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

Jason S's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,641 posts (2,667 including aliases). 125 reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists. 16 Pathfinder Society characters.

1 to 50 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the title of this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MorBere wrote:

my characters are al just hired mercs!

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Some people felt that way in the past and scenarios in season 4+ have certainly been a lot more heroic. Having said that, PFS is a neutral campaign.

MorBere wrote:
Pathfinder society has us running around the fantasy world, paid on commission for the work we do.

Ummm... actually most of the time we're not paid, this is volunteer work. lol. We just sell our enemies loot.

So yeah, your character should really want to be part of the Pathfinder organization considering you're working for free. Or else you'd be doing something else (in which case you should roll up a new PC that actually wants to be a Pathfinder).

MorBere wrote:
Take it... the adventures rarely ever start "Ok everyone, your in a tavern and a mysterious woman comes to your table! What do you do?"

Sometimes this does happen but this tends to make the game start slowly, PFS wants faster introductions because games need to fit into a 4 hour time slot. What you're looking for is an old fashioned campaign.

Not sure why anyone would compare PFS to a campaign. If you want a campaign, play a campaign.

MorBere wrote:
how many times has anyone finished a scenario or module feeling victorious!

Lots. In recent scenarios, rescued elves from being incubated with demons, rescued humanoids from being sacrificed and bleeding out, stopped pirates who robbed locals, brought a murderer to justice, destroyed a lich who killed others to attain immortality, stopped cultists from awakening a powerful evil wizard, destroyed a vampire who was killing and feeding off villagers. That's in less than 8 scenarios.

PFS is plenty heroic. Maybe your GM is not informing you. Maybe it's a state of mind. Maybe you see the gold and XP on the character sheet and don't see the big picture. Or your GM doesn't say "Congratulations heroes!".

MorBere wrote:
Too many times do I sit as a player and watch a group of players play these op character builds, where all they can do is spit out damage rolls but couldn't diplomacy themselves out of a card board box.

The need for Diplomacy (the skill) is extremely common in PFS scenarios, not sure which scenarios you're playing.

I've played lots of PFS at conventions, and my enjoyment at the table has nothing to do with how optimized a PC is. When all PCs are horrible and you're carrying a table, that's more of a problem.

MorBere wrote:
players power through these scenarios with ease

Not some of the scenarios I've been playing. When someone finds something really easy, most of the time they didn't make the PC within the rules, or the GM doesn't know the rules.

There are a few broken common builds and some rare ones, but they are exceptions. Most people optimize enough to be effective, not broken. Maybe your local situation is different, in which case you can talk to your coordinator or maybe the other players.

MorBere wrote:
Where does the line get drawn on a table of six who no longer worry about having a healer or rogue, they all just run melee fighting classes.

You seem to want to see old school parties with fighter / rogue / wizard / cleric. I'm personally ready to move on from that. Why not just let people play what they want to play and be happy?

Just an FYI, ranged classes are much more effective than melee classes. The melee classes get messed up at higher levels, they will wish they were playing archers.

MorBere wrote:
Back to topic, as a GM, I see some players who take their time in the character build and mold them into something great and other players who just put a notch into their level.

Not everyone plays the game the same way. Not everyone wants to play the game the same way, but it doesn't mean you can't.

MorBere wrote:
As a players, I just feel like we play to level up a character. There is no end reward, there is no " wow I hit level 12 and saved all these cities and people from the wrath of evil... there is no "I am a hero in this town"....

It's a state of mind. Or you're playing season 0-3 scenarios? Maybe you're just not seeing it. My characters have done lots of good things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can't argue with the art, looks great.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Would buy Shadow Lodge.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
What if I were to pop in here and suggest that there is no real solution to be found in rules changes? The real problem is much bigger than the woes of one little hat, and it lies in the intangible culture that has developed, which is far more powerful than written rules - the problem in particular here appears to be, let's call it the "powerless power gamer" culture (or "slave to the beans," which I like even better)

No no no. We can still comment on stupid rule changes (or weak/powerful items or whatever) whether we use the rule in our game or not, or whether the item is ever used or not.

And for those of us that play PFS, we don't really have a choice of whether to adhere to the rules or not. So yeah, the PFS commands me, lol.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think some customer feedback would have made some of the errata better. But maybe they don't have time as someone else mentioned.

Some of the other items that were nerfed aren't even worth using at their current price. That is the exact opposite of a "must have" item. Honestly if Paizo produced books where items aren't even viable to use compared to others (under any circumstances), people wouldn't bother buying.

Home games can ignore errata, PFS can't.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, that's a huge nerf. +1 deflection now and a one time use on the crit ability. It's not even as good as the buffering cap now imo.

So what's the alternative for crit protection? Buffering cap?

Can someone link me a list of all of the other nerfs?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE GMing. But having said that, as GM:
1) You often need to invest money into flip mats, minis, books, or scenarios/APs/modules.

2) If you're going to prepare properly, you need to invest a lot of time, time you could spend elsewhere.

3) It's often a thankless position. Even after an awesome game, how many players tell you "Hey man, thanks for the awesome game.". How many players at your home game buy you pizza or help pