Moral of the story: Enlarge Person is awesome for adding reach or increasing damage on a strength based, medium sized melee combatant. It's a debuff on just about anyone else.
Reverse that for Reduce Person. It's a debuff for strength based melee types, but the dex and AC bonuses make it a buff worth having for everyone else.
You've obviously never had Chicago style stuffed pizza. And I'm not talking the fake "deep dish" stuff that you see all over America. I'm talking the real stuff, with 3 inch tall slices.
But when it comes to New York style pizza, I wholeheartedly agree.
Ok, now you've got me craving pizza, even though I'm on a diet. I already know that's the first thing I'm going to eat in June (dieting through the end of May).
Actually, your first sentence is not entirely true.
From the cleric section of the Core Rulebook:
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
So good clerics can't cast evil spells, and evil clerics can't cast good spells.
But your final sentence explains why that doesn't matter for the cure/inflict spells. They aren't good or evil, so any cleric can cast them.
I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but my personal belief is that the current system is ok, so don't change it.
But ideally, I'd like to see the current system adjusted so that people who play up only get a percentage of the extra cash from doing so. While those who play down only lose a percentage of the reward. Thus, it'll be like it is now, but with less extreme swings for playing up or down.
My PFS Lavode De'Morcaine wrote:
I really don't have much to add, other than to say that these two quoted posts give a pretty good explanation of why I think the proposed "fix" to take place this summer is worse than the current "problem".
And again, too many people are trying to cause conflicts where none necessarily need to exist.
Paladins may be required by their class to seek out the destruction of all undead, but that doesn't mean they're required to have impulse control problems that make them attack on sight. The Core Rulebook listing for paladins specifically says that working with evil in the short term for the greater good is allowed. And if the paladin who has sworn allegiance to the Pathfinder Society, and is trying to influence the Society to do more good in the world (usually Silver Crusade, but doesn't have to be), then completing Society missions counts as the greater good.
If my paladin was ever assigned to work with a necromancer who animated corpses, she'd complain about it and swear to smite the undead after the mission is over, but she'd grudgingly agree to work with the necromancer and "unholy thing" for the duration of the mission. It would be a fun role playing opportunity, with no out of character conflict. Why are some of you trying to make it a bigger issue than it needs to be?
Bill Kirsch wrote:
So getting 100 times the response to their kickstarter than what they were expecting isn't a valid reason in your mind for it to take longer to ship everything? There's no way anyone could have predicted that this would end up being the 3rd largest kickstarter of all time. They really didn't see it coming, and as someone who spent over a decade in the mail order industry, I know how overwhelming that type of sudden increase in business can be. I've seen several mail order companies go out of business from growing too fast like this! Remember the .com crash 10 years ago?
From what I've seen they're handling the sudden, unexpected 100,000% increase in business at least as well as any other company in the entire history of the mail order industry.
Ironically, I could see it as fairly easy for an Oracle. As Eric rightly pointed out, clerics are the priests/Rabbi's/whatever who are tied to the minutia of a religion while Oracles are the Prophets whose followers create the minutia about them after they're dead...and become clerics.
Oracles are just like non-divine classes when it comes to their religion. They don't have to be a worshiper of the deity that gives them their power. In fact, they don't even have to know which deity it is.
My battle oracle, Gorjo, thinks he was cursed by devils, because he has the tongues curse and can only speak Infernal in battle. In actual fact, it was Iomedae who cursed him. She knew that left alone, he would grow up to be some minor village warrior, living out an uneventful life where he accomplished little of consequence. But cursing him in such a way got him chased out of his home village, and he instead grew up to see the world and become an adventurer. Now, he fights the forces of evil, as she intended for him, but he still think that the curse that ruined his life came from devils, which is actually why he hates devils so much and wants to hunt them all down and kill them.
But back on the original topic, I think changing religion for a PC who doesn't get a mechanical benefit from their religion should always be allowed. But for divine characters who are required to have a patron deity (clerics, inquisitors, paladins), their identity is tied too closely to their religion. If they became an ex-cleric of their starting religion, I would expect them to have to start over in a new religion, not be able to pick up at the level where they left off.
Maybe they'll do a followup 9 months later called "The Blackros Progeny".
Nope. I don't care if the int is 7, 14, or 18. If the PCs are stuck in the adventure because they can't figure out a puzzle, they can roll an int check. I've used this mechanic before, and usually someone in the group succeeds at the check and keeps the adventure moving along.
As an example, from the last time I ran The Disappeared:
The group missed the "vent" hint in the note and room description, which brought the adventure to a screeching halt. I had them all roll int checks, and when someone rolled high, I pointed out the clues to them so they'd be more obvious. This was enough to get things back on track.
