Faenor's page

Faenor wrote:

Duration of SM X is still an issue at level 5 for out-combat situation.

Depends which out of combat situation you are talking about. How many out-of-combat uses do you want for summoning at level 5? 9 enough?

(...)

All good and valid examples of out-of-combat situations but there are also many examples where the duration is too short. I didn't say it has no use, I said duration limits its use.

Quote:

Did I mention that a 1st level spell can sometimes protect from the effects of the summoned creature (Protection vs X)?

No, but someone else did, and we discussed how to work around that. Check the replies.

Ok, I didn't remember this one. So the workaround is to summon neutral creatures or use range attacks. Hum, somewhat limiting too.

Don't get me wrong, I think the SM spells are very good spells but the 1 round casting time, short duration, Protection vs X issue, redudancy (have to learn higher level spells) are clear drawbacks. They're worth mentioning in your "Summoning: God's favorite spells" section to be complete :P even if you think the benefits outshine them.

Quote:

You don't mention the Ray specialization (PBS, Precise Shot feats) in your handbook. Do you think it's dead with PF nerfed spells (I think Enfeeblement for ex) or were you never an adept? Enervation still rocks and IMHO is one of the best spells of the level.

I never really considered spending feats "to hit" with a class that has so many combat options that have no "to hit" roll was a good investment.

How many Ray spells are you planning to cast per day? Is that really giving you the same (or even close) milage from those feats as an archer, who is using them multiple times every round in every combat?

In 3.5 a lot: enfeeblement, exhaustion, enervation, acid arrow (vs spellcasters), the occasional orb or scorching ray spell, etc. It's also very useful at low levels (up to 5/7) when you cannot cast every round to participate in combat with range weapons. Also missing a hit for an archer is not as much an issue than for a wizard wasting a spell. With the 10 feats every PF characters receive now, the opportunity cost is even lesser and +5 to hit is 25% more chance of hitting. Not necessary for every build but still good for debuffers.

Reading your guide was very instructive, like an accelerated 3.5 to PF course, thanks a lot! It will definitely makes me reconsider a bit my feats and spells selection.

Summoning time/duration:

The 1 round casting time is certainly a Drag. Don't know what really else I can say about it unless you have access to 3.5 material.

It's just an accepted drawback of casting these spells I'm afraid.

As for duration, Once you get to level 5 (when you can access the first Summon Monster spell I recommend) you will find that 5 rounds is a pretty decent duration. If you can afford a lesser extend rod all the better, but really, most combats are over by round 6. As your levels increase, combat length tends not to increase with it, so it becomes a complete non-factor soon enough.

Duration of SM X is still an issue at level 5 for out-combat situation. That makes it a lot less versatile than you say. Also I'm not an expert re the 3.5 material you are referring to but I thought that you stated at the beginning of your handbook that the handbook is made for PF Core, as is in PF I think you are overrating the Summon spells. Did I mention that a 1st level spell can sometimes protect from the effects of the summoned creature (Protection vs X)?

You don't mention the Ray specialization (PBS, Precise Shot feats) in your handbook. Do you think it's dead with PF nerfed spells (I think Enfeeblement for ex) or were you never an adept? Enervation still rocks and IMHO is one of the best spells of the level.

Regarding Illusions (audio giving Will save): There was a web enhancement that WotC had for clarifying exactly what illusions could and couldn't do.

I'll read it over again later today - because I expect the question is answered there - but if anyone else wants to look it over (hint?) the links are all at the bottom of my 3.5 illusions page at this address:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871874/Treantmonks_guid e_to_Illusion_Gods_Tools

Very interesting stuff! My understanding from the different articles from Skip Williams, especially the Part Three is that illusion of sound does not give an automatic save. Some illusion spells state that they give automatic saves like Ventriloquism and Ghost sound but not Minor Image (or more). I find the explanation of interaction close to what I stated before: you need to do an action to interact with the illusion (e.g. at least taking some time observing/listening the illusion).

So Minor Image does not give an automatic save even if there is sound, silent image + ghost sound do (actually only ghost sound but if one successfully saves vs ghost sound, as a DM I would allow another save with a HUGE bonus vs the silent image).

Edit: wow you beat me at that, you guys are fast at typing! Glad to see we have the same opinion about this now :D

Regarding the rest of your spells selection, I have few comments:

Acid Arrow:
The reasons why people still takes it are mainly:
1. It does damage overtime so it's very nice against spellcasters (concentration check at -5 in average is tough at low levels, better than 3.5 with the new PF Concentration rule).
2 It doesn't have any SR so it's sometimes the only way for a low to mid level wizard to do damages to high CR critters (e.g. Rakshaaza)
I agree that it looses a lot of interest at high level but it's still an OK spell at low levels. I don't think it deserves Red on your list.

