|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well I understand the apprehension to make a ruling if there's a danger of introducing broken content. The game is full of useless/bad/generally underpowered player options. Pushing a whole suite of player options into that category is disappointing but life ultimately goes on.
On the other hand, broken options create a broken experience - especially in an environment where the GM isn't empowered to rein things in when necessary (like PFS).
The answer seems simple: Remove the clause that states that masterpieces count as bardic performances and/or add a clause that allows them to be used in conjunction with normal bardic performances.
From my experience that's the way most people run them. Are there any edge cases to that ruling that makes masterpieces crazy broken?
I never liked Thor so losing the original Thor for Jane Foster Thor didn't affect me much but I understand the complaints from those that were unhappy with the change. They didn't just kill off original Thor, they kept him around to humiliate him. Now he's on some silly quest for redemption which, if I were a fan of Thor, would be way worse than just killing him off.
I don't think Marvel's comics sales are tanking because their fans are all racist/sexist/whatever and I think it's unfair to open with that claim.
Genre fandom simply doesn't like having new things forced on them. Unless you've got the rare breakout hit, appreciation for new characters has to build over time. I think the biggest mistake Marvel made after Secret Wars was introducing new characters at the expense of the traditional favorites en mass. You're not going to force readers to read your new content by killing off/retiring all their favorite characters - you're just going to drive them away.
Personally, I'm very slow to warm to characters. I wasn't terribly interested in any of the ANAD characters and my long time favorite character's reboot, while decently written, suffered a complete personality rewrite to the point where I no longer recognize him. As a result I cancelled my Marvel Unlimited sub and stopped buying single issues in the Marvel app. As a customer, the Marvel reboot was a complete failure for me.
It's simple: HP is abstraction. 100 hp doesn't actually mean that you can tank a greatsword to the face 14 times. It means you're especially adept at turning those blows to the face into grazing wounds or parrying in a way that gets you thrown into the wall and bruised but otherwise unharmed.
You should look at HP in the same way the rules for action stars works. Bruce Willis gets pummeled, rolls around in broken glass, and falls down flights of stairs but it never feels like he's endured a lethal injury.
I've really enjoyed Legends these few weeks. I feel like the show shines when they focus on their metaplot instead of filler to pad the season length. Legends is already the shortest CW DC show in terms of season length. I wouldn't mind making it a little shorter if it meant we got more strong episodes like these.
Am I the only person a little disappointed that the characters didn't even consider not resetting the timeline? Sure, a bunch of superheroes are dead and a few bad guys control the city but think about the good they've accomplished - ending global warming is no small task. I mean, Trump is their president but we have that and we still have to deal with global warming.
Doomed Hero wrote:
I also suggest against this. As I mentioned in CoT game, if you distribute loot based on weaknesses and effectiveness all of the loot ends up in the hands of the fighter.
What exactly do you mean by "Zero Sum," if you don't mind my asking? It's obviously a game theory reference, but it could mean a handful of different things.
By 'zero sum', I typically use the system Pink Dragon mentioned.
Pink Dragon wrote:
Yes, it might make sense to let the fighter nab the belt of giant strength +4, the ring of protection +2, and the amulet of natural armor +2 but doing so would deprive the entire party of treasure. Docking his share of the wealth by an amount equal to what he's taking means everyone gets at least some loot.
With the exception of healing/curative consumables, I'm fond of zero sum. I've been in too many games where the party uses the 'need' model and 90% of the party's wealth ends up on the fighter.
In one CoT game I was in, at level 8, the most valuable item that wasn't on the party fighter or inquisitor was a non-masterwork composite bow on the ranger. Never again!
Off the top of my head:
1) Longer more engaging storylines. PFS has a few 2 or 3 part storylines but I want more. PFS does well enough with one-off episodic stories but it really struggles with maintaining an interesting long-term narrative.
2) Chronicles/rewards that matter. I realize the campaign admins are in a tough spot. On one hand, they need to help sell books and making feats/archetypes/etc available sells books. On the other hand, it's hard to make chronicles relevant when everything's open access. In PFS's later seasons' chronicles are a lot more interesting but they still rarely provide any kind of worthwhile rewards.
3) A convincing villain/threat. I know PFS was started with the notion that the Society was, as a whole, more knowledge-focused and mercenary but I miss the good-vs-evil heroics that was more common in Living Greyhawk and Living Forgotten Realms. In PFS the villains are often underwhelming, non-threatening, or just not compelling.
Hey, they should also apologize for disrespecting her.
You mean the aliens on the registry being exposed to Cadmus because of her blind trust in her father doesn't count as screwing anyone over? Also, keep in mind that the 'forced deportation' was her father's plan. Now that she's forced him to choose a side, what's to stop Cadmus from hunting down all the aliens and executing them one by one? I don't think anything in the episode suggested that they'd lost access to the data from the registry.
She's not dark side, she's dangerously unstable and in a position with way too much power.
Ugh. Alex is the worst, I was really hoping she'd be 'lost in space' for a few episodes so someone approaching rational could be put in charge.
Kara was also obnoxious these last couple episodes but at least she's starting to see that her sister is out of control. Also, Kara you didn't 'love being a reporter'. You constantly griped about the rules that come with responsible reporting. You're not cut out to be a reporter. You should be a superhero which, surprise, YOU ALREADY ARE.
I'll give it my best shot.
Everyone should dedicate all of their efforts and resources toward serving their own self interests. People are at their best and most productive when doing so. Anything that enables people to not pursue their self interests hurts society as a whole. Government that stops people from pursuing their own self interests hurts society as a whole.
