|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Running it tomorrow. I still have no idea how Thrune's to be scaled for 4PCs, so I'm going to simply disable his artifacts, considering they're in dormancy for some reason, giving him the spear as a plain magical spear.
Also, I'm not convinced by some GMs' use of plane shift as an offensive spell. I know it's legit (though I'm really not sure it was originally planed to be used that way in 3.5), but I question whether the creature would use it, knowing it has to support Thrune and Lissala in the future (not to mention being offensively plane-shifted itself). That's the same issue there is with the limited wish(es): it was specifically told to keep them to assist Thrune, so... that would be a last-ditch spell.
There's nothing for scaling the final fight for 4 PCs. That's quite significant and odd. Did I miss something?
(I know you get a free disabled rune, but that you would likely get from having 5 PCs in the rune sequence AND then have an extra PC to attack the runelord as well.)
Apart from the mistake with 36 (which hsa 9 factors but can be replaced with 40), the puzzle has a big flaw: the hint! It's obscure and leads to weird conclusion, related to the "century", "fewest steps", and waste of time and frustration.
For the non-purists, here's an alternate one:
In the tower of the multiple
And also remove the doors numbered "1", replacing them with "reset doors". Though 1 is not a prime number, this is a technical detail that could be overlooked, and a rather valid interpretation of the rule would be to step into the 1 doors twice in a row. In fact, because there's always a prime door, they number 1 doors can be removed altogether.
And the dwarf statue? Great way to throw players off-track if they don't have a Qadira in the team!
Again, it's an errata that fix almost nothing, but make everyone happy with it...
Eh. I rather agree. It adds a new way to leverage stealth, but doesn't clear up the fundamental isssue of "not aware" thing that hasn't been changed and is not a clear rule wording.
Playing with the errata, I still feel like I have to make judgment calls for which I am convinced that different GMs will make different decisions.
If you are stealthed and attack, then move zero squares and hide, what happens is that .... They immediately know exactly where you are and then you stealth again. Even though they can't see you anymore, they still know where you were and that you didn't move anywhere.
Makes a lot of sense BUT. My point hangs on the odd "Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment".
IF it refers to combat stealth situations, then if you are in plain view of you foe, move up to a column that affords regular cover, you can hide, and then though the foes knows well in what square you are *they are "not aware of you" meaning they would have to ignore you*, and that makes no sense.
Same goes for the cheap-sniping I describe.
So, that odd sentence should be taken to be meaningful only out of combat when your opponent is not aware of you to start with. There should be some clarification that creatures in combat are always aware of the position of all creatures that don't have total cover (though they would still be denied dex from stealthy creatures)
Sorry posting error, reposting.
If you are hidden at start of turn, shoot, then use a MA to move zero square and hide again, because you're using Stealth your opponent is now "not aware" of where you are, eventhough he was a second ago.
Technically, this is exactly what the sniping maneuver does... except with a -20 to the check.
(Also this works even if you're behind a lonely column right in the middle of the room... I agree that the enemy can "not fully track your movement" but not "not aware of where I am")
Here's the situation (assuming I always beat my enemies' perception)
According to the rules, because my stealth is a success my opponent is "not aware" of where I am. He doesn't know where I am eventhough he was an instant before. So basically he *knew* what hit it.. but forgot.
Well, no. Look at the PRD. The (plain) gauntlets are "unarmed attacks" and the spiked gauntlets are a "light weapon".
Anyways... spiked gauntlets are a light weapon. You cannot wield a two-handed weapon while wielding spiked gauntlets, period. You can wield a single spiked gauntlets and then a one-handed weapon in the other hand, which make the whole reach discussion (barring the small lance issue, but...).
All in all, I can understand the elegance in having progressive morale conditions, but it's a combo trap. It would have been better to not have this shaken--> frighten --> panick stacking at all, and use ad hoc rules only, to prevent the inevitable abuse and tricky questions.
I'd really like the spell to be clarified. Especially whether or not the non-haste-like effects stack with "similar effects", such as a plain bless, inspire courage or expeditous retreat.
Untyped bonusses are rare. It would seem plausible that the Intent is that no Blessing of Fervor effect stacks with anything, because you can always choose another effect.
(Side-note: the reason the AC is still typed as dodge would then be that you lose dodge bonusses when losing dex, so it still makes sens to type it.)
We've had regular weekly gaming at Le Valet and the Gamer's Vault but running into the issue that there is an influx of new players... with no available GM ('cause they're playing...).
So.. if you're interested in GMing 1-5 scenarios - at least occasionally -, shoot out!
Right now the games take place on sundays, but we're planning on setting up a saturday game as they're has been some demand.
