|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 
The text says the choice has to be opposite a component of the eidolon's alignment. To take DR/good, the eidolon must be LE, NE, or CE. To take DR/evil, the eidolon must be LG, NG, or CG. To take DR/law, it must be CG, CN, or CE. To take DR/chaos, it must be LG, LN, or LE. An eidolon that is true neutral gains no benefit and/or cannot take this evolution. Since eidolon's have the same alignment as the summoner, your summoner would have to have an evil alignment for the eidolon to take DR/good. Remember that DR/alignment isn't bypassed just by a creature with that alignment. A weapon has to be aligned to bypass it, either with an enhancement like holy to get by DR/good, with a spell like align weapon or bless weapon, or the like. Some creatures imbue their weapons with an alignment for overcoming DR, such as those with an alignment subtype. Natural attacks need to come from a creature with that subtype; something like an angel with the (good) subtype is required to get by DR/good. DR/law or DR/chaos is almost as good as DR/good. The only real difference will come if you are fighting mainly evil enemies when facing something like a devil to overcome DR/law or a demon to overcome DR/chaos. DR/law will face fewer opponents that can overcome the alignment than DR/chaos, but this can depend a lot on the campaign. If building for PFS in year 5, DR/law is probably the best choice given that year 5 is touted as Year of the Demon.
Something I've always wanted to do was run two parties simultaneously in the same campaign..not the same events, mind you, but as two separate entities in the same place, same time. Not something I'd suggest to new players and a new GM.
On the APL thing: if increasing challenges for a large group, particularly a group of players new to the game, look at more low level opponents rather than using it as a rationale for a higher threat opponent. Higher threat opponents in this situation typically do a lot more damage and you'll see unnecessary deaths.
My personal experience is that good characters tend to act neutral, neutral characters tend to act evil, and evil characters (obviously not PFS PCs) tend to act sociopathic. I claim no originality for this observation. It's useful from time to time to review what is actually written in the rules about the alignment descriptions. It's easy for a mental picture of an alignment to erode over time, particularly in light of the parade of atrocities and questionable acts that tend to get committed at the table. I think we get a bit jaded about them. "Ho hum. Yet another discussion about what to do with the prisoner..." Personal Reflection About This Thread:
Back at about post #20 or so, I was debating posting that this thread was on it's way to 200 posts or more. Then Mike got involved, and it pretty much became guaranteed. I tried hiding the thread, but then kept staying abreast of it. I've now unhidden it. Alignment threads are like car crashes...no one wants them to happen, but they're tough to avoid staring at.
My personal optimum is a group with GM and 7 players. Not because I like gaming with 7 players at the table, but because I find that it takes that many to get 4-5 to show up. Your experience may be different and it depends a lot on where your players are in life; I tend to game primarily with adults in their 30s-40s. A group I did this with for 4 years had only 1 night that I can remember where all 7 players showed. For one night, we can put up with that. :)
A paladin's smite evil overcomes all DR, whether the target is evil or not. I think the intent of the rule is clear, and that we'd agree on it. I also think that the smite evil section would be a lot clearer if "if not evil, is wasted" message is at the beginning of the section instead of where it is. I think I was a bit miffed that, after reviewing the rule section before posting my initial post in the thread, that the organization of the section is a tad messy, with the result that my quick scan missed all aspects of it. I don't think there is more to this discussion than a discussion of grammar and writing style, so I'm not going to engage further re: smite evil.
Intimidate involves threats or displays of prowess. It does not explicitly require threats of violence. Some of the easiest ways to think of Intimidate may involve the physical harm/torture sorts of approaches, but it certainly isn't necessary. If you're character concept is one that would not include these types of approaches, then come up with ways to intimidate that don't include them. If you aren't coming up with them yourself, solicit advice in the advice forum about alternative methods. If you are making an empty threat, meaning something that you wouldn't follow through with, there is a Bluff component. If you are telling the guy you will break his arms if he doesn't cooperate, but you know you won't, you are Bluffing. Something as simple as "I'm an imposing guy with a lot of power, you don't want me on your bad side," is sufficient from a rules perspective to civilized opponents. However, I can also see situations where the limits you place on what your character is willing to do may result in there being few or no paths toward intimidation that are options in that situation without bluffing.
