|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I can't say I've ever had too much gold on any character. There's always something I still want to buy.
For most of my PCs, I intentionally save up my prestige until I have the 21 for body extraction and raise dead, other than spending the first two on a cure wand.
But I decided that I'd intentionally play one particular character more recklessly, and I've been spending his prestige after every adventure. At level 4, I'm having a hard time coming up with more stuff for him to spend it on. I've used it on wands of Cure Light, Infernal Healing, Protection from Evil, oil of Daylight, potion of Fly, scrolls of various situational spells that could be useful (Comprehend Languages, Air Bubble, etc). I finally decided to save up the 5 prestige for body retrieval, since that can't be paid for in cash, and he's up to the level where he could probably afford a Raise Dead if it came up (possibly relying on other party members to chip in a little).
Here's my own method for building an effective character (which I've posted to these forums multiple times before). Bear in mind that this only refers to making a character who will be useful mechanically, and has no bearing whatsoever on the personality or back story.
1. Pick a specialty in combat.
Now make your character good at those 3 things. Aim for great in either #1 or #3 as your character's primary specialty. But never shoot for mega-awesome-best-in-the-world at anything, because that usually requires putting too many resources (stat points, feats, traits, money spent on equipment, etc) into one thing, and not leaving enough for the other two.
Don't try to have a 4th thing your PC can do well, because you'll spread yourself too thin. Occasionally you'll have a character build that just naturally has more things they're good at (bards and rogues tend to be good at multiple things outside of combat, for instance), so you can just go with it, but don't try too hard to be good at all of those things if they require any investment of resources.
Examples from my own PFS PCs:
Tattooed Fey Sorcerer
Gnome Prankster Bard
Quick summary: Fighter weapon groups have been defined in multiple books. Each time, they give a "complete" list of all weapons that fall into each group. Notes in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Equipment have said something like:
Ultimate Equipment wrote:
For the purpose of the fighter class's weapon training ability, weapon groups are defined as follows (GMs may add other weapons to these groups, or add entirely new groups).
But there are plenty of PFS legal weapons that aren't mentioned at all in these lists, such as the new weapons introduced in the Advanced Race Guide. Common sense would dictate that the dwarven longhammer from the Advanced Race Guide would fall into the hammer group, and any home group GM who doesn't allow it is violating Wheaton's Law, but we all know that PFS runs on pure RAW, not common sense.
So here are the questions, as specific as I can make them:
1. In Pathfinder Society, are all legal, non-improvised weapons assumed to be part of at least one weapon group?
2. If the answer is that they're always in a group, can we assume that the obvious, common sense answers can be used to add them to groups? (ie Anything with "axe" in its name is in the axe group, anything with "hammer" in its name is in the hammer group, anything with reach is in the polearm group, any weapon that's worn instead of wielded in a hand is in the close group, etc)
And before anyone says this is a rules question, not a PFS question, that's why I included the quote from Ultimate Equipment, above. Paizo has already published their official answer to the general rules question. I don't expect them to ever clarify that further than the quote above. It doesn't help PFS. That's why this is a PFS specific question.
I really wish they would reprint a few of the older maps.
Unfortunately, Paizo has a strict corporate policy against reprinting anything other than core hardbook books (stuff that's on the PRD). They've also got a strict corporate policy against questioning any of their 10+ year old policies, to see if they still make sense. I'm assuming the people behind both of these policies have pointy hair and look like Dilbert's boss.
Another time saving tip for GMs: Tell the players not to do any math unless you ask for it.
I've seen lots of people sit there and spend 30-60 seconds adding up their attack bonus, temporary buffs, flank bonus, etc every single turn before they roll the d20 to see if they hit. Half the time, they roll so low or so high that it just doesn't matter. Have them roll, and if it's really obvious that they'll hit/miss based on the die, then the details of the math become irrelevant.
I have always seen him as a coward that refuses to be held accountable for his own mistakes.
That's definitely how the writing of this scenario portrays him. It also portrays Drandle Dreng as over-estimating Nigel.
So I was doing last minute prep to run this tonight, and I had a question I wanted to post here, but now I can't remember it. Expect me to be back in this thread in the next couple of hours.
