just cant move away, or shift location without special rules. I

There are also rules for extra combatants joining the battle in progress, so it can not put everyone else on hold while each individual one isresolved between DM and 1 player.

Shadow Lodge ***

Battle Phases:
The rules for mass combat in this adventure are broken down into four major phases: the Movement phase, the Tactics phase, the Ranged phase, and the Melee phase. Completing all four phases (as applicable) represents a full day of campaigning, after which the phases repeat the following day.

Movement Phase:
During this phase, each unit commander (PC and NPC armies) moves his or her army up to its speed in hexes. To determine the order in which the armies act, each army rolls 1d10 and adds its Speed and commander’s Charisma bonus to the roll. Armies act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. When one army enters the hex of an enemy army, those armies are considered locked in combat and cannot move until the next day. If any armies are in combat, proceed to the Tactics phase; otherwise the day ends.

Melee Phase:
The armies finally clash with melee attacks. Each commander selects a strategy using the Strategy Track, then each army makes an attack against another army. Repeat the Melee phase until one army is defeated or routs, or some other event ends the battle.

My understanding is that once combatants are locked in a combat, they must continue to fight until one is Dead, Routed, or Withdraws. They only get one Melee Phase (normally) a day, but it doesn't put everyone else not in combat on hold. It just generally means actively fighting combatants get to advance to the Tactics -> Ranged -> Melee Phase each day, while everyone else only gets their Movement Phase in a day.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I would think the best option would be to have GM Star Replays renew each year on Jan 01st. Or at east maybe 1 - 2 of them. 3 and 5 GM Stars (or maybe 4-5?), might work well as a special Con Boon, allowing those GMs that go to Cons to still get a reward that they are more likely to need anyway, but allowing everyone else to still be rewarded for DMing.

If it's on Jan 1, for one it's a hard date, and it allows DM's that go to large conventions to plan for using their stars nearer the end of the Reset date, and also to start to use them for a good bit of the next season as well. Particularly on the newer scenarios that a lot of players are going to want to get into, (likely the newest 1-5s and 3-7s), continuing to reward all DMs for DMing for others and not playing themselves.

I personally also feel that this should not be a "lets reward Con-goers at the expense of everyone else" sort of deal. This is not something I would like to receive for going to a Con or GameDay or whatever, but it is something I would like to be able to use for being the main DM in my local area and for all the online games I run. I still think that (at least a limited) automatic reset is the best option for everyone. I'm holding back my stars just because there are things I specifically want to replay, but as I usually GM now, they have not come up and well, I'm usually the GM. When I do play, I have enough characters that I can usually help make nearly any party, but I would rather get no credit for most scenarios than use my Star Replays at this point, not knowing for sure that certain scenarios I want another crack at may then be out of reach. I want another go at Midnight Mauler (story) and In Wrath's Shadow (chronicle Item), for instance. I'd also love to have a single character with all of the Blakros Museum scenarios (but not Blakros non-museum), including the coming Season 6 one, which is probably going to require one of my mostly unplayed DM credit characters to fit all the levels in and be legal.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there a such thing as a Non-Combat Druid? Wha. . .???

:P

Shadow Lodge ***

The Fox wrote:
Jewelfox wrote:
...
One small correction: the Core Rulebook is required for all players. (See p. 5 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.)

Further small correction. The only books that are required are the ones that your current GM asks you to present when there is a question. In practice, this is generally none, including the crb. (At east in my experience, it's never happened with the single exception of brand new books that not a lot have had the chance to read through yet, and even that is rare.)

Personally, and no offense to the fury's out there, but I am glad the Kitsune are not generally legal. They are just one of those races that smacks of "special rare snowflake character". I've had two players with the boon in my games, and both stated beforehand out of character something to the effect of "Hey, I'm a Kitsune, but your not allowed to know that in character unless I tell you (or you can beat my disguise, which I should get all sorts of free bonuses and stuff to, just because)." It leads me to believe that they, as players, are expecting to receive special treatment and special spotlight regardless of anyone else at the table, which in turn is a really good red flag for not something to encourage in an organized play setting. Just my opinion. Everyone's free to their own. I'd much rather see something like Ratkin or Grippli more open, myself. Less balance issue involved as well as less of the above.

Shadow Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Peet wrote:
But of course, if you are using the Christian god as real and Christian theology as true, then the paganism of those periods is essentially a form of demon- or devil-worship.

Which, as the demonization of a real-world religion, is way more problematic and potentially offensive than the mere inclusion of real world religions in a positive context.

For the record.

So much for inclusion, right.

