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

Fromper's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 4,987 posts (5,269 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 16 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, he's definitely turning his head around to look over his shoulder, and the shield is still strapped to his back. Compare to the previous panel, where he's standing behind the tiger, facing the the ship.

And yeah, that cat does seem to be an animal companion these days, while the tiger is just a pet.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
Anyway, Durkula wasted time... If he knew the location he could just say that he received sending from high priest with the information and coordinates and convince the party to go to get help in their mission... Sense Motive isn't the party's strong suit, vampires get a racial bonus, and Roy wants to believe him anyway.

Roy would have bought it, but Belkar's already suspicious, and Haley's constantly telling everyone else to grow a Sense Motive, so I think she might have been suspicious, too. With someone other than Belkar calling him out on it, that might have been enough to make Roy and V stop and wonder, instead of just playing along.

By Durkula leaving himself completely out of the equation for how Roy found out, it's far more subtle and easily successful.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How long has Roy's sword had that level of extra detail on the hilt? Also, is the green belt new? I never them noticed before.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:

If Grubwiggler really is a powerful necromancer, you'd think he'd know something about vampires, and also have high enough will saves to avoid vamp hypnosis. My guess is that he'll either 1) blow the lid on Durkula (unlikely) or 2) cut a deal with Durkula to save his own skin and advance Durkula/Hel's agenda (MUCH more likely).

So much for my theory. LOL

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
2) With all this golem-ruckus, we have all overly focussed on Haley and conveniently forgotten about Durkula. I am betting on vampire action in the coming weeks.

Don't even ask about the train of thought that led me to this, but I just had an interesting thought about why Rich may have inserted this side plot at this time.

If Grubwiggler really is a powerful necromancer, you'd think he'd know something about vampires, and also have high enough will saves to avoid vamp hypnosis. My guess is that he'll either 1) blow the lid on Durkula (unlikely) or 2) cut a deal with Durkula to save his own skin and advance Durkula/Hel's agenda (MUCH more likely).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:

Got a weird situation to start this book. My group found the note at Hook Mountain about the attack on Sandpoint at the end of last session, and they've been emailing about how to handle it before next session.

One of the suggestions someone came up with is using magic (Sending) to contact Sandpoint and tell them to evacuate, long before the PCs can get there to repel the invasion. Since they don't currently have any teleportation options, it would be over a week of travel time after the message arrives and before the PCs get there.

So I'm debating how to handle that.

So after all the debate in this thread about how to handle it, this ended up not being an issue. The sorceress took Teleport as a known spell on the level up, though they surprised me by teleporting to Magnimar instead of Sandpoint. They figured it's only a day by horseback between them, so this would give them a little time to sell their loot, get new equipment, and ask the Lord-Mayor of Magnimar for reenforcements.

Then they did a Divination to find out when the attack would be, and realized Magnimar wouldn't have time to assemble an army. They're pretty much on their own, plus Sandpoint's militia and a couple of NPCs who may be a little useful, just as the AP intended. I gave them a day for travel to Sandpoint before the attack will happen, but they decided to teleport that morning instead of riding horses, so they'll have a full day in Sandpoint to prepare for battle and evacuate as many civilians as possible.

So next session, they'll arrive in Sandpoint, prep for battle, and the attack will begin!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
baron arem heshvaun wrote:
My Gold on the Necromancer dying again.

Is he actually a necromancer? He makes golems, not undead.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

Quick question about the Skull Ripper and the order of operation with grapples and the behead ability.

So:

Round 1) Hit with claw, do claw damage, make grapple check, success, do constrict damage.

Round 2) Maintain grapple as a standard action, success, apply pinned condition, do constrict damage and claw damage.

Round 3) Maintain grapple as a standard action, success, continue pin, do constrict and claw damage, do behead special ability.

Does this sound right?

Yep. Looks right. The attack is "made as part of a grapple check to maintain an existing pin", so it doesn't get to do it 'til round 3.

Too bad. It's nice and gruesome, and I'm sure the look on your players' faces would be priceless...

Yeah, even when it fails, it's scary. When I ran it a few weeks ago, I got the party paladin down to 2 HP on the behead attempt, and my description of it trying to rip his head off had them all in a panic to kill the thing THAT ROUND before it could try that again. Of course, it was already heavily damaged by then, too, so they did manage to kill it and free the pally before he died, but that sense that it was a tough fight that they barely overcame before another party member was killed made it lots of fun.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently, she still has some dexterity.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd call this confirmation that it's Bozzok. That storyline is definitely back, in a very unexpected way.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

The scariest part of my driving lifetime: I got sent to Boston to run a training course. Everyone told me not to drive. I drove around anyway. I felt right at home.