"Mobs" predates both "toon" and MMOs. The term comes from MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons or Domains) - text based internet RPGs of the late 80s and 90s, which were the text based predecessors of MMOs. On the object oriented programming side of things, everything in a MUD was an "object", and monsters/NPCs were generally the only objects that could move by themselves, so they were considered "mobile objects", or "mobs" for short. I saw that term in use as early as 92, but it could be even older than that.
Ed Reppert wrote:
I'm worried about the first and last encounter. They seem extremely likely to TPK. I'm unsure what can reasonably be done to not kill the PC's. Outside of hardcore power gamers it seems likely to TPK in the first and last encounters.
The first fight definitely shouldn't TPK. The robots are trying to kick out intruders. If the PCs leave the building, the robots shouldn't pursue. That makes running away a very easy option.
When I played it, my sorcerer didn't even enter the building until that fight was over - I spent the whole time casting from just outside the doors. The robots are smart enough that they would have targeted me if I'd kept at it after my teammates went down inside the room, but that never happened, because my teammates were always in the room drawing their fire.
Coming in late. My personal code of conduct actually forbids me from participating in threads with the word "paladin" in the title, but I failed my Will save, so I fell.
The entire thread in a nutshell, right there in the bolded text. That sums up every single paladin code debate in the history of the game, going back to 1st edition AD&D.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Your argument seems to be (and I'm sure you'll correct me) that you don't like good characters, but you're okay with them if they can be browbeaten into giving up their convictions. However the paladins are harder to browbeat because there are actual in game repercussions for them betraying their character concept.
I'm still waiting for Hangman Henry to correct him, because this really does seem to be true to me. If it isn't, then Henry needs to speak up.
I have a lawful good cleric of Sarenrae who other players don't like me playing sometimes, because I won't let people kill prisoners or turn down a surrender offer from enemies. Sarenrae is the goddess of redemption, so I'll always let enemies have a chance to be redeemed. My first paladin character, on the other hand, is an Oath of Vengence "smite them all" type who figures that anyone who starts a fight against the good guys has already made their choice and doesn't deserve redemption, so I don't stabilize fallen foes or prevent my allies from killing them with that paladin. My second paladin is kindler and gentler than that, so more like the cleric.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
yeh i guess it just seems to me that there are players who will use the threat of loss of class mechanics in order to browbeat other players. i don't think it is good to put tools like that in players' hands.
Those tools aren't in the players' hands. Anyone who thinks they are is in the "wrong about how the class works" category. A paladin doesn't fall if they work with someone who violates their code. The Core Rulebook even explicitly states that they can work with evil for the greater good. So why wouldn't they be allowed to work with my chaotic good prankster bard gnome (in the Silver Crusade!) who lies a lot? Or a cleric of Asmodeus, as in the group I GMed on Monday, where the Asmodean hated the devout Cayden Cailean worshiper more than he hated the group's paladin. At least the paladin is lawful.
And yes, the Pathfinder Society can be seen as the greater good. It's a neutral organization technically, but leaning towards good. Many good people, including paladins, intentionally join just to help aim the organization towards doing more good. That's the entire mission of the Silver Crusade, after all. So even if you're just on a truly neutral "go retrieve this artifact" mission, succeeding in the mission is ALWAYS considered to be "for the greater good", and allows a paladin to work with less honorable people to do so.
Plus, there's the fact that paladins take oaths pretty seriously, and every paladin in the Society presumably swore to "Explore, Report, Cooperate", so they need to obey that "cooperate" party.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
My issue with the standard paladin code is that it is the one that most frequently comes into conflict with the missions given to pathfinder agents. They are sent in missions where if they do what they are told they break their code (by lying)
I have never seen a PFS mission where every member of the team is required to lie. There are quite a few where you're told not to let anyone know you're Pathfinders. There are one or two where one member of the group has to lie, while the others stand around watching it happen. But the paladin is never specifically ordered to lie. Once again, they're allowed to work with others who don't follow the same code as themselves, as long as it's for the greater good.
