|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well, the Death Star hasn't tried to blow up Golarion yet, so I don't think they've gone too far yet.
Though that could make for an interesting Numeria themed adventure path. Not just dealing with the crashed aliens, but finding out there's a planet crushing spaceship/space station on its way to completely wipe out Golarion. The PCs eventually have to teleport on board and stop it before it succeeds.
I don't want to turn this into a huge religious or political discussion, but I have to disagree. Building your paladin to be easily misled is just basing your character in reality. People that blindly follow codes (religious and political zealots) are, by their very definition, lacking in wisdom.
You obviously have no idea what a paladin is, or what a code of conduct is. Following a code isn't the same as blindly following a code. A paladin understands their code of conduct, chooses it because they agree with it, and sees it as a way of life, not a limitation.
Let me put it to you this way: Have you ever committed murder? Why not? Because you were afraid of getting caught, or because it's not something you'd ever genuinely want to do? That's how a paladin feels about their code of conduct.
It's not a limitation, and they don't follow it because they have to. Following it is just who they are. And most of them are smart enough to realize that other people don't feel the same way, and won't follow the same code. They aren't required to stop their party members from violating their code, even when they do know that it's happening, so their code shouldn't be a limitation on anyone else in the party, unless the party members want to do blatantly evil things.
I still recommend you read the links I provided in my earlier post. There are some good discussions there, dispelling the myth of the "lawful stupid" paladin. There are also some good paladin behavior threads here on the forums you might want to read, some with really great examples of well played paladins.
And as for your earlier post saying that the "lawful stupid" stereotype comes from somewhere. You're right. It does come from somewhere. It comes from a lot of people like you misunderstanding the class over the years, which is why discussions about this sort of thing are so common.
Tanking wisdom on a paladin does lower your will save, but it doesn't TANK your will save. From the moment you hit level 2 you'll still have a higher will save than any other martial class in the game (except POSSIBLY a ranger, who you'll surpass again a few levels later). Even if the paladin DOES get controlled, he's the least likely to cause party deaths because he can't use his signature ability against good and neutral characters (ie your party).
This part I actually agree with you about. As posted above, I'm planning to dump wisdom on my paladin. I'll still have +4 Will at level 2, which is better than most martial PCs. I may miss out on surprise rounds sometimes, but I accept that as a consequence of my decision.
So let me get this straight. Your assumption about how paladins MUST be played is based on jokes from a movie that makes fun of bad gamer stereotypes??? Did you miss the part where the whole thing is making fun of people who play paladins badly? Just like the sorceress is a joke on guys who play female characters badly, the bard makes fun of people thinking bards are useless, etc. That's the whole point of the movie.
Here are some guides that talk about paladin personalities and how to play them, all of which dismiss the "lawful stupid" stereotype as annoying and unnecessary:
And for truly terrific examples of paladins, how to play (and not play) them well with different personalities, check out The Order of The Stick, which deals with the topic wonderfully. Keep going through the entire thing, at least until the storylines with the paladins end (somewhere around page 700, IIRC). And once again, much humor is found in ripping the "lawful stupid" stereotype to shreds, while in this case, they simultaneously present examples of other paladins with varying and interesting personalities who aren't like that.
And after all that, I think I'll save my mechanical questions/comments for another post.
Everyone keeps talking about aid another in combat.
In my experience, it gets used a LOT more in skill checks. I play PFS, so I'm dealing with different players at the table every week, and I can't remember a session when we didn't use aid another at least 10 times on skill checks. With 3-5 people trying to help the main skill guy succeed at something, even if only half of them succeed at hitting DC 10, you'll get anywhere from +2 to +10 on the skill check.
The article probably should have mentioned the Bodyguard feat, not to mention the Halfling Opportunist prestige class, who gets more aid from others than the normal +2, regardless of who's aiding them. I have a dex based Halfling Opportunist with the Helpful trait, and he already has Combat Reflexes for normal reasons. I'll take Bodyguard for him as soon as I have a spare feat (might not be until level 11).
I'm currently planning a dwarf fighter based on all the cool toys in the Advanced Race Guide (and not much else):
1. Foehammer archetype - gives up the fighter Armor Training that doesn't help dwarves as much as other races in favor of more hammer-focused stuff, including bonuses to bull rush and trip.
It's probably not going to be the strongest, most uber-optimized front liner around, but you can easily start with 17 strength, boosted to 18 at level 4, plus Power Attack, on a 2d6 weapon with full BAB. The fact that you'll have reach and bonuses to trip will give a little battlefield control, and you'll easily be able to push people around with bull rushes.
You seem to have mistaken the Pathfinder Society forums on Paizo.com for a place people come to discuss playing Pathfinder Society. That's not what this is. These forums are for people whose hobby is debating people on the internet, not for people who actually play PFS.
Correct. This is a social thread that doesn't actually count for anything.
I have a friend who has this feat on her paladin, and has not only used it to bring back PCs for free, but I remember her once using it on a non-plot critical NPC. She waited until the end of the adventure, when the immediate threat was dealt with, then went back to save the poor soul we'd failed to protect earlier. Great role playing moment.
Sorry, but this is something I've seen on these forums quite a bit lately, and it's starting to become a pet peeve. I'm posting to the PFS subforum specifically because this complaint mostly relates to people talking about the content of PFS scenarios. Please don't move the thread to someplace where nobody will see it.
What's with people not understanding how to use spoiler tags? I'm not talking about people who don't use the spoiler tags at all. That's a newbie mistake, and understandable, though everyone should learn eventually.
I'm talking about people who intentionally create a spoiler tag, but put non-spoiler information inside them, especially the information that should be outside the tags so that readers will know whether or not to click on the spoilers.
Lately, I've seen dozens examples of people spoilering the content of a PFS adventure in spoiler tags (good idea!), but putting the name of the scenario INSIDE the spoiler tag, which at least partially defeats the purpose. You're supposed to put the name of the scenario OUTSIDE the tags, so people can decide whether or not to open the spoiler tag based on whether or not they've played/GMed the adventure and want to see information about its content.
Because two different people have done this with the same scenario lately, I already know what the main monster is in an adventure I'm scheduled to play next week and knew nothing about. *sigh* I looked away and closed the spoiler tag as soon as I realized what they were talking about, but the names of iconic monsters do tend to stand out at a glance.
For that matter, I've occasionally seen the same with thread titles (not putting the title of the adventure or the word "spoilers" in the title, and starting out with spoilers about an adventure), but that tends to be fixed quickly by the moderators, so it's not as big an issue. Again, that's just a newbie mistake, and hopefully everyone learns to use spoiler tags eventually.
And sometimes, people will put information in spoiler tags for no reason whatsoever, which just leaves me scratching my head. And no, I'm not complaining about people who intentionally put a huge list or "wall of text" post inside spoiler tags, as long as they explain why they're doing it. Again, the key here is having a reason to use spoiler tags, and making it clear to your readers what that reason is before they open the spoilers to find out.
So to summarize: Go ahead and put spoiler information inside spoiler tags, but always make sure to have enough non-spoiler information OUTSIDE the tags (name of the adventure, etc) so that people can make an informed decision before clicking to open the spoilers.
Sorry - just had to get that off my chest.
And yes, I'm aware that every single response to this thread will be snarky responses making fun of me for ranting, all of them inside spoiler tags.
Spoiler:I just hope some people will read this and learn something, and start using spoiler tags correctly in the future.
I have enough of a sense of humor to be ok with that.
How long do you think it'll take for this to turn into a paladin hate thread? If we can't go at least 25 posts (real ones, not posts just to get the post count up because I said that) without an anti-paladin rant, then I'll make a new aasimar paladin, just to cheese those people off. :P
Wow. No paladin hate here. Color me surprised. Looks like gunslingers and summoners are the biggest losers.
Sean Ennis wrote:
When my group played a particular scenario where we knew we'd be meeting rat folk, one member of the group brought a few big wheels of cheese to use as bribes. The GM gave us a circumstance bonus to diplomacy for it.