Don't underestimate the San Francisco Bay Area for aggressive driving!

(I felt out-and-out bad driving in Chicago. The drivers were so timid I felt like a bully.)

EDIT: To avoid further derails I'll just add here: Yes, Captain Yesterday, I also dislike Chicago. I got sent there many, many times. I have a friend who teaches at the university there and tried to show me the "best of Chicago". I still don't get it. Just seems like a dingy, unfriendly, uninteresting city. I'm sure natives will pipe up with things to do there. But after visiting it around a dozen times, I also have no idea why anyone willingly lives there. There's got to be SOMETHING there that's nice... my friend just didn't manage to find it for me...
Ottawa, on the other hand, is a true hidden jewel...

I love living in Chicago. It has all the advantages of a big city (tons of good restaurants, museums, live music, summer festivals, public transportation, more Pathfinder groups than I can count, etc), with a friendlier midwestern attitude than most big cities. And as mentioned, the drivers here are pretty tame compared to what I'm used to (just moved here from Florida two years ago).

Worst drivers: Florida. And the further south you go in the state, the worse they get. Miami drivers are just downright scary, and that's coming from someone who learned to drive and spent 2/3 of my life living in the 2 counties just north of there. I was amazed when I first discovered that as bad as the drivers are in Broward and Palm Beach counties, they're actually MUCH worse in Miami.

Back on topic, I've found that most of the maps for Runelords don't quite fit on a single flip mat. You can tell that Paizo started publishing those 24x30 blank mats after they published this adventure path, because there are so many 26x32 maps in the adventure, which I'm assuming was some sort of standard size at the time. As mentioned by someone else above, I just broke Thistletop into two sections, separated by the bridge in between.

But now we're up to Hook Mountain Massacre, and that Fort Rannick map is just huge, if you try and give them the overall map with the exterior, moat, outer wall, courtyard, and all inner buildings. I have a big rollout map (48x36), and I was thinking of using that and just telling them that each square is 10 feet instead of the usual 5. But combat might not occur there, depending on how they handle it, or only in certain sections, so I may refrain from drawing it and just draw small sections as needed when we play that part.

I'm also worried about the start of the 4th book, with all of Sandpoint becoming a giant battleground. Not sure how I'll handle that.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what do you think Belkar will do with that Protection from Evil clasp? Slap it on the vampire? Or sell it to someone else in the party and claim he intentionally picked it up just for them?

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Looks like Belkar's still evil... but maybe starting to grow a conscience.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dun dun DUN!!!

So we're starting to see Durkula's angle in visiting the temples. I'm sure we'll see soon what it is he's really after.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:

One of my players (an archery focused ranger) took the campaign trait that says he came to Sandpoint specifically to hunt the Sandpoint Devil. Since they're level 8 now, just leaving Sandpoint to head east to Hook Mountain, I'm thinking it would be about right for a random encounter in the wilderness at this level.

So... funny story. I decided to just go with it tonight. They were in Sandpoint for just one night on their way east from Magnimar to Turtleback Ferry, so I had a farmer report spotting the Sandpoint Devil, and they went out hunting. With two rangers in the group now that Shalelu joined, they were easily able to track it to the Devil's Platter and confront it.

First round, Shalelu wins initiative, rapid shots, and only one arrow hits, for 4 points of damage after DR.

Next comes the devil, and it howls at them (its bay ability). EVERY SINGLE PARTY MEMBER, including horses and an animal companion, misses the save, except for the paladin, who ironically rolled high enough but would have been immune regardless.

So they and their horses run away in a panic. I decided the devil had just eaten a cow that night, so it wasn't particularly hungry, and didn't bother chasing them down. They decided not to try again immediately (the paladin and ranger who really wanted to hunt it got voted down), but they promised to come back and try again after they're higher level.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Latrecis wrote:
Strange juxtaposition - your post references Local Heroes. Nothing heroic in what happened in that hotel room.

Or accidental, from the sounds of it.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

New update: Craft Wondrous Bauble

Best zinger V's ever gotten on Blackwing. Luckily, Blackwing was too distracted to notice.