I have a friend with a LN Chelaxian inquisitor of Asmodius in PFS. His favorite line is "The innocent have nothing to fear. Of course, no one is truly innocent."
Yeah, I keep reading on these boards that healing in combat is a waste of time, and I don't know where that comes from.
I'll agree that some people (especially those playing clerics who think their only role is heal-bot) tend to heal every little wound in combat, when they'd be better off doing something to prevent more wounds - either attacking the enemies directly, buffing the party, etc. But not having in combat healing could easily be lethal. I've seen quite a few PCs saved by someone healing them while the rest of the party dealt with the threat.
And I've never played at a PFS table that doesn't have any in combat healing. More than half my PCs can use a wand of CLW, and I'll make a point of playing one of those characters if nobody else in the party can use one. It may not be ideal healing, but it gets the job done most of the time. As a GM, I can't recall ever having a party with no healing, either.
I'll toss in my two silver's worth (inflation).
I agree that some of the faction missions we've seen in the past have been annoyingly specific things sent by omniscient faction leaders, and they tend to derail the main mission as people constantly ask if they spot the teapot or the woman with the hidden broach. I think we can all agree that eliminating generic "find the MacGuffin" type of faction missions, or at least limiting their frequency, is mostly a good thing.
And the season 4 faction goals as a way of replacing them is a step in a good direction, I think. But I really dislike how those have been implemented in season 4. I have characters in every faction now. I had 7 or 8 when season 4 started. I don't remember what all those seasonal faction goals are, and I almost always forget to use them when playing season 4 scenarios. The communication of getting a letter at the start of the season might be a fun one time thing, but expecting us to remember the details and use them in game 6 months later just doesn't work. I need a reminder at the start of my current session, or it just isn't happening.
Which brings me to my main point. I think having seasonal goals along the lines of the season 4 goals is a good idea, but I don't want to see faction handouts in every adventure go away. How about a compromise? Give us faction handouts in every scenario, which lets everyone (especially new players) have a steady connection to their faction leader, and helps with immersion in the faction system. But instead of specific "find the MacGuffin" missions, those handouts can just be reminders of the overall faction goals, both generally and seasonal, maybe with relevant scenario-specific information as appropriate.
For instance, Andorans would be reminded every scenario to free any slaves they meet, even if there aren't any in that specific scenario. Or if they're in a city where slavery is legal and common, they may need to be told not be overzealous, because they could get themselves in trouble. Silver Crusaders would be reminded to be kind to strangers, not kill anyone unless they have to, and help keep their party alive (all three of which are specific Silver Crusade missions I've gotten in the past), even if there's not something specific in that scenario that ties into those things. And there would also be reminders about the season-specific goals. If the member of the faction happened to find a way to advance of their faction specific stuff in a scenario, then they could earn their second prestige that way. Otherwise, they could still get it just by being a good Pathfinder, as proposed by the campaign leadership in the blog and podcast. More options is a good thing, especially if players don't actually know which option will be available in a specific scenario, so they have to get creative and really think.
Also, one thing I didn't like that was mentioned in the podcast last week was that the change to the faction missions would be retroactive, so people playing season 0-4 scenarios would no longer get the faction missions for those scenarios. I don't like that, either. While some of the older ones are mildly weird or annoying, there are also a lot of fun, memorable moments in those older faction missions. Who here can't look back on "I do this for Taldor!" and laugh? Anyone who played The Disappeared with a Silver Crusader at the table got to see them practically fall over laughing as they read their faction mission. And in some cases, the faction missions actually did tie in very closely to the main storyline (Qadira and Taldor missions in The Dalsine Affair, I'm looking at you). Do we want new players of those scenarios to miss out on those moments? I'd rather keep the bad with the good and keep all the older faction missions, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water.
This is pretty much what I'm sensing, too. I saw a couple of PC deaths, though not a huge number, in earlier season scenarios. In season 4, I'm seeing a lot more, especially in the higher tier adventures. Actually, my level 8 cleric is starting to believe she's cursed, since she's seen 7 different PCs die (including herself once) in the last 4 missions the Society has sent her on.
Personally, I've reached 2 stars as a GM without ever killing a PC. I've let a couple off easy when I could have killed them, because I didn't want to scare away newbies. Not by fudging dice rolls or anything, just with borderline rules calls. But the only season 4 scenarios I've GMed are The Disappeared (the easiest of season 4 from a combat perspective) and Rise of the Goblin Guild, which was a little tough, but not ultra-lethal.
The OP may have read the posts with people saying to leave the game, but obviously doesn't "get it", or we wouldn't still be having this conversation. Sometimes, people refuse to accept the truth, but that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't point it out, or should play along with their delusion.