Brigg brings up a good point. If you're using something that's up to GM discretion, a corner case in the rules, or even just something unusual that many GMs won't know, it's a good idea to have the book open to the right page before even starting.
I actually did something like this last night. My battle oracle has the Surprising Charge revelation, which lets me move as an immediate action once per day. When an enemy spellcaster started casting, I used it to get within reach of him. But assuming that the GM might not know the revelation if he's not that familiar with battle oracles, I handed him the book, pointed, and said, "I do this." It's only 3 lines of text, so I figured it was quicker than explaining it out loud, then possibly being asked to clarify.
This is really the heart of the matter. If a GM doesn't want certain things in his game, he should have the maturity to say so, rather than allowing them and then punishing players for doing them. Yes, there are some absolute standards that deserve to be called a "bad GM", and this is one of them.
This is my rogue/halfling opportunist with a one level dip in Dawnflower Dervish bard took Grease as one of his 1st level spells. Even if it doesn't knock anyone down, it still makes them flat footed, so I can sneak attack.
It's ambiguous, because it doesn't mention level 1 rebuilds at all, which are a legal part of the campaign. Not does it mention GM credit or pregen credit characters that haven't been played as their own PC yet.
If someone GMs on August 1, puts the credit on a new PC number, and writes up the character sheet as a tiefling on August 10, but doesn't actually play that character for the first time until August 20, is that a legal tiefling?
If it is, then why wouldn't it be if the same exact thing if they first put the character stats (including race) down on paper on August 15? How would anyone know the difference? More important, why should anyone care?
Unless campaign staff clarifies otherwise, when I'm GMing, I'll just assume that any character with 1 xp before August 14 is legal to be an aasimar or tiefling. Needing to know or care when and how it became that race just seems like an unnecessary complication, which is why I'm hoping that's how Paizo will tell us to handle it.
Jane "The Knife" wrote:
Well, as long as we're on basic equipment - acid flasks! When I first started playing and hadn't read the Core Rulebook, people kept saying to get alchemist's fire in case of swarms. The acid costs half as much (10 gp) and if everyone has one, even a group of level 1s should be able to finish a swarm in a single round.
Also, everyone constantly talks about wands of Cure Light Wounds, but I like to have a CLW potion on every character, too, just in case the casters who can use the wands are all down/inaccessible. So my fighters can heal themselves, and my clerics can get a potion poured down their throat even when unconscious. If you've got 1 xp, then you must have earned enough to be able to afford the 50 gp for this.
Beat me to it. In the case of Chris's GM credits, I'd call it a reward for GMing so much. In the case of the guy who always plays pregens, that's just not normal. I do have one friend who does that a lot, too, but nowhere near that much.
Nosig's post is a perfect example of why I'm hoping Paizo will rule in favor of "let them have their loopholes".
The easiest ruling they could possibly make is "Any character with at least 1 xp before August 14, regardless of the source of that xp, or whether or not the character was rebuilt, is eligible to be an aasimar or tiefling." Then, we just wouldn't have to worry about all of these questions and debates in this thread.
The wording of the original blog post could already be interpreted that way. It could also be interpreted as meaning that the PC has to already be one of those races before August 14, so disallowing rebuilding into it. That's why we need a ruling from Paizo.
The Fox wrote:
Time for a -10. :P
Actually, I have a position. I know how I'd like to see Paizo rule on this. But since they haven't given us a specific clarification, I'm waiting for it, rather than pretending I know better. The fact that there are over 50 posts debating this obviously proves that it's not as clear cut as some people are claiming.
Personally, it really doesn't affect my own characters. I'm currently in the process of building a tiefling, and I'm already signed up to play him in The Confirmation before the end of July. So it doesn't matter to my own characters one way or the other.
The only reason I'm personally interested in getting guidance on this from Paizo is because I GM, and these races are very popular locally.
I wasn't kidding when I said I have a PFS bard who inspires courage with oratory performances. He's primarily an archer in combat, so his hands are too full for a musical instrument.
He could sing, I guess, but he's an ex-slave, now loyal to Andoran, so yelling "FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!" really suits him.