Sleep:
It takes one full round to cast which is a pain. Color spray is better in my opinion at any level (a full round casting time for a spell that is useful only during 4 levels is a waste of space in my spellbook in my opinion).

Summon Monster X:
I'm not sure but it seems that you like SM spells a lot :P which is fine. But I think you forgot to mention the 2 majors flaws of these spells:
1. Casting time is one full round which makes it sub par for in-combat situations
2. Duration is 1 round per level only which limits considerably its use for out-of-combat situation (e.g. SM I is not a viable replacement option for Mount...).
Still a spell that I like to use sometimes but probably not with the same love than you.

Cheers

Whether dragons make you shaken or frightened is not specified. For now I will go with frightened on a failed save, and shakened if you make the save.

It's specified p300 at the description of Frightful Presence.

Gworeth wrote:

Oh! I totally agree on the wall part, that wasn't the instigator of the said knee-jerking, no, it was the sound-based illusion I thought was being nerfed if you got a save, just because you heard it. "Well, I don't believe me own ears.." ;-)

I think there is some precedence. The audible only spells (Ghost Sounds and Ventriloquism) both say there is a save when you hear them... so inferring that hearing is interaction kind of makes sense.

You're unfortunately right :(

One thing though, for Ventriloquism, the PRD says:

Saving Throw Will disbelief (if interacted with)

So it means that hearing a sound is not automatically interaction. Unfortunately the description says:

With respect to such voices and sounds, anyone who hears the sound and rolls a successful save recognizes it as illusory (but still hears it).

Still doesn't make sense to me than hearing a sound is more an interaction than seeing something but by RAW it seems that it is :(

Dennis da Ogre "interaction" has always been a bit vague, but if it was my table, I would suggest that hearing an illusionary sound is interaction.

Otherwise, what if you used Minor Illusion to JUST create sound? If hearing it was not interaction, then it would provide no saving throw, because how else could you interact?

Just finished reading your guide: great guide, very good read!

About the sound in an illusion giving a save automatically, I disagree with this. Hearing is no different than sight, it's a passive sense (you receive information) so it should not trigger a save. Interacting is touching, talking, attacking, receiving damage, etc.

In the spells section I noticed that there is a lot more red and orange than green and blue. You said that wizard is your preferred class but it looks like you find that most spells suck ;)

Good analysis of the changes in the spells in PF, I love some of the changes but hate some of them...

Thanks!

(...)

You're obviously attached to your WotC stuff, so we'll agree to disagree here if you will... (I, myself, no longer suffer from that weird 3.5 conservatist mentality, especially since I put all my 3.5 stuff out for sale... (...)

Where did you get that from? Take a step back Mr Pink, I've never been emotionally attached to WotC, neither I am to Paizo now. Allows me having an objective look. I also never bought the 3.5 stuff and staid with my 3.0 books so I'm not going to buy them from you now :P (never been a marketing victim). You loved WotC yesterday and are burning them now, you might do the same with Paizo in few years... I'm less emotional so I don't develop a fanboy attitude regarding games I play contrary to you apparently. You can disagree as much as you will, we didn't even start having a discussion anyway.

(...)

Anyway... sorry the errors are ruining the game for you.
(...)

Fortunately it's not ruining my game. I understand your constraints, the difficulty of the task and appreciate that you'll fix the subsequent versions of the prints and PDFs. I was not and am not going to continue discussing on this thread (except if I find errors), I wanted to express my disappointment about mostly erratas, but it's not going to prevent me from playing. All in all I enjoy the Pathfinder RPG and the direction it takes (except for the artwork :P but I know this is about personal taste).

Cheers

Page 268: Omission error. The troll entry makes no mention of anyone named Faenor.

Hehe. You may be right it can sound like a troll which is not in my habits but it's the Product board right? And the thread is about the problems of the Bestiary product right? So I apologize (sic) if I'm not satisfied with the product and let it know to the editors, publishers, designers, etc. with the hope they will do better next time. Now if you're fine with buying an unfinished product, recalculating the stats of each monster (stats being almost the only feature of the book) and hearing critics about it then that's good for you. I'm not a fanboy like you apparently and I expect better quality in the products I buy (and I like to think I'm not the only one).