The only correct answer here is "Get away from this abusive relationship". All other advice given in this thread is just plain wrong.
Well, you can always start GMing and bring an adventure with you to GM on short notice if necessary. Then, the next time you're at a 7 player table, you can offer to be a second GM to split the party into two groups. That will give you a GM, 3 players, and a pregen at each table.
I don't recall ever seeing a Silver Crusade mission to kill anyone. In fact, SC missions tend to be boring platitudes, rather than actual missions. I've actually gotten "Don't kill anyone unless you have to", "Be nice to strangers", and "Don't let any of your allies die" as SC faction missions. I actually failed that last one...
Andoran, on the other hand, firmly believes in killing every slaver. And my Andoren freedom fighter who was born into slavery in Cheliax doesn't have a problem with that.
I have been a little surprised that the Sczarni missions have been so mild, other than the one from Sewer Dragons of Absalom, which is more what I'd have expected from them.
Seth Gipson wrote:
Agreed that subtier 1-2 is tough for this stuff. There are some adventures that are fine for a party of level 2 players, but too tough if everyone is level 1 (especially with just starting 150 gp worth of eq). Others are just right for level 1 noobs, but boring for level 2 PCs.
I agree with the earlier suggestion that 1-5 subtiers could be divided better as 1, 2-3, and 4-5. Or if that's too many subtiers for a single adventure, maybe they could start doing some 1-3 adventures with subtiers of 1 and 2-3. Or 2-6 adventures broken up by 2-3 and 5-6, so that level 1s wouldn't get stuck in adventures that are too tough for them.
Or at the very least, a disclaimer on some adventures that the subtier 1-2 might be too tough for a party of only level 1 PCs would be useful. There are plenty of 1-2 scenarios that would be fine for all noobs, but this is one of those that clearly isn't.
I had a fun weekend at MegaCon. Most of the best lines came from the tables I was GMing, rather than the ones where I played.
My first session, I had a little girl who was maybe 8 or 9 years old playing an archer ranger and just wanting to go around shooting everything. At one point, they're trying to break into a warehouse in broad daylight on a busy city street, with a guard sitting on a barrel right outside. After explaining that starting a fight in the middle of the city might attract unwanted attention, she responded with such great lines as "It's not a fight if I just use an arrow" and "But he's asking for it. He's sitting on a barrel." That kid was hilarious, and young enough that she didn't understand why.
From a different adventure, and I won't give any details. The line speaks for itself:
"The chair attacks you."
I think it's time for me to write a full review of a scenario for the first time.
I enjoyed this one when I played it. When I was looking at the schedule for MegaCon, I intentionally picked this to run multiple times, so I could get away with only doing prep work once and run it multiple times.
Now that I've GMed it twice, this is my absolute favorite PFS scenario. Given that I've probably played more than half of them, that's saying something.
Just a quick recap now, and I'll post more later:
1. The phrase "elephant in the room" took on a whole new meaning when a druid literally had her medium sized elephant companion march through the center of the grand ballroom as a distraction.
And two recommendations for GMs on this one:
1. Ignore the first paragraph of the intro box text. Just skip the "You think back to your mission briefing" and start with the PCs in the mission briefing with Ambrus Valsin saying that the paracountess doesn't exist. Then, give them time to buy supplies before the evening's infiltration. That first paragraph of him saying that is exactly what you need to grab their attention at the start of the session.
This just came up at one of my sessions at MegaCon. A druid wanted to bring her elephant animal companion (still young enough to be medium sized) to a fancy party where they were trying to sneak in undetected. I gave her the "You can do that, BUT..." speech to warn her that it might stand out like an... elephant in the room.
She decorated it.
That's right. She decorated it. She put streamers and stuff all over her elephant companion, then told it to march right through the center of the grand ballroom, thus serving as a distraction so the rest of the party would go unnoticed.
I was so stunned by the creative solution that I didn't even think to ask for a disguise check on it. I just gave them a bonus to their checks for the brilliant distraction and moved on.
Just got home. Was well worth the trip down from Chicago! Thanks to everyone for making it such a wonderful weekend!
And just for the record, Beasy in a dress wasn't the only elephant in the room this weekend. I GMed one scenario where one of my players literally brought an elephant (animal companion) to a fancy party!
Andrew Christian wrote:
They may do the same damage when cast at 9th level, but a 5th level caster gets 5d6 from snowball and only 3d4+3 from magic missile. Snowball would already be the best single target 1st level direct damage spell in the game just from that. Add in the possibility of staggering people, that it ignores SR, and that it works well with metamagic feats (unlike magic missile), and it's a pretty clear case of power creep.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Any GM that forces a pregen death to apply to an active PC, rather than letting the player create a new dead character in a coffin, is violating the "Don't be a jerk" rule.