I also occasionally hijack lines from famous speeches. ie "Ask not what the Pathfinder Society can do for you. Ask what you can do for the Pathfinder Society!" and "The only thing we have to fear is these zombies eating our faces!"
I disagree. Default and oni-spawn are the only tieflings that ever actually got any play, so the other 7 don't count.
This deserves its own thread.
You know you're in trouble when you get to the table and ...
... there are 8 players signed up for your table, plus 2 unscheduled walk ins.
It happened last night at our low level table. Luckily, there were two other tables scheduled for higher level adventures, so we sent a couple of the newbies to PFS who had other D&D/Pathfinder experience to the higher level tables with level 4 and 7 pregens, and played with 7 at our table.
It just made mustering very difficult, since we thought some of the 8 signups wouldn't show, but they kept walking in late, just at the exact moment we were about to start with the people we had. Not ultra-late, so no justification to tell them they're too late and send them away, but late enough that we thought we had everyone sorted out, then someone else gets added to the mix.
Even without cha drain, it can be a "combat stat", depending on the character. My gnome prankster bard uses his charisma almost every single round of combat, and his 7 strength has never had any negative impact on his life.
Dump stats are a part of the game. There are times they become a liability, but most of the time, it's not that bad. Personally, I've never dumped intelligence on any of my PCs, because I like having skill points. Wait, I take that back. My human barbarian dumped int to 8, but he still got 4 skill ranks per level.
I won't GM any scenario I haven't had time to read and prep properly. That's one full read through, then a second pass where I go through and look up all the technical details, highlight things, and write notes in the margins, so I know how all the feats, spells, and other technical details work. If I don't have at least a 4 or 5 hours to do that, I won't run the scenario.
I will, however, bring along other scenarios that I've run before, and know well enough to run on short notice to try and make sure everyone gets a chance to play. It doesn't always work out perfectly, because some people may have already played the scenarios I brought with me, but at least a table happens.
And based on past experiences with GMs running things cold, I won't play at such tables again, either. Every time I have in the past, I always come away wishing I hadn't played at all, and still had the chance to play those scenarios with a better prepared GM later. There are 3 scenarios in particular that I constantly see people on these forums talking about as being among their favorites, and I have no idea why they like them so much. I missed out on the opportunity to play and enjoy those scenarios the way they were intended.
Honestly, I'd love to see the Guide to Organized Play updated to specifically ban the practice of GMing any scenario you haven't read in full ahead of time. It would obviously be impossible to enforce, but even putting in some strongly worded advice should help in trying to crack down on the practice, and make it less common.
But the real issue, based on repeated comments from Paizo staff in the past (mostly Mike Brock), is that Paizo sees convention boons as a special incentive that they don't want to do away with. They don't want to give those same rewards to non-convention people, because then they wouldn't have that special incentive for conventions.
The solution, which I think almost everyone in this thread recently seems to agree with, is to find a method (the exact method is still up for debate) to distribute older convention boons to non-convention GMs. That way, the latest and greatest boons are still convention-only, making them a good incentive, but after a year or two, non-convention goers have access to those treats.
Mark Stratton wrote:
On the other hand, I've been playing Pathfinder for almost 3 years now, and I still don't know if elves sleep.
You know you're in trouble when you get to the table and ...
... you're playing a murder mystery, nobody in the group has Sense Motive trained, and the best Perception is +5.
After last night, I wish that one was hypothetical. Also, the "wisdom dump brigade" didn't do so well on the Survival check to look for tracks at the scene of the crime. I was playing my skill monkey bard who had +7 or better on something like 15 different skills, but Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival aren't among them. And I rolled a natural 2 on the most important knowledge check of the session, so even bardic knowledge couldn't salvage that one.
James Jacobs wrote:
Asmodeus, and ANY deity, doesn't micromanage things on that level.
Well, that brings up the question of how much personal interest the deities do take in their followers, and how much they do micromanage, though maybe that's a subject for another thread. Though the discussion about Sarenrae has already switched to talk about Asmodeus, so I guess we're kinda free forming on the topic at this point.