Games are in english or french.
Erich L wrote:
First, can you attack with Armor Spikes when you're not grappling?
My belief is that it is the intent of this item, but that was lost in its poorly-worded decsription and subsequent abuse.
In fact I don't undestand how we so easily assume that it makes perfect sense to have a 1d6 "no hands" weapon that can be used as easily as a short sword. (and yes I am guilty of it, though I originally outfitted the spikes because my mini had them...)
Because grapple actually allows CMB and regular wpn attacks it makes sense that the spikes were intended to be used in this context only (in which case btw they're more useful using the CMB because they *add* 1d6 to the regular unarmed dmg)
Also, the comparison with spiked gauntlets is quite telling. Gauntlets do less damage AND cannot be used as a CMB grapple attack AND use hands.
Where is this ruling? The general FAQ says nothing. THe errata merely says that Demoralize cannot be re-used on the same target to increase the condition, but it says nothing of using it after or before another source?
That is entirely the case. An Outsider Alchemist can drink extracts of People spells
Is that serious? Can an aasimar alchemist affect himself with his own extract? I see no reason by reading the description.
Well guys thanks a bunch for the advice. My feeling is not on giving up but feeling constrained by the PFS system and thinking about less PFS and more straight PF (which we're already doing as well) - though I see how PFS strcutred play has helped building up a lively game scene as well.
The reason why it's not obvious from the reports that "the collective" has played lots of scenarios is that we have a couple old-timers in the mix who all together have played lots of older scenarios, so we have to shoot for the season 3-4 and we're running out.
I retain your great suggestions and encouragment.
I am indeed currently setting up a registration system. We'll see how it fares. I wonder if there has been plans from Paizo to integrate such a feature on the website? That would be a tremendous addition, esp as it could integrate the list of scenarios everyone has played and their PCs levels...
We will likely try to alternate high level / low level every other week, that may help a lot. But I still like to play modules as they're more involving and require less prep hours per game hour.
Lastly, I'll indeed try to encouraging more players to DM because right now it's the #1 issue, rather than any PFS-system issue.
I managed to bring regular weekly PFS gaming to two FLGS, with 2-3 tables in each, but it seems the PFS managment rules are made to hamper these effort to develop the game and I'm finding it just too hard now after less than a year.
Let me explain (what you already know): starting is easy (and works well); it's getting it to last that's too hard. As soon as you get a few players through mid-level, you either have to turn down newcomers (no beginner table available) or convince your old-timers to start it all over again. Both suck.
Sure, if you've got a vast pool of DMs, players, and room for several tables, you're all right, but who has?
Oh, and we're already through *all* non-series tier 1-5 scenarios. There's always somebody who's played each.
1) Allow players to create characters above level 1, maybe up to level 3. It wouldn't be unbalanced/unfair, considering that without PP they could only buy always available items. Also, playing through 1 to 3 would still give you the edge of having accumulated PPs and boons. (This would also make chronicle items much more relevant for the newcomers and encourage having more cool boons)
2) Let PCs that are under the Tier level up quicker (and get less gold of course!). Otherwise stragglers, the unlucky player who misses a couple sessions because he's swamped with work, well, sorry, man, can't play with us anymore. Go play on the (inexistent) level 1 table.
This way you would have to "restart" much less frequently and welcome more players. Right now I have to turn down people coming in to play! Sorry guys! You can't play in our games, you're not good enough!
Without the PFS rules, I would certainly welcome them around the table with higher-level PCs. I mean, why the hell not!?
End of rant. I don't really hope this will change, but I sure know *I* will have to change it, that is stop abiding by PFS table rules pretty soon.
Except... the very official Righteous vigor spell that clearly assumes you can stack its own temp hp without ever presenting this as a special case.
A couple issues. GM only.
It should be stressed that - as indicated - "Lex Avai" must indeed manage to procure an actual weapon from her marks to do her death attack. The succubus can't death attack with her natural attacks. Makes you wonder why she hasn't a stupid dagger.
Also a succubus best dependable attack is her 6d6 vampiric touch. Avalexi's flashy flame blade is cool but actually weaker. With her crazy high Cha, she can cast defensively every time...
Actually I think they make sense - once they're clarified -. I don't think anybody seriously mean that invisibility smothers sound. So I'm just suggesting that the +20 be removed. As you point out, it rarely comes into play anyways!
Thanks for clearing this out.This should be clarified in the Combat Action chart, as this confusing FRA "Prepare splash weapons" entry has been lingering there for ages...
I like PDF. Because they're not paper.
There's an inherent flaw in this concept when it applies to products people might want to use only on a screen.