Wow. This conversation has gone on WAY too long.
From page 5 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play:
Is HeroLab a physical copy of a Paizo book?Is HeroLab a name-watermarked Paizo PDF?
Is HeroLab a printout of the relevant pages from the book?
I really don't see why Mike Brock needed to clarify this, but the fact that he did is just the exclamation point on an already pretty clear statement.
Speaking of our local group, the one guy who most needs a copy of the stuff you were handing out actually showed up late on Monday, so I don't think he got a copy. Remind me next week to make sure he gets them, even if he's late.
Speaking of the laptop/tablet debate, that same player came to my table with his character on his laptop, not printed on paper, and then didn't turn it on. When I asked about it, he said the laptop wasn't working, but I should trust him because he remembers all the details. There aren't many players I'd trust to play their PC entirely from memory (not even myself!), and this guy is especially not one of them. So I made him play a pregen.
But I do agree that it's pretty silly these days for anyone to forbid laptops/tablets altogether. I definitely prefer paper character sheets, but I own too many books to carry them with me to every game. This is especially true since I have a bunch of characters and often decide at game time which one I'll play, so I need to bring the books that apply to all of them.
Since it's fairly relevant, I'd appreciate it if people would FAQ this post. It's trying to get to the bottom of whether "cast" means just spells or includes SLAs. There's a lot of funktastic corner cases there.
Clicked and requested FAQ. Also, I clicked the FAQ button on the first post of this thread. Everyone join in!
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
For something like this, I'd think a description of what was happening that he had to save against might be in order. ie "Your axe vibrates harshly from the clanging against the enemy's armor. You begin to suspect that the armor has some sort of magic that is affecting your weapon."
Similarly, when I'm GMing a spellcaster attacking the party, I'll give them a verbal description of what happened when they make a save against a spell. For instance:
GM: "The enemy wizard casts some sort of spell while looking right at you. Give me a will save."
Funky Badger wrote:
Unfortunately, this only works if you make a bluff check to get him to hold the sheet up to his face. On the up side, it sounds like this guy's wisdom and sense motive could be pretty low.
But as for the topic at hand, I've seen a lot of things that borderline qualify as PVP in PFS. I've seen dominated PCs making lethal attacks against their allies, who then fight back lethally. I've seen the wimpy, low strength party witch in the back of the group try to grapple our feared cleric to keep her from running away after she failed a will save vs a fear affect. Then there are those instances of area of effect spells being used with an ally inside the fireball blast zone - usually with permission from the affected PC, but should the party fighter really be able to stop the wizard from using his most effective weapon by rushing into battle too soon?
The most obvious that's actually required by the game is a sleight of hand check oppposed by other party members' perceptions to complete a faction mission. Does that count as PVP?
As far as I'm concerned, players shouldn't be fighting to the death, but a non-lethal combat maneuver or some minor friendly fire is fair game, as long as there's a good reason behind it.
This wasn't a mistake. This is a change from something that was fully intentional.
He intentionally left his ethnicity blank because of conflicting references in Paizo books about which ethnicity was appropriate for his character concept. Now that a book has been published which gives a definite answer, he wants to use that answer. Again, he's not exactly "gaming the system".
Anyway, I'm done here. Mike Brock gave his answer, and I explained why I disagree. No point continuing to debate it.
Mystic Lemur wrote:
Or instead of a list, maybe scenarios could list identification DC (and knowledge skill, because sometimes we have to think about it) as part of the monster stats. That way, the Paizo staff could designate certain monsters common enough for PCs to be more likely to have heard of them.
If you're the GM, just tell your players that you'll design the challenges around what they can handle, so they don't have to go the most optimized route to be effective. Let them know that they aren't going to get creamed if they go with a flavorful, creative option that isn't as effective as the optimized choices.
Also, maybe prevent dump stats or set a maximum starting stat, to encourage more balanced stats, instead of min-maxing.
I can understand why the bard doesn't always get one. For the same reason a sorcerer or magus doesn't. It's not a defining characteristic of the class.
But I can see what you're saying - there should be a bard archetype that grants a familiar in exchange for something else. Dirge bards should get a raven that says "Nevermore". Buccaneer bards should get a parrot. Archaeologist bards should get a Tien child named Short Round.
As for Eldritch Heritage, are there any bloodlines besides arcane that grant familiars? I know another path for a sorcerer who wants a familiar is the Tattooed archetype. Any other bloodlines that do it, though?