I've actually played with paladins at the table in 3 of the scenarios you mentioned earlier where you thought they'd cause problems, and there were never any issues. And for the record, my favorite answer to the "Are you a Pathfinder?" question, when you're supposed to be undercover, is "He does the talking, I'm just the muscle", and point to the bard with the maxed out bluff skill.
TL;DR: It's not that people are trying to water down or ignore the paladin's code, as you say in many of your posts. It's that the code isn't nearly as restrictive as you seem to think it is, and never was.
The pits made by the spells are dimensional space. You don't make an actual pit in the ground, so you can't use it for excavating or landscape decoration.
No, but with creative placement, you can still use it to bypass doors or walls. Have the pit go under the door, so you can climb down the pit on one side of the door, and climb out of the pit on the other.
Hasn't anyone told these people that skipping 1st level is what GM credit is for?
Also, up until now, Knowledge (Arcana) was the skill needed to identify the abilities and weaknesses of Constructs. As per the Technology Guide, Knowledge (Engineering) is now the skill you need to identify Constructs with the Robot subtype (though you do not need the Technologist feat to do so).
Just make sure that the construct in question actually has the robot subtype. Just to confuse things even more, there's one construct in a season 6 adventure that's clearly technological, but it still uses Knowledge (Arcana), because its subtype isn't robot. It makes no sense whatsoever, but that ruling has been confirmed by John Compton.
Chris Mortika wrote:
The individual scenarios ALWAYS say "See Ultimate Magic" when there's a magus NPC involved. And if there's an oracle NPC, they ALWAYS say "See Advanced Players Guide". There's usually a page number given. Heck, every single monster specifically says which Bestiary to look it up in. That's just the way PFS scenarios are written.
Just this weekend, I've been prepping a scenario to run tomorrow where some of the NPCs have a prestige class from Inner Sea World Guide (Red Mantis Assassin). Not only does the adventure list the page number from ISWG, it also gives the relevant rules in the stat blocks of those NPCs for those GMs who don't own that book.
If there's a scenario that wants the GM to use non-Core assumption rules, the scenario WILL say so. Otherwise, the GM has no reason to know that there's something they should be looking up.
The new Guide to Organized Play gives some basic rules for tech items for season 6. It doesn't talk about the DC of identifying tech items or robots. Thus, if the rules aren't the same as identifying any other construct (knowledge: arcana with a DC of 15 + CR, since they're such rare "creatures"), then the scenario needs to explicitly say so.
Rhapsodic College Dropout wrote:
I use Grease on giants to great effect. Target their massive weapons, and its a Reflex save every round until it drops and it stays coated for quite awhile. Use Heightened Grease if you really want to make it stick.
This is incorrect. This is actually a very common misconception about Grease, but I just recently learned that I've been playing it wrong all along.
If Grease is cast on an attended item, and the creature holding that item makes the initial saving throw, then the item doesn't get greased. Thus, there are no subsequent saving throws to see if they drop the item each round after the first.
That said, Grease is still a decent option against giants, just not quite as powerful as RCD thought.
You draw the line at the point that it's intentionally deceitful.
Ok, I didn't realize you were talking about druid specific domains from Ultimate Magic.
Nefreet's post covers it. Clerics and inquisitors in PFS must have a legal deity, and choose their domains from those offered by the deity, and none of the deities offer those druid domains. So this doesn't work in PFS.
Paladins aren't about technicalities. They're about doing what's right at all times.
Being honorable includes being honest. That doesn't just mean technically avoid lies. It also means not being deceitful with truthful words.
Of course, they don't necessarily have to answer every question. In Anguish's example of a beasty looking for a little kid to eat, the paladin's answer should be "Be gone, evil fiend! Look elsewhere for your meal, unless you plan to attack me!"
Umm, no. I don't know this Might and Magic stuff, because I've never been much of a video gamer, but I just googled it, and I played AD&D 1st edition with lasers and robots before that video game. Deusvalt already provided the link, above.
Adding a "me too" here.
I once GMed a 9 year old girl at a convention. She was a bit overly bloodthirsty, apparently wanting more of a hack and slash game, but a lot of adults are the same way. Overall, it was fun having her at the table.