Because not all of us have (portrait) tablets, why oh why can't we get Landscape-formatted, medium font, PDFs?
And for those who like print-outs, and if Paizo won't produce "choose your format" products (as some third parties do), well, what about landscape print outs? Uses less lateral table real estate! Gorgeous landscape illustrations! Stun the competition! Amaze your neighbours!
You know those threads...
But nothing has changed. RAW still makes it so that an invisible rogue behind a wall gets +20 Stealth to... move silently. That's the "ghost steps bug".
Also, rules lack consolidation between the invisibility SA and Perception rules. There are modifiers that differ, which is annoying.
This whole affair is very obviously caused by the merging of Listen/Spot. 3.5 Invisibility was very clear. PF made it muddy because handling multi-modality Perception seems hard. It need not be so, because we've got the conceal/cover mechanics...
Suggested easy fix/clarification
A) "Plain Sight". Creature has no conceal/cover.
B) "Hiding". Creature has partial conceal/cover.
C) "Hidden/Invisible". Creature has total conceal/cover (behind a wall, or invisible).
Lengthy balance, rationale and comments in the spoiler below..
No +20 from invisibility seems unfair? It's crucial to remember that an invisible creature has a huge advantage on being able to always hide in plain sight. Also, if your opponent beats your Stealth by less than 20, he's still only "aware of something". But if you're not invisible, he knows you're somewhere behind cover, which is close to a pinpoint. If you're invisible, you could be anywhere! So, it's almost like having +20 already.
The "visual cues" argument
I'm curious, where the 'empty' rooms not empty in a previous revision?
My players were so intent on 'finding something' in the training room that I had them crawl through the obstacle course (Escape Artiste and hp loss Ahoy!) up to a "secret pipe" leading to the alchemy lab...
Also, I had Versevosh start disguised as a halfling. The silver crusade PC spent two rounds detecting evil to avoid mishaps.
Things to watch for when GMing:
* tactics for the collector room seemed poor: the bard is better firing off his good fear spells asap, and leaving the hound fighting by himself. There's no point in having a mount. Grease is nice though. Also the goblins with reach weapons cannot reach the PCs... and cannot hit them anyways. They're much better using fire and bows.
* boss fight: have the goblins start hidden. Get them out only to flank, that's their best use. Also, don't use Inoklar's frighten effect on every PC, keep a couple merely shaken, that'll split the party and allow strong attacks from Inoklar
* empty rooms (and dog room) should be skipped. Players lose time searching through them, as they always expect rooms to have stuff.
I'd actually prefer to see PFS mods written entirely as bullet points rather than prose, as it would make finding things easier and speed up prep time.
100% agree. And I don't see how it would hinder beginner GMs - quite the contrary as the most important info would be highlighted.
I myself have to include in my prep routine to make such a bullet-point summmary of the whole scenario.
Also, I don't understand why the NPCs stat blocks are not simplified, and include more of the spell/SA/SD effects. Way too much clutter, not to mention stuff and spell that's not going to be used. That's one area where 4E fares way better. Having to go through the details of each NPC, taking notes on the secondary attack effects, special defenses, etc. is just nonsense.
Corrected the file above. Thanks Steg for checking this out.
I did simpify by not mentionning move actions, as you're either required to use one, or you typically lose it (unless there's no obstacle).
Btw the PRD's last paragraph is slightly odd. It says that you can't move when making a FRA, but you cannot move either when making a SA - unless the square has no obstacle.
So if I sum up..
* Only report one session regardless of the number of actual sessions.
Are there any plans to plan to fix this, esp. the last bug? And any plans to, like, explain this on the reporting page...
I'm just lost and I don't see how we can make it work. Am I really the only one to face this issue that modules cannot be reported properly?
1) I have to report each session of the module as a separate session, because, well, I ran three sessions, not one. Some people are there at all sessions, some not.
2) But it doesn't work properly that way. I have to report the prestige for the whole scenario on the *first* session, because further sessions' PP are ignored as if the player "already played the scenario". So players just appear like they're cheating or something.
3) GM's PP doesn't work either. I get automatically 2PPs for the first session and nothing for the next two.
4) Even if I used a single session the GM would style get only 2PP, and not get proper table credit.
Enforcing the limitations that are built into the Aid Another mechanic will eliminate abuse of said mechanic.
If the mechanic is that the GM must make a judgment call to allow or disallow, then it's not a mechanic.
Thanks for all the inputs. If I summarize, the #1 problem mentioned here is:
P4) Aid Another is too often used by Aid-monkeys who just scream "Aid! Aid!" with no actual involvment in the action. This is legit but unfun.