This spell makes spoiled, rotten, diseased, poisonous, or otherwise contaminated food and water pure and suitable for eating and drinking. This spell does not prevent subsequent natural decay or spoilage. Unholy water and similar food and drink of significance is spoiled by purify food and drink, but the spell has no effect on creatures of any type nor upon magic potions. Water weighs about 8 pounds per gallon. One cubic foot of water contains roughly 8 gallons and weighs about 60 pounds.
Stale bread is edible. Staleness is usually the result of the fat/oils within bread becoming inert and fully solid again (hence why warming it up brings it back to life somewhat).
Moldy bread, on the other hand, would be a valid use for this spell since mold is clearly a contaminant.
Bah! I suppose I need one more special in that case.
Tonya, can you clarify what you meant when you said "These scenarios may be run by any 4-star or 5-star GM or a Venture-Officer at any time." I spoke with the online venture captain and he's under the impression that the play by post limitations are still in place.
Fun Fact: Upon further review, I'm already at 9 specials.
1x Pathfinder Society Special: Year of the Shadow Lodge (RPG)
I'm at 10 if #3-16: The Midnight Mauler counts when I ran it in 2014. When did Midnight Mauler stop counting towards the 5 star special count?
I'm not sure I'm following your question Jos. The problem with constitution on rage is that it makes the barbarian's defining class feature into a death trap after a certain level because when you go down (which will happen eventually) you drop out of rage and instantly die. Paizo patched this with different feats here and there (Raging Vitality being the most popular one) but I still don't like the idea of using feats to patch bad design. Unchained Rage does this better by making the bonus temporary hitpoints but I'd rather just axe the extra hitpoints entirely and make the barbarian better able to avoid injury while he's hulking out. Dexterity is the obvious solution because it already ties directly into AC but dodge, natural armor, or some kind of morale bonus would work too. A big spike in DR might work similar to what 5e did. In 5e barbarians straight up take half damage from all physical sources while raging.
I don't know if constitution = armor bonus is enough. If we're stepping away from hitpoints as the vehicle for barbarian durability in combat you should aim to make the naked barbarian competitive with the fullplate his figher and paladin comrades gets to wear. I would start it at constitution + 3 and have it bump every third level. That puts the average 14 con barbarian in scale mail at level 1 (the same as the fighter), banded mail at level 6, plate mail at level 12, and +2 plate mail at 18. If the barbarian starts with more constitution or grabs constitution items he can catch up or even slightly get ahead of the standard paladin in plate armor.
If including rage as an option, I'd go with the rage offered for urban barbarian. It gives a floating bonus to str, dex, or con, and can be split among those stats. I'm pretty sure it also doesn't penalize AC and skills the same way regular rage does.
Savage technologist rage is exactly what rage should have always been.
There's a dozen different ways to tweak barbarians to help push them toward better fulfilling the fantasy.
I'd probably start with scaling back the number of rage powers, condensing them in power and utility, and sticking in assorted smaller perks (like terrain focus and endurance) where there used to be rage powers. In addition, there should be rage powers that do stuff or offer abilities while not in rage and they're enhanced while raging.
I've had my beef with the modern d20 barbarian (3.5 and Pathfinder) for a while largely because it struggles to fulfill the fantasy. Off the top of my head these are the first problems that come to mind:
* A barbarian should being durable without wearing heavy armor.
Fantasy artwork typically portrays barbarians in little to no armor, often sporting nothing but a loincloth. This is simply not broadly viable within d20. I know there's a couple archetypes that help in this regard but they're only small steps toward addressing the shortcoming. Part of the problem is that the barbarian fantasy leans toward strength and constitution, not dexterity. Pathfinder has taken great strides towards allowing dexterity to replace strength to fulfill the wiry swashbuckler archetype. It has done little to enable the opposite - the dauntless bare-chested barbarian.
* Even when it works, barbarians are a burden on resources.
Between the barbarian's limited access to armor and a class feature that penalizes their AC, it's clear barbarians are meant to endure incoming damage through having a larger pool of hitpoints as opposed to armor class/avoidance. The problem here is that the modern barbarian hasn't done anything to address the increased drain on resources such a approach creates. MMOs often have multiple tanking classes with different approaches to being durable similar to the fighter vs barbarian dynamic but MMO characters that tank via a larger pool of HP often have tricks that make them easier to heal. Barbarians have no such ability.
* Barbarians should be more than their rage.
Rage is fun sometimes but all of the barbarian's combat tricks and utility is tied into it. There are lots of situations where +2 to hit, +2/+3 to damage, and a 2hp per HD is not worth being hit 10% more often. Without favored enemy, rangers still have an animal companion and spells. Without smite paladins still have lay on hands/channel and spells. Without rage a barbarian is a d12 warrior. This makes them feel like a one-trick pony which hurts the fantasy that is supposed to be the savage barbarian. A barbarian should be cunning and deadly without always being debilitatingly angry all the time.
So a Half Witch - Half Ulfen "Fey Foundling" Lycanthropic bear that practices Tien medicinal traditions and just arrived to Garund... really?
Um, yes? His name means 'bear' and I thought that tied nicely into his calling as a healer and protector.
I thought everything else was explained well enough. Ulfen and jadwiga hook up all the time (they're from neighboring kingdoms) and the witches are known for dealing with the fey up there. The rest is pretty standard 'adventurer backstory' stuff.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.