"You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess." Torture may involve Intimidation, but it isn't required for Intimidation. Intimidation following battle can simply be the implied reference to the prowess just displayed. "Mmmm. Looks like we are a lot more powerful than you. Tell us what we want to know." That is all that's needed. There is no need to beat someone up to intimidate them. Verbal threats are an option for intimidation, but these are getting on shaky ground. Are you willing to carry them out? If yes, are those threats of acts that would be viewed as evil? If you aren't willing, the threat itself is a Bluff. It may be one that that may include a modifier based upon it being believable (the target knows this sort of thing might happen), or if has followed a battle (evidence that the Bluffer is capable of carrying out the action). A course of action can be Intimidation and non-evil, it can accompany a bluff of torture and be non-evil, or it can accompany an evil action, such as torture. Torture, in itself, isn't Intimidation. Torture is a physical act, while Intimidation is essentially attitude; it's a Cha skill, after all. And, before anyone runs down the "Everyone knows Pathfinders don't torture..." route: No. Pathfinder PCs can't be evil, but not all Pathfinders are PCs, and the distinction between PC and NPC is not a concept that the characters in the story know anything about. This all aside from the fact that a single evil act doesn't make a character evil. Somewhere in this discussion, psychological torture may arise. Things can get particularly grey in this area, and/or more limiting. The essential message, though, is that torture isn't required for Intimidation.
Yes. Voluntary movement provokes an AoO regardless of direction. If the creature being levitated is not the caster, it could be argued that the creature's movement isn't voluntary. Against such an argument, I'd suggest that the creature was a willing target (required by the spell).
A paladin's smite evil overcomes all DR, whether the target is evil or not. Hmm. It looks like there are a couple of conflicting statements in the rule.I see: "Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess." and "If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect."
I'm specifically speaking about monsters/foes attempting to overcome the DR of a PC. It doesn't matter if it is a PC or not. The DR rules work the same regardless. The primary rules reference for damage reduction is in the Universal Monster Rules. If a PC has DR X/magic, then the foe would have to have either a magic weapon, an adamantine weapon or a spell which mimiced that effects, correct? DR X/magic is overcome by magic weapons or by natural weapons used by a creature that itself has DR X/magic. Some spells, such as magic weapon effectively make a weapon magic for a short period of time. A monk of 4th level or above has the ki pool magic ability, which allows the monks unarmed strikes to act as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR. A paladin's smite evil overcomes all DR, whether the target is evil or not. These are just examples. As an exception based rule systems, there are theoretically an infinite number of rules resources than can act as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR. Adamantine has the ability to bypass hardness up to hardness 20. It does nothing against DR. Edit: other than DR/adamantine. Spells generally are not affected by DR, but there are exceptions. FAQ on spells and DR If a PC has DR X/good (or chaos or whatever), then a foe would have to have a good aura (not merely a good alignment), an adamantine weapon or a spell which mimiced those effects, correct? See above regarding adamantine, spells, and examples of class features or similar rules resources that explicitly call out that attacks are aligned. There are spells that modify weapons so that their attacks overcome DR X/alignment. Align weapon is the most commonly used and the spell can be made into an oil. An aligned aura is insufficient. For a creature to overcome DR X/alignment, the creature has to be of that alignment subtype. A cleric with a good aura does not overcome DR X/good. Creatures with the good subtype are often, but not always, Outsiders. Not all Outsiders of good alignment have the good subtype. Edit: others have posted about the ability of magic weapons with a high enhancement bonus (+x) overcoming DR other than just DR X/magic. In these cases, it is the + value, not the enhancement cost for other enchantments, such as flaming or speed, that is needed.
Ask your local FLGS (or wherever you game) for a Hall of Fame/Shame. A store in my area has a board on which goes the character sheets of the fallen, signed off on by the GM and what Scenario took them out. Yeah, but this is a store where the owners take an approach to GMing that includes taking pride in killing characters. Personally, not my favorite part of the store.
In general you can buy multiple items of the same type. Some items that appear on chronicles are limited in quantity; these typically are consumables with different caster level or charges, poisons that aren't normally available, etc.