But anyway, it really, really depends on to what extent you mean "as true". In the setting, the various faiths all have creation stories that "are true", but also contradict and falsify other deity's creation mythology. Now, on the other hand, you could go the inclusive route or trying to get something for everyone and have the Christian/Jewish/Islamic/etc. . . god as an option without automatically jumping to the conclusion that doing so would invalidate or demonize others (and why is that ok one way, but not the other?). Golarion isn't RL, and it's pretty clear that Golarion was basically cut-off from the rest of universe to limit outside forces from interfering much, (as we can see in the Egyptian pantheon in Osirion's history, particularly in how they sort of stopped really being a presence for a long, long time). One of the setting's basic ideas is that deity's do not require worship or followers to exist or to gain/maintain power, (that is they do not loose their divine status or weaken if their worshipers all go away, they just have no tools to use indirectly on the mortal plane).

Shadow Lodge

CraziFuzzy wrote:
The problem with a monotheistic world with pathfinder is that all divine magic is sourced from the gods. If you remove all but a single god, you either remove all divine magic that isn't sourced from that god's domains, or you grant that singular god all domains. Ultimately, you remove all flavor from divine magic in the process.

That's not really true. Non-Deities can grant magic in Pathfinder/Golarion, such as Empyreal Lords, Arch Devils, the Four Horsemen, etc. Including a God/Jesus/Allah, etc . . . doesn't necessarily mean that the world is monotheistic. Even biblically speaking, there are other deities mentioned which grant magic. A good portion of the miracles of Moses have the Pharaoh's priests doing the same things like turning staffs to snakes.

Tinkergoth wrote:
Which relic is the Christian one in Artifacts and Legends?

Saint Cuthbert's Mace on page 41.

St. Cuthbert:
Originally in D&D, there where no named deity's. It was more based off of an idea of "I serve the light", while there where often names for evil deities, devil-worshipping cults, and the like. As they began to flush out the world, they introduced 2 religions to be more player centric. St. Cuthbert and Pholtus. Both where LG (which worked a little bit differentely then), but represented two different variations of it. Pholtus was the ultra zealot, cleans the world of evil, n questions asked sort of faith while St. Cuthbert, (taken directly from the RL catholic saint and history) represented more of the working man's idea, and had a reputation for basically smacking people on the back of the head (sometimes with the mace), to let people know they where being stupid. Sort of the common sense version of LG. In 3E, they changed St. Cuthbert to LN, and also played up his law and order aspect a ot, (literally because they felt that there was not enough LN deities in the

core book, which kind of ruined a lot of his flavor and essentially kind of combined Pholtus and St Cuthbert into one being,, (which as I understand it a lot of people didn't like, and in later products kind of started to shift St. Cuthbert back, sort of, making him LN with heavily good tendencies). However, Oerth is not a magic-starved world, and St. Cuthbert (the greyhawk version) I think is owned by WotC, so I'm pretty sure (in addition to other things in the article) it's not referring to the greyhawk deity but the RL saint, (which the greyhawk deity comes from directly anyway.)

Shadow Lodge

Jeraa wrote:

By default (That is, the Core Rulebook), divine casters do not require a deity.

Certain campaign settings change that, like Golarion and Forgotten Realms. In those settings, a divine spellcaster must choose a patron deity.

And any attempt to bring real-world religion into the game should be avoided at all costs. That is just begging to start trouble.

Just a head's up, Golarion is actually connected to Earth in the setting, and 2 AP's actually dip into this. Mummy's Mask has already brought RL religion in with a lot of the Egyptian pantheon while Reign on Winter actually take the players to Russia. A 3rd product, Artifacts and Legends has a Christian Relic (but only vague references to God or Earth), but otherwise I'm pretty sure that Paizo is going to avoid Judeo-Christian as much as possible.

Shadow Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yes, they do have something to do with each other. Fighter was significantly worse in 3.5, and Rogue was better only because of material outside the class itself.
The 3.5 Fighter had 3.5 Power Attack. They had the 3.5 CLEAVE. They had a ton of amazing Feat options with no Pathfinder equivalent most of the time, and they had a Spiked Chain with 10ft Reach that threatened both 10ft and 5ft. Yah, 3.5 fighter stomps the crap out of the PF Fighter, hands down.

Okay...but all that's outside the Class itself. Which makes it not a class design issue per se. Which was sorta my point.

You want to argue Paizo write some bad stuff, I won't argue (everyone does). But Classes pretty much aren't one of those things. Looking at the class by itself, it's better than the 3.5 version.