In concur. But that was not the issues I was putting forward.
a) without ever risking to hamper her effort
There's a consensus on P4. But why does aid-monkeys exist? Because Aid Another is risk-free... so you can shout "Aid!" without thinking twice.
brock, no the other one... wrote:
thread title or a link so that I can go and read up? Thanks.
But you'll see I'm wrong in that there's no actual clearcut clarification and opinions vary on the interpretation of the rules. So I might be using your interpretation, as I think it would indeed help.
Thanks for your arguments, but what's your experience? Never felt annoyed?
@brock and Mortika
brock, no the other one... wrote:
I interpret that to mean that if the DC is too high for someone to hit by taking 20 then they can't assist.
That would work indeed, but alas it has already been clarified as NOT being the actual RAW in another thread.
@redward & others
(This is about Aid Another when used for a skill, not an attack)
*** PROBLEMS WITH AID ANOTHER ***
P1) Anybody can help an inspired expert and push him further. Good points have been made elsewhere about the notion that a journeyman can help an expert at times. Sure, when he underperforms. But what if the expert excels?
P2) It's risk-free. Shouldn't totally clumsy PCs hamper the expert?
P3) It destroys the balance of hard DCs in those specific skills where you can use it (e.g. diplomacy) relative to the others (e.g. knowledge).
Example 1: the half-elf bard does a brillant speech, rolling 30... and not only can the rude dwarf barbarian actually improve that result, also there's no way he can make any misplaced comment or rude noise.
Example 2: nobody's good at Intimidation in the party, but don't fret: even the skinny wizard and the bland cleric can help push the bard into Difficult DC territory, risk-free.
Result= seasoned players always ask for Aid and the "everybody roll for Aid!" drill becomes dull and involves no planning nor reflection whatsoever. Also, tasks where Aid is possible become a joke.
Simple maths shows you that Aid adds on average at least 5 to the check result for a 5-PC party, which is a very large bonus. The average level 2 party can succeed on "difficult" DC20 at least 80% of the time. Worse is the fact that it is independent of the DC. So that the obtuse fighter can actually help see through elaborate lies, for example.
*** SUGGESTIONS ***
Fixes that don't involve rule change:
F1) Put drastic limitations on the number of aiders. Flaw: doesn't address P1 nor P2.
F2) Forbid Aid and use Group Checks (take the best result) instead. Prevents P1 and is easy to apply. Flaw: doesn't fully prevents P3. Doesn't address P2.
Fixes that involve rules change:
F3) D&D4 style. Failing the Aid gives -2 to the expert. Advantage: minor change, simple to use, self-regulating. Flaw: requires some GM oversight. Doesn't really address P1.
F4) Group Checks with Hamper. Make a group check for all active participants, but substract 2 to the best result for each result under 10 (min=worst result). Good for e.g. Diplomacy checks. For e.g. stealth checks, use Weakest Link with Help: take the worst result, but add 2 for results above 10 (max= best result). Self-regulating, still allows constant usefulness from decently-skilled PCs, but does not imbalance the challenges, while allowing risk-taking ("I'll try and help anyways!"). Flaw: longer to explain and resolve
What do you think? What's your experience with aid?
Newcomer, maybe I missed something...
I run a weekly game at my FLGS. Should I
Also, what happens with modules?
(Advanced question: I actually run these at 2 different stores, alternating each week... So if I run a module spanning 2 locations, what do I do? I have to indicate the location on the event. This would mean I should create 2-3 events just for the module, with one session per event? That's three events for a single module. And then, I can only write one event # per CS, so should I give 2-3 CS for the module? Or write multiple event # on the one CS?)
I think the event registration page should explain this clearly at the top.
Because many people use the "4X zoom print-out method", I wonder why Paizo doesn't use "Player-friendly" maps in their scenarios, or online. By this I mean maps without the secret doors and other stuff that shouldn't appear.
Making sure their rooms fit in 8x10 areas would be great too... It's too bad they take pains to draw nice maps, but they're hard to use...
E.g. for those who ran Feast of Ravenmoor....
Why oh why did they put that corn maze right on the map!?! You can't let the player see it without them inquiring about it. I had to photoshop it out..
Also the farm is just too small to print out, and the maze itself too large to print out...
Do NOT look up the natural attack rules in the core rule book! Those say something completely different and have been marked as wrong by Paizo multiple times. No, they are not yet errata'd, but the Bestiary has the only true rules.
They did remove the mention of nat attacks as light weapons. So now the tusks are just "a bonus attack at -5".
But... Toothy is clearly a nat attack. Razortusk, however, is described as a kind of built-in weapon to which natural attacks feat *can apply* and which is *treated as* a secondary attack as part as a FRA attacks.