Regards

I think the big difference is that if you compare it to a previous monster book is that you've never before had a monster book published by a company that a) has such an active message board, b) is immediately involved with providing comment and feedback on fan response, and c) will update the PDF with all of the fixes for these errors that have been identified.

In combination, these reasons have likely caused a much stronger fan effort to identify the errors in the book, so that we can get an updated PDF with all of them fixed, than other monster books (or game books in general for that matter) from other companies.

Sorry I bought the book not the PDF and it will never get updated so I'll have to remember all the errors for each monster and carry the sheets of papers. Reactivity is ok but I would prefer the quality to be better in the first place. I didn't pay to buy a beta version of the book. I definitely feel like the work wasn't done correctly.

WotC boards also has an active message board and the number of errors in the 3.5 MM seemed much lower that what we see here: 3.5 MM errata. Sorry but it's just a shame, it seems that there are mistakes every other monster.

So many errors in the book! It's a a shame. With so much delay I was expecting more rigor, it looks like the errata is going to have as many pages as the book itself...

I must say that I am disappointed by the Bestiary, I was expecting a lot better than that in terms of quality: less errors, more flavor text (some monsters are just really a stat block, not inspiring at all) and especially better artwork.

I know this is personal opinion and everyone has different taste about artwork but I find some of the monsters art really crap, especially the goblin family. I wan't a big fan of the new goblin to start with but the other family members are just wrong: the bugbear, the hobgoblin who looks like Shrek, the bargheist, ...

The worse of all being the troll IMHO.

Sorry for the rant, not a specific problem about rules but more a general disappointment about the product.

I'll probably play a wizard then.

BTW, I'm going to be a bit late as my wife has to work tomorrow morning so I'll arrive around 2PM and will miss the lunch with you guys. I'll come to the pub anyway and go to GoodGames if you've left already.

See you tomorrow.

Faenor wrote:

Sorry, it's a bit off-topic but how come it is only -2 on the primary attack? I thought TWF feat + one-handed weapon in off-hand is -4/-4 and the heavy shield is considered a one-handed weapon, not a light weapon.

(...)

If you wield a light weapon in the offhand, it reduces the two weapon fighting penalty to -2/-2.

Thank you I know that but the question is about the build presented in this thread which uses a heavy shield and a heavy shield is a one handed weapon, not a light one, as explained above...

Faenor wrote:

Hydro wrote:

TWF: -2/0

Sorry, it's a bit off-topic but how come it is only -2 on the primary attack? I thought TWF feat + one-handed weapon in off-hand is -4/-4 and the heavy shield is considered a one-handed weapon, not a light weapon. Shield Master feat eliminates the off-hand penalty but I don't see anything that can reduce the primary hand penalty. Even a mithril shield would not make the heavy shield a light weapon.

Have I missed something? I am looking at creating a sword and board build so I'm interested to see how one can reduce the penalty further.

that should be -2/-2

Because TWF makes it -4/-4, then making it light reduces the penalties to -2/-2.

What is making it light? Mithril doesn't reduce the weapon category (p155) as already explained above so how?

Shield Master does remove the penalty entirely so there is no discussion regarding the off hand attack penalty (0). Only the primary hand attack puzzles me, I think this build should be -4/0.

TWF: -2/0

Sorry, it's a bit off-topic but how come it is only -2 on the primary attack? I thought TWF feat + one-handed weapon in off-hand is -4/-4 and the heavy shield is considered a one-handed weapon, not a light weapon. Shield Master feat eliminates the off-hand penalty but I don't see anything that can reduce the primary hand penalty. Even a mithril shield would not make the heavy shield a light weapon.

Have I missed something? I am looking at creating a sword and board build so I'm interested to see how one can reduce the penalty further.

Great! So what do you intend to play guys?
To avoid everybody coming with the same class...

I'm willing to DM a Society Scenario as well as play in one. I just have to print out hardcopies of The Frozen Fingers of Midnight and Among the Living.

Scenario 04: The Frozen Fingers of Midnight has you investigating a curse afflicting a fellow Pathfinder in Absalom.

Scenario 07: Among the Living is for those that wonder what it would be like to cross Phantom of the Opera with Left for Dead and is set in Oppara, the capital of Taldor.

Do you guys normally handle combat with minis or not?

Sounds great! I prefer minis but I don't have any here.

Dang, looks like I can't make it that Sunday after all. *mutter* *mutter*

I'll try to make it the following months though.

What about the others? Still okay for the 18th at the Royal Exhibition pub around noon? Do we have enough people coming?