Lot of good little details on this one. Love the hat stores in the first panel, and the fact that the gnome's standing on an elevated platform, which is why he's almost V's height.

Silver Crusade ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jayson MF Kip wrote:

A memo to Clerics: Prepare [i]Remove Fear[/]. Even just one.

Being able to keep the heavily armored meleer in the front despite his/her sub-5 Will Save is worth the price of admission.

It doesn't come up often to be a prepared spell, but I'd agree that it's a good scroll to have.

While we're on the subject, all spellcasters should carry scrolls of at least 10 times as many spells as their character level. If you're level 1 and played your first adventure, then you've got at least 400 gp to spend on level 1 scrolls for 25 gp each. By level 5, you can easily have scrolls of 40 or 50 different "utility" type spells that aren't worth having as prepared spells, but could be useful to have around once in a while. Comprehend Languages should be near the top of that list for almost any casting class.

And if any non-caster wants a buff spell cast on them, bring your own scrolls, potions, and/or wands.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Magic makes sense. What she does defies the natural order." LOL

The real question is why she didn't go in first.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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).

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The FAQ forgets to mention that you can only do this if you rename your dead pregen to Doorknob McDeadGuy.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.
2. Have something else you can do in combat when #1 isn't an option.
3. Pick a specialty out of 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:

Barbarian
1. Melee monster (obvious stuff like high strength, high con, Power Attack, rage powers for more melee power, etc).
2. Composite longbow and alchemist's fires
3. Diplomacy, believe it or not. I took a trait to make it a class skill, and kept it maxed out. I was rarely the main party face, but I was able to contribute in most conversations and aid another for the main face consistently.

Tattooed Fey Sorcerer
1. Enchantment spells, boosted by the bloodline's +2 bonus on compulsion spells, knowing some of those spells, and eventual Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus.
2. Evocation, boosted by the Varisian Tattoo, and I took Magic Missile from level 1, with more damage spells later. This way, I have offense against things without minds.
3. Social skills (obvious choice for a charisma based caster).

Gnome Prankster Bard
1. Debuff things with minds using intimidation, Mock bardic performance, and debuff spells.
2. Inspire Courage, Wand of Cure Light Wounds, crossbow. Coming up with what this guy can do in battle against mindless enemies was tougher than building most of my other characters. Still picking up the occasional spell here and there that will give me something else useful to do in battle against mindless foes.
3. Skill monkey, especially on face skills and bardic knowledge, but also has others.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:


I don't think it's a special exception to ask which fighter weapon group a weapon belongs to. There have always been weapons that weren't listed in the groups (halfling sling staff, fauchard, lucerne hammer, etc.), but no one has ever suggested that these weapons can't benefit from fighter's weapon training just because they were introduced after the CRB.
The problem is you're asking in the wrong place. The PFS section is not the place for asking for rule variation or clarification, that should be in the general Pathfinder Rules forum with a FAQ request so that it can be served appropriately.

As I mentioned in the first post in the thread, I think the wording in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Equipment about "GMs may add other weapons to these groups" IS the official rules answer. That's why this is a PFS specific question. It's up to Mike Brock and John Compton, as the lead GMs for this campaign, to make that determination for weapons in PFS.

And until they do, I'll avoid making my character and potentially facing table variation. But I know I'm not the only one wondering about this. It's not exactly a critical question, so I don't expect this to be their top priority, but hopefully, it won't take too long for us to get some sort of response.

Thanks to everyone who clicked the FAQ button on the first post - that was the main point of the thread.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's actually much better now than it was earlier in the day.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it just me, or has all of Paizo.com been extra slow today? I'm not noticing this problem on other web sites, so it doesn't seem to be my internet connection.

Silver Crusade ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*pulls out the rolled up newspaper*

BAD NOSIG!!! BAD!!!

Silver Crusade ***

41 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

This has been asked several times before, and nobody at Paizo has responded.

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.

Silver Crusade ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Carpe DM! Seize the Dungeon Master!

Silver Crusade ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Definitely identifying a weakness in the vamp, but I don't know how that would qualify as a plan. It'll definitely come up later, though.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Woran wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Start by downloading the free Guide to Organized Play and reading that. It'll tell you what you need to know to build a character - point buy, legal races, starting gold, etc.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"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.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So... eidolons are only good at tanking starting at level 2, not 1, and it's ALWAYS been that way in every version, not just PFS, and that's your definition of a nerf???