I posted the following in one of the too soft/too hard threads, where it either got buried by the noise or truly is seen as having no value. So, I've liberated it from the noise to see if this may have the value that I think it does, or is just something else that is perceived as theory crafting with no actionable or usable concepts. :) We don't have collected data on lethality. No data means decisions are based on anecdotes and squeaky wheels. We do, however, have an already collected body of data that provides a filtered view of success/failure, player capability, character capability, GM contribution to these factors, change in success/failure over time, etc. This is the data on prestige gained. This data is available for analysis. The data is there for prestige gained, table size, by character, by player, date, and by GM. It is possible that the data is too far removed to be useful. However, the data available now within the reporting database can be used for: 1) Prestige gained, viewed by adventure, date of play, size of table. This can be used to see if, for example, prestige awards have changed for a given adventure over time. 2) Average prestige awarded to each player. There will be variance, and it can be used to see where the average success rate is. It might also be helpful to interview the outliers to see what their experiences are like. 3) Average prestige awarded by GM. (same idea as point 2) 4) Other. The data is there, although it may mask at-table activities too much to be useful.
My experience is that people regularly refer to character classes as full BAB, 3/4 BAB, 1/2 BAB, but these are descriptions, not an expectation in any manner that there is any thought that fractional BAB is then used to calculate BAB. Same with saves on the Good/Bad saves side. Fractional BAB is an alternative rule approach. It is not used in PFS. Why this is dragging out in this thread makes no sense to me. I won't be posting further on this topic in this thread.
I'm dropping out of this thread and hiding it as it seems to have lost its focus. I'll be starting another thread on the topic of data analysis of the prestige data. If anyone has comment or feedback that they think I should see on my other points back on page 3, please PM me.
I think ghosts do CHA damage.And charisma.... if you're not a party face you only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it.Many ghosts agree. Indeed.
One of the costs of being a specialist in a single form of attack is dealing with encounters when that attack is ineffective. Many monks deal with this in spades. I don't see this as a reason for a 5k wondrous item to be always available. Work arounds: +1 weapons, consumables of magic weapon, magic fang, bless weapon are just some of the always options. Sounds like the problem here wasn't the lack of an amulet of mighty fists, it was a party (or multiple players sitting at the same plank of plastic or wood) that took on the risk of saving cash instead of purchasing consumables that would plug gaps in their capabilities.
And charisma.... if you're not a party face you only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it. Many ghosts agree.
It comes down to a judgement call, weighing the pros and cons of each side of the decision. Some will but more weight behind different aspects that go into that decision, and those values may vary based upon what is viewed with respect to the inherently varied goals of players, judges, and employee administrators.
Permanency has been banned in every major network campaign since Living City. It's not a decision that was made capriciously, it's part of a whole package of banns that are done for a very basic reason, to keep player power curves within a reasonable limit of variation. And to keep NPC tactics such as dispel magic usable without a whole ton of player angst. I played LG. I didn't play LC nor any of the other D&D 2e and 3e campaigns other than when RPGA was in its infancy. Some of these, I know, also had non-XP based approaches to character advancement and associated wealth by level. Some of them, for example, basically went with level bumps at fixed points of the campaign, or a fixed budget for equipment at a given level. I know you know that, LazarX, but am spelling it out for others. It is simply not practical to ban parts of a mechanic or make complicated modifications to them, when the campaign as a whole doesn't really need the mechanic. I think it has been worthwhile to review the thinking, given that PF having removed the XP requirement, which is one of the more egregious aspects of the power curve issue. The XP connection results in a resource upgrade for a GP cost and lower XP. Basically, doing so increases the power rating of a character at both sides of the ratio of power:level. However, I'm coming to the conclusion that the only real rationale for including it is because it is in the CRB, but there are multiple arguments against, some of which include some FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) factors. Some of those arguments may be a bit eroded given the XP cost removal, but I'm tending to the judgement that the potential and/or perceived negative aspects aren't worth the inclusion.
best kitten video everThat second lizard just whispered something to the kitten about their faction being retired.... Lizard: "First level Shadow Lodge, huh? Not for long...."
This thread is now about kittens. Well, if it's about kittens: best kitten video ever
A toddler cannot pick up a car. Some ability checks cannot be achieved by some characters. Without other modifiers, a character would need a Str 26 (+8 modifier) to make the DC 28 strength check in your example. A few other resources that can be brought to bear are spells that increase Strength, either directly (bull's strength) or indirectly (enlarge person), etc., tools such as a crowbar, or use the aid another option to assist with the Strength check. You aren't misreading it from what you've described. You have the rules structure. The options I'm describing are tactics that can be brought to bear on the problem, and often depend on player experience to recognize them.