And good idea for the Society scenario in the afternoon; Is there a DM willing to run one? :D

As of now, put me down as a yes. Just unless nothing else comes up till then and now.

Same here

Thanks to everyone who came along - I had a blast.

Thanks to you! Had a great time!

Dementrius wrote:

My mate's got a monk coming along...

We have a mate who has the rulebook and will join us tomorrow too. He will be playing a rogue!

And finally another one who will play a cleric so we'll have a full group :D

Hope this is fine with you!

My mate's got a monk coming along...

We have a mate who has the rulebook and will join us tomorrow too. He will be playing a rogue!

So we are looking at a Alchemist, Cavalier, Summoner, Black Guard, Orical, and Witch?

I think I am missing one, please correct me if I am wrong.

We are also seeing 2 other variant Paladins; Templar and Anti Paladin.

Sounds cool, I just hop there is a melee caster type.

I think it's Oracle no?

Count me in im fairly new to the game (have a decent amount of rpg experiance though) but im definetly up for it.

Link to Pathfinder Reference Document for those who don't have the rules. Need to come with a 7 level character. I'd like to play a wizard myself.

Are we only 3 who confirmed at the moment?

For those interested, I created the Sydney Pathfinder RPG blog.
The idea is to start a society group in Sydney or other regular sessions.
Please vote and let me know if you are interested in participating (open to everyone).

Cheers

Hey guys – I’m looking for a group to playtest a couple of monsters that will feature in the upcoming “Monsters of the Razor Coast” indulgence for Sinister Adventures. I’d like to run a one-off Friday night game in the city after work in the next week or two. Give me a holler if you’re interested!

Sounds cool. I'm interested and Friday night works fine!

For those interested, I created a site quickly here: Sydney Pathfinder RPG.
Please vote and let me know if you are interested in participating.

Cheers

Sounds good to me too. The sooner the better ;)

Yep, got your email and checked for Andrew's email address but I have the same spelling than you used.

So guys, by now everyone should have recieved my email and Flash's reply. I realised I got Dave's email wrong on the first pass, but have fixed that in a reply.

Post here if you didn't get my email.

Hum, I haven't received the email so I guess there was as an issue. I am sending you an email so you can loop me in.

It was great to meet you guys, see you soon for some awesome games ;)

Hey guys

I confirm that I will be there on on Sunday :)
I know of another guy regularly lurking on the forum who will join too.

See you

Likewise. But it looks like there are a few of us located around the inner west and Mascot and such. Maybe we can get another Society group together ... I own all the scenarios released so far ...

That would be awesome!

Thank you! I will keep an eye on the thread for exact time.
See you there then.

Cheers

DarkWhite wrote:

No problem there. I'm hoping to run scenarios from #1 onwards roughly in order, depending on who else joins the table and what they've already played, and perhaps delaying one or two scenarios that have proven to be particularly challenging for first-level play until characters have a level or two under their belts.

Hi

Would it be possible to join your group as a player? I have been playing RPGs for many years and I am looking for joining a new group to play PF or D&D (3E, 3.5). I recently moved to Sydney from old Europe so I am dying to find a new RPG group in the Sydney area ;)

You can contact me directly at jtblin at gmail dot com.

Thanks!

Jerome

Just saw that you are in Melbourne and I live in Sydney...

Anyhow if anyone has space for a new player in the Sydney area, please contact me.

Sorry for the spam.

Happy gaming all

Count me in for the 21/6!

And opened to gaming opportunities before that.

Cheers

Gotcha,

My group are mainly around South Sydney/South West.
We compromise and meet in one of our offices in Mascot :)

Hey - I live not very far from Mascot. Would there be an opportunity for me to join your group? :)

My email in case of: jtblin at gmail dot com

Sorry for the threadjack. I also would be up for a meeting in Sydney in June for the Paizonian gathering so not completely off-topic: is the 21st of June still in the plan for everybody?

No problem there. I'm hoping to run scenarios from #1 onwards roughly in order, depending on who else joins the table and what they've already played, and perhaps delaying one or two scenarios that have proven to be particularly challenging for first-level play until characters have a level or two under their belts.

Hi

Would it be possible to join your group as a player? I have been playing RPGs for many years and I am looking for joining a new group to play PF or D&D (3E, 3.5). I recently moved to Sydney from old Europe so I am dying to find a new RPG group in the Sydney area ;)

You can contact me directly at jtblin at gmail dot com.

Thanks!

Jerome