Given all the complaints about summoners being overpowered, I'll just say, "Yes, they're still viable", and leave it at that.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prethen wrote:
Perhaps the player will chime in here, but I've run and played with a character who has a Wand of Obscuring Mist and he wears a Goz mask (allowing him to freely see through any such obscurity) and uses the combination quite liberally causing all sorts of grief for the bad guys. It's a very clever combination and very powerful in certain situations.

Not really relevant for this thread, but I use a similar trick with one of my characters.

I have a race boon for a Sylph, so I made a Sky Druid with the Weather domain and the Cloud Gazer feat that lets me see through clouds (even magical ones). So I get Obscuring Mist and Fog Cloud as my first two domain spells, and I can see through them, right from level 1, no equipment necessary.

I figure this is a great way for a casting focused druid to stay out of trouble. Just sit in the back hiding in a cloud (not even standing at ground level once I hit level 5, since the archetype will let me fly) and cast stuff at the enemies who can't find me to fight back. I've only played the character once so far, and actually didn't get a chance to do this yet, but I figure it'll come up a lot in this character's adventuring career.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
the customer doesn't pay your mistakes" is like "the customer is always right": a blatant falsehood that ignores how running a business actually works in exchange for creating a sense of entitlement.
The customer is always right - except when he's wrong. :-)

Not Always Right

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone 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.

Silver Crusade ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Jiggy wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
i keep seeing people say that bad players have used paladins as a crutch for bad things, and that it isn't the classes fault, but i don't see a game mechanics difference between this argument and the argument against evil characters.
The difference is that with paladins, you have to either be wrong about how the class works or be intentionally disruptive in order for it to be a problem; whereas with evil PCs, the simple act of playing a genuinely evil PC (or similar banned options) can cause issues all on its own.

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.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, check out this web site.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Durkula is using puns - he really is pure evil!!!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Puna'chong wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
David_Bross wrote:
I GMed first steps the other day for 3 barbarians and 2 level 1 pregens who were new players to PFS. The barbarians made the rest of the table somewhat moot...

How many GMs are seeing a lot of PCs making level 1 barbarians that suddenly morph into something completely different upon reaching level 2? As some form of "my concept isn't good at level 1, so this Barbarian with 2d6+13 Power Attack and 26hp Tribal Scars is what I'm playing until I start my 4th scenario?"

And the same barbarian is then used again by the same player for their next ##,###-? before it morphs again into the "real desired PC". I think I've seen at least 5-6 people do this in the past 6 months now. Technically, they can do this, even if it gets a frown from the GM/coordinator. And, it's very true if 2 or more people are doing this in the same scenario, it really throws off the experience of the subtier 1-2 scenario for everyone involved (by marginalizing their respective contributions).

Now where's that level 4 bard BBEG with a scroll of Dominate when you need them?

Hasn't anyone told these people that skipping 1st level is what GM credit is for?

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say the holy symbols of the major deities should be common knowledge enough for anyone to try untrained, so there's a chance she'd recognize Asmodeus's symbol.

I agree that you overreacted, but at least you didn't kill them, and it sounds like the group had fun, so it's ok.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it should Drandle Dreng as Uncle Sam instead.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

DM Beckett, how do you adjudicate magus NPCs in scenarios?

The Magus class is in the APG and the PRD, neither of which is part of the Core assumption. Rules for magus characters aren't spelled out in the PFS Guide nor the individual scenarios.

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.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Here's the FAQ about this.

That said, Grease is still a decent option against giants, just not quite as powerful as RCD thought.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
blahpers wrote:
In other words, just because you believe the paladin's Code to be flawed does not mean that a paladin need not follow it.
Yes, a Paladin does RAW have to follow it. That doesn't stop it from being stupid, poorly done, or/and arbitrary in places.

RAW: lie: an intentionally false statement

None of my examples above of what a bluff could be are intentionally false.

"What's new, Mr. Paladin?"

"Well, back is out of joint, my genitals itch, I'm getting a minor headache, had diarrhea last night ..."
"Whoa, TMI!"
"Sorry, but if I don't tell you everything, I lose my powers."

rofl.

But you do bring up a good point, if a "lie by omission" is in fact a lie, then where you do draw the line?

You draw the line at the point that it's intentionally deceitful.

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 to 50 of 528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.