In my case, I have a battle oracle who was cursed by Iomedae. I wrote a fairly detailed back story for him, which includes why Iomedae chose him, and her choosing the Infernal tongues curse and which spells to grant him for very specific reasons. I thought that might be more micro-managing than most deities would do, but I've also seen published Paizo adventures where the bad guys have even more direct contact with their deities, so I figure this sort of thing happens sometimes.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Why do I keep having to remind people of the title of this thread, and the blog post that the thread is a response to? Take another look at the title. It specifically says "race boons". That's the subject at hand, and always was.
Getting back to the rest of the thread: While I like the intent of Wakedown's proposal, I really dislike the time limit. 8 tables in a quarter? The die hards who GM all the time will have no problem doing that, but they also won't play often enough to actually use the boon. It's a nice acknowledgement for those people, but it doesn't help to get people who never GM to start doing it once every month or two. Letting them take a year or more to earn the reward needs to be allowed.
Going back to earlier suggestions, I think I prefer using the GM stars to give out race boons for this reason, while continuing to give out boons at conventions as they have in the past. Or as I suggested, letting stores apply for boons, the same way convention organizers do, though I realize that creates more work for Paizo staff, so it's probably not the best method, unless VOs are put in charge of it.
As a side note, while I am all for the pairing down of redundant factions and the removal of them being nation based, could we please have a Green Faith faction? There just seems to be such a big void in that area.
Yeah, I'm having a hard time deciding where to put my druid. Gozreh worshiper, not Green Faith, but a nature based faction would still suit the character.
Personally, I still want to see a return of the Shadow Lodge, but under a different name and leader. My 14th level barbarian, Venture-Captain Mash, would gladly volunteer to lead the Pathfinder Union Local Faction, which revolves around Pathfinders looking after each other above all else. Yes, I am actively asking for my PC to be turned into an NPC and removed from play. It would suit him, and at level 14, I doubt if I'll ever play him again, anyway.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Yes, a convention is a flashier event, more likely to garner attention, and (arguably*) more likely to attract new players. Nobody's saying conventions shouldn't continue to have more rewards than game days. We're just saying regular game days deserve more than the ZERO rewards they currently get.
* I'm still not convinced by the "Conventions attract more new players than game days" argument. As I said a couple of pages ago in this thread, analyzing business data to get companies to challenge their preconceived notions is something I do professionally. I'd love to see Paizo actually go through their database and compare the number of first time players at conventions to the number of first time players at regular game days, when comparing a comparable number of tables. ie In your example of a 4 day convention with 16 tables vs 4 consecutive Saturdays with 4 tables each, you could compare to see which had more new players show up for their first ever game.
More importantly, how many of those first time players went on to become second time and third time players? It's safe to assume that at least half of the people who try out a new game at a convention won't play it again. But at a weekly game night at a local store, the new players know exactly where to go every week to play it again, so they should be much more likely to return. Which of those two groups of first timers are more valuable? Without properly analyzing the data, we'll never know, and from conversations here, I doubt if Paizo has done that kind of analysis.
Trade Princess Katarina wrote:
Ah don't trade! Ah take stuff! That's th' whole point o' bein' a pirate!
I am not a fan of the current gm boon.
I looked it over, and it's one of those things that looks cool at first glance, but I'll forget I have it and never actually use it. Kinda like most of the boons that are for specific circumstances - they're too easily forgotten, so a lot of people just forget to use them.
Like someone else already mentioned in this thread, I much prefer boons that give a permanent change to the character going forward, so you don't have to remember when it's the right time to use your boon. For instance, I got boons back in season 3 that gave a character the Tien language as a bonus language, and another that let me get a third trait on a character, as long as it was from the Dragon Empires Primer. Like the race boons, these are things that I can apply and have an interesting minor twist on my character, which always applies.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Did you miss the part where this entire thread is a response to a blog post about changing that rule? And despite that blog post from over a year ago, it still hasn't changed.
How about Trap Finder? It's nearly a full class feature as a trait.
But it's worth noting that it's a campaign trait, so it's not intended to be generically legal in all campaigns. This means it's not legal in Pathfinder Society, for those who play that.