I'm stepping out of the discussion at this point. This appears to have become a discussion between what the spell is contrasted with what some people want the spell to be. Good gaming!
My first three characters were effective but not optimized, with core book resources only. Two of them are now dead, and the other hasn't played anything later than mid year 3. My 4th was a GM blob that just launched the other day and has min-maxed stats: 16-14-19-7-12-5 dwarven barbarian. My 5th and 6th are GM/pre-gen blobs that I haven't made yet. ************************************** I've never heard anyone say that non-optimizing is doing it wrong. However, there are some character builds that probably aren't the best choice for a year 4 table with 4 characters. Same characters might be fine at a season 0 table. And, for characters that don't hit their stride until later, maybe that is something that changes. I generally follow the 14+ Con guideline that I was pretty standard for many players in LG. If anything, in PF, Con becomes more important for survivability than in 3.5 due to death at -Con rather than -10 and because Fort save became more important due to changes in the poison rules.
Yes, but the info I got from the first 90 pages of the novel is obviously a considerable amount more than Canonfire. Point taken. I was suggesting it as a reference resource. The source material is always where to go. Sorry for my lack of clarity.
No. In general, a caster's spells don't end merely because the caster has died. However, if the summoned creature dies or the spell ends, any spells that have been cast by the summoned creature ends. Say Wizbang summons Arty Archon and has him cast aid on Freddy Fighter. 2 rounds later, Wizbang dies. Arty's still there. 3 rounds later, Arty dies. The aid spell cast on Freddy now ends.
I hope you're happy, Pain. But you still have to have someone else get you coffee. I'm busy, keeping time and prepping a lovely mug to gather all the BoneKeep Tears. Mug. Bucket. Barrel. Bathtub. Swimming pool.
I'll have my Goblins make it (running We Be Goblins as everyone dies in Bonekeep) I'm sure they can start a fire to heat the salty tears!!!!I hope you're happy, Pain. But you still have to have someone else get you coffee. I'm busy, keeping time and prepping a lovely mug to gather all the BoneKeep Tears.Then make coffee with the Bonekeep tears? I am signed up as one of those goblins. Death to long shanks! Death to hawsies! Death to dawgs!
I haven't seen anything in this thread that shuts down the value of the lowbie's use of the the spell in it's intended use (getting from point A to point B).
This is not correct if you are using the Intelligent Animal blog linked above. I can appreciate that some people either may either not like the Intelligent Animal blog and/or do not view it as modifying RAW. That's cool. If you don't, you need to come up with your own rules regarding: These are holes in the RAW. The Intelligent Animal blog plugs those holes. If you don't use the Intelligent Animal blog, they don't go away, they just have to be plugged by your own house rules in substitution for the blog.
Nothing in the rules overrides the already present rules for riding mounts not trained for combat in combat. Therefore those rules also apply. Animal companions follow the same rules for training as any other animal, with the exception of the bonus tricks. Animal companions used as mounts follow the same rules for mounted combat as any other mount.
No, it doesn't. You might find the Intelligent Animal blog helpful. Note: in D&D 3.5, there were different rules for how to handle mounts with an Intelligence of 5+ via Diplomacy. These rules were in the 3.5 DMG and were not part of the SRD. As a result, they didn't make it into PF. It leaves a gap in the PF rules, which is partially plugged by the blog. And, if positive, does it mean that it may be a possibility that the magic of the spell let you override this aspect too? This is moot. Or, if negative, does it mean that anybody who is trying to ride anything but a standard purchased war-trained mount is screwed at the first ambush? Animals that are not war-trained make poor mounts in combat. If you want to characterize this as being screwed, that's up to you. ***************************** There is a tendency for many players to have a very different idea of how animals, particularly animal mounts, behave within the scope of the rules until they start to investigate how the rules really address animals. In some playing groups, no one EVER starts that investigation and preconceptions tend to remain pretty ingrained.