Jane "The Knife" wrote:
Been there, done that. GMed a couple playing sibling rogues through an adventure that actually had an animated chair, so they flanked it together. The back stab puns ran wild.
Of course, this also reminds me of Gamers: Dorkness Rising: "You can't backstab a book!" "It's got a spine, doesn't it?"
This year's seasonal "theme" is on the nation of Numeria, which includes a crashed spaceship known as the Silver Mount. Two of the new scenarios that debuted at GenCon tied into this directly, and one of those has a laser on the chronicle sheet with very limited ammo.
My level 7 sorcerer thinks physical weapons are beneath him, (but so are direct damage spells), but as a gnome, he's too curious about this "technic stuff" not to try it. I might buy the laser for him, as the first weapon he's ever owned. If I do, when I pull it out while playing, I would definitely describe it without mentioning it's name. But then, I'm also likely to waste the ammo on things like starting campfires instead of using it against enemies.
Chris Mortika wrote:
My problem with this is multi-day conventions. If someone bought one shirt and hoped to use it every time they play PFS, you're saying they have to wear the same shirt multiple days in a row. That's a problem.
I can see not allowing someone to just pull the shirt out of a bag when they need the re-roll. But if someone prominently displays the shirt without actually wearing it (draped over the back of their chair, or their backpack next to the table, etc), I think that should always be enough.
Ok, I think you're right. The dagger didn't do anything. I think Belkar did actually stab Durkon, go overboard, and get hauled back in by Roy. The suddenness of it just seemed like a pyschic flash or something, but looking at the last panel, he's walking back in on V, who is sitting in a different position than when s/he gave B the knife (and the cat is done eating).
From the blog post introducing the change:
Beginning on August 14th, creating an aasimar or tiefling character will require a special Chronicle sheet
I'd say the "beginning on" wording is pretty clear - August 13 is the actual deadline to play a grandfathered outsider without a boon.
It should be noted that the same wording was used for not needing a boon for kitsune, wayang, and nagaji PCs, which makes sense, since they want people to be able to start playing them tomorrow at GenCon.
So... what time zone are you in? It's still August 13 somewhere, right? :P
I'd say Core Rulebook and Advanced Players Guide are the core books that define the game, and everyone should have them.
Beyond that, it greatly depends on what type of PC you're playing. Ultimate Equipment, Advanced Race Guide, Inner Sea Magic, and Seeker of Secrets would probably be the next on my list.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The fact is, yes, morality is absolute.
You know, I really want to just walk away and not start a philosophy debate that could easily go on for thousands of posts (and thousands of years!), but I just can't let this one go.
No, morality is not absolute. Different societies have different values, and morality changes over time. The only absolute in the universe is change.
But eating a dragon that has higher intelligence and wisdom than most PCs is acceptable, because the creature's not a biped? No, I honestly don't understand why eating a humanoid is considered more taboo than eating other sentient creatures.
And again, I've been trying to avoid crossing the line into real world ethical debates, but as long as I've crossed it already, I may as well throw this out there too. Even in the real world, I don't consider cannibalism evil. Killing is clearly evil, and not respecting a person or their family's wishes for what to do with their body once they die is disrespectful. But if there were a society whose funeral practices involved eating the remains of the dead, you'd call it evil? Why? It might be unsafe, and many of us would consider it gross, but I don't see it as evil. It's a cultural taboo, not an absolute moral standard.
I'm a vegetarian in the real world because I refuse to kill (or pay others to kill) innocent animals that have enough sentience to want to live, feel pain and fear, and have any sort of emotions or personality. And I've had enough pets in my life to know that even birdbrains like chickens have unique personalities and emotions. In game terms, I disagree with killing anything with an intelligence score, even if that int score is only 1 or 2. But once an animal's already dead, it doesn't matter to me what happens to their body. The act of eating them isn't what I consider morally wrong - it's the act of killing them that I have a problem with.
Every time I GM The Disappeared, I want to play the Mission Impossible theme song and use this line.
"Should you or any of your team be caught or killed, the Society will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This Venture-Captain will self-destruct in five seconds."
Victor Zajic wrote:
Just because paladins can't lie, it doesn't mean they have to volunteer information.