I disagree, specifically because it is so, so many changes like this that really stick it to the Fighter, (or the Rogue, or the Monk), and that is specifically things that are Paizo's Design/Balance experience. Similar with the Cleric. The vast majority of the nerfs that hit the Cleric are not actually the Cleric class, but rather things like changing a lot of spells, or altering Turning to Channeling which makes some of the older material just no longer work (such as the Fire Domain with Turning/Rebuking Fire and Water Creatures). I like Pathfinder, but honestly, 3.5, in my opinion was better, and a lot of the little changes that PF made from 3.5 to make it their own are also some of the worst parts about PF. Not even the ones that are setting centric, just the ones to the base D20 system. That doesn't mean they didn't do some good things too. They did. That also doesn't mean that the Fighter, for example, didn't get some cool things. They did. But a lot of it is also very subjective, or it could just be things that people hadn't realized had changed until much later, like the issues with diagonal reach in PF.

But, we should probably get back to the Warpriest now that this is going again.

Shadow Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yes, they do have something to do with each other. Fighter was significantly worse in 3.5, and Rogue was better only because of material outside the class itself.

The 3.5 Fighter had 3.5 Power Attack. They had the 3.5 CLEAVE. They had a ton of amazing Feat options with no Pathfinder equivalent most of the time, and they had a Spiked Chain with 10ft Reach that threatened both 10ft and 5ft. Yah, 3.5 fighter stomps the crap out of the PF Fighter, hands down.

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Because they cant really do the basic things they need to. Because a lot of people hate 2+Int skill points in general. Because, arguably the Cleric has even less dump stats than the Fighter.
Still one of 3 strongest classes in the game. Giving Clerics 4+Int skill points is like kicking in the groin everybody except for Wizards.

Who would also get 4+Int with that groin kick. . .

Shadow Lodge

Huh?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because they cant really do the basic things they need to. Because a lot of people hate 2+Int skill points in general. Because, arguably the Cleric has even less dump stats than the Fighter.

Shadow Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
Rahadoum was never intended to be a Nazi Germany bad guy nation.

Not trying to be a jerk or throw you unde the bus here, just trying to show you why some of the little "retcons that are not real retcons" are kind of odd to a lot of people. For a lot of us that go way back in the day with Golarion, the Taldor banning of Sarenrae is a fact of the setting, and one that has been show in various material to be one that is still very enforced and very prominent in the nation, especially in the more civilized parts. Same with Rahadoum. I can't find the post, but you literally said you modeled Rahadoum after a combo of Nazi Germany and the Scarlet Letter. This is exactly why Taldor really needs a new book. There is just way too many conflicting ideas about it (not to mention others), both in intent and published material. Again, not trying to be a jerk or throw you under the bus, just explain why people have issues with things like this.

James Jacobs wrote:

Rahadoum isn't intended to be an "enlightened atheism" at all. It's intended to be the exact opposite—a close-minded group of prejudiced antagonists. If I were to make lists of "good guy nations" and "bad guy nations" of the Inner Sea, I wouldn't think twice about putting Rahadoum on the bad guy nation list.

There's not really a land of enlightened atheism at all in the Inner Sea Region.

James Jacobs wrote:

That's actually a tough question to answer, since some of the "good" nations have some bad people, and some of the "bad" nations have some good people.

Some nations, like Cheliax, are technically evil, but they're GREAT places to set up as home nations. Others that are evil aren't so much good choices. Others that aren't technically evil, like Rahadoum, aren't so great since they make it so much more difficult for so many characters to take part.

James Jacobs wrote:
Actually... lawful neutral is my 2nd favorite bad guy alignment. (Chaotic evil is my favorite... demons are the bomb!) With lawful neutral, you can have enemies that can be legitimately non-good, but not evil, so that it really torments paladins to have to deal with them as villains. Good times.

Shadow Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:


So, when you have a nation that outlaws that... a nation that outlaws the goddess of healing, honesty, and redemption... that more or less by definition turns that nation into a bad-guy nation. And that's not what I want for Taldor, any more than I want there to be a perception that Sarenrae is a warmongering goddess of warfare. She is not.

The more Taldor bans Sarenrae worship, in other words, the more Taldor shifts from being Neutral into being Evil, or the more we support the idea that there's a REASON a non-evil nation would want to outlaw the kindest religion.

It'll be a while, but you can expect us to continue easing the world canon in this arena back toward the initial intent in future publications. I hope some day in the future it'll be back on course. It might take an Adventure Path to resolve and explain away the thing, though.

What does this mean for other nations lime Rahadoum? I know the original intent was that they where suppossed to be a nazi germany like bad guy nation, but you didnt want paladins to just be able to go in and fix things. But in the same way, others have really shifted the focus, and even made it somewhat heroic.

1 to 50 of 1,333 << 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.