An analogy: Picture an organization that conducts a strategic business analysis of itself. Out of this analysis, one of the things that comes up is that they don't do a very good job with safety. Let's also say that out of this analysis they see a couple of opportunities to expand business. One of them is a hazardous operation while another is not. Let's say they have the capitol to invest in one of those two ventures with similar financial expectations. Certainly, they should look at programs to improve safety in various ways. However, their current weakness in safety favors the less hazardous business venture. There can certainly be other qualitative factors, but to fail to include the safety weakness in the decision would be imprudent.
We don't have collected data on lethality. No data means decisions are based on anecdotes and squeaky wheels. We do, however, have an already collected body of data that provides a filtered view of success/failure, player capability, character capability, GM contribution to these factors, change in success/failure over time, etc. This is the data on prestige gained. This data is available for analysis. The data is there for prestige gained, table size, by character, by player, date, and by GM.
Sorry if this is a wall of text. Make it to the bottom to collect your cookie. OP is hitting the nail right on the head. We have two systems in place to measure the relationship between PCs and encounters: Character level and CR. Both of these systems give an approximate level of threat capability. Both are becoming less effective as players are becoming more sophisticated about how to deploy characters that are more effective that their nominal level, and as writers are writing more more sophisticated encounters. The range of capability in both character level and CR is at the point where the they are, or are becoming, of limited value. Some options for addressing this come in a few forms, which are not exclusive to each other: Changing character building rules to reduce the size of the range in character capability essentially exclusion of over and/or underpowered options. I don't think this is in the interest of the campaign in broad strokes, but there may be some ways in which this can address the most egregious issues. PFS has been exceptionally permissive in terms of allowing rules resources. This serves the marketing goals, but it also introduces challenges for PFS administration. These are competing challenges that pull in different directions. I am seeing more encounters, and series of encounters, that are combining opponents, terrain, etc. in ways that are force multipliers. These are more interesting encounters, but they also require a degree of restraint and examination of the CR math. CR is an approximate number, and creativity can result in encounters that can be overpowered for the total CR by the selection of creatures that are on the high end of their range, which are very swingy in terms of specific weaknesses or strengths, or in finely tuned terrain and other external conditions. Examples include terrain that is highly attuned to the capabilities of the opponents, or synergies that dampen weaknesses. Diamond Gate spoilers within:
The final encounter is epic and very enjoyable. It is also an encounter built to the specific capabilities of the opponents. The terrain increases the difficulty of the encounter, and the synergy between the terrain and the opponents is a force multiplier. Dog Pharaoh's Tomb very specific spoilers within:
Very well thought out encounters that make extensive use of creature synergies. We have a shambling mound paired with shocker lizards. We also have a fire vulnerable creature paired with a creature that gets better with fire. The examples above are situations where creative design results in encounters where CR math using the creatures alone will give a false evaluation. The synergies provided by the design also need to figure into the CR. Disclosing character expectations in adventure blurbs gives players more information to make decisions regarding what characters to play in the adventure. "Combat intensive" probably isn't a place to bring a character who hasn't yet hit its stride, nor necessarily a diplomatic face and/or skills character. "Role play intensive" probably isn't the place to bring a double min-maxed melee character with a Charisma of 5 and an Int of 7. Some players will ignore these disclosures, and human nature will lead to people playing them anyway rather than wait. But, at least there can always be a wry grin, a sad nod of the head, and an unvoiced, "Dude, you should have known better..." Changing the way of determining character capability basically means to evaluate characters on factors other than just their character level. This is a pretty complex thing to do both effectively and efficiently. There is talk about how something like a 4th level character might play as weak as 2nd level or as strong as 7th level. Make it so. Make that weak 4th level character play as a 2nd level norm. Make that strong 4th level character play as a 7th level norm. How to do it would take some brainstorming; it might include some rubric, or a system of GM evaluation and appeal; maybe each table votes on most effective and least effective character at the table, and when a character gets a certain number of votes, they are treated as a level lower or higher tier calculations and module qualification. These are possibly harebrained or unrealistic ideas on their own; I'm brainstorming here. cookie:
Congratulations! You get a cookie!
No one said it isn't a problem for sunder. Point taken. But until, and unless, this is addressed directly, I would disagree that it isn't an issue for permanency. Removing the permanency ban, while this issue exists, removes a large degree of the wealth risk of using permanency. If you have a subsystem that isn't working properly, certainly the overall solution is to fix the subsystem. But, until it is fixed, putting more pressure on the subsystem isn't particularly wise.
Well if that is what fractional BAB/saves means, I have never seen it in play and can only imagine it is not the intention of the rules. I can see the logic of the interpretation, but AKAIK that would be a "house" rule and therefore not legal in PFS. It's an optional rule presented in WotC's Unearthed Arcana. I'm not booked up in PF to know whether it is presented anywhere as an optional rule for PF. In any case, if it is an optional rule for PF, it's not one where the option has been exercised in PFS.
Can you buy a Pot/OIL of Gravity bow? No. Gravity bow is a personal range spell. Personal range spells cannot be made into a potion or oil. You can buy a wand of gravity bow, which can then be used via a level dip in ranger, sorc, or wizard, or via UMD. You can also obtain scrolls of gravity bow. Level dip of sorc or wizard can use this, likewise with UMD; scrolls require a CL before being able to use them without UMD, so ranger requires 4 levels before using.
A cloud giant is Huge size and has a 15 feet reach. Using an appropriate sized longspear, he has a reach of 30 feet. He can use a Medium sized longspear as a light weapon. In the hands of the Medium sized creature for which it is designed, this Medium longspear extends reach from 5 to 10 feet. What is the cloud giant's reach with the Medium sized longspear? Note: I've used this example to get to a size that doesn't bridge the S-M reach issue, which is a concession to PC sizes. From the reach weapons description in the equipment section: "Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away." It is not unreasonable to limit the application of reach when a reach weapon is of an inappropriate size. This issue isn't as clear as some have made it out to be in this thread, due to the bolded section above. Citing the typical disclaimers (particularly because this thread has a heavy PFS component and I know how Jiggy feels about the 3.5 FAQ), the 3.5 FAQ addresses this issue. It recognizes that the text isn't as clear as it should be, but says the reach weapon must be of at least the appropriate size (can be larger) for the user in order to gain the reach; the reach that is gained is based on the natural reach of the user. There is a link to the 3.5 FAQ in my profile. The question and reply is on pages 55-6. If you are discounting the 3.5 FAQ, you still need to reconcile the bolded section of the cited PF rule above.
No one said it isn't a problem for sunder.
Thanks Howie. You're welcome. If you're a Greyhawk nut, Canonfire is THE place to go. (No offense, Erik)
Yes, the language for reduce person and enlarge person is contradictory. Intentionally so. It's a deliberate change from 3.5, which was a deliberate change from 3.0. *shrug*
We disagree. I suggest taking it over to the Rules forum as this looks like the discussion may be complex. I will do so in the next day or you don't, but I can't do it now.
Arguments against, as proposed in this thread and here. Please take a look and see if I've missed anything significant. 1. The risk associated with obtaining a permanent spell is that it can be dispelled, resulting in a total loss of the wealth invested. The campaign culture is resistant activities that attack character wealth because it results in a permanent gap between expected wealth by level and what is then available. 2. Some permanent effects step on the territories of other character options, such as those with darkvision. 3. The campaign has a general practice of approving or banning rules resources in their entirety rather than modifying them. When rules resources have been modified, this takes place as a judgement call that includes factors such as: a) the degree to which it is necessary for the rule to be present in some form, b) the complexity of communicating the change, c) the balance between the effort to implement without causing further problems in comparison to the benefit of retaining the rules resource in some form. 4) The potential presence of some permanent spells, particularly the divinations arcane sight and see invisibility, have a tendency to broaden the range of resources available for characters. This complicates the writing of level appropriate adventures with respect to plot and regarding appropriate encounter challenges. Current concerns already exist with respect to the range of character effectiveness when viewed from the perspective of level. 5) The rules of permanency are somewhat complex both in the spell description, as well as in adjudicating the peripheral rules associated with acquisition of a permanent spell. Additional complexity arises when dealing with other campaign specific rules, such as scroll acquisition for use via UMD and rules related to spells ending at the end of a scenario. 6) The nature of the campaign places a focus on events during adventures only. There are downsides to some permanent effects outside of adventuring time that are reduced significantly or entirely that are not apparent in PFS. This has the effect of increasing the upside to permanent spells in comparison their downside. Permanent spells in PFS would be better than Permanent spells in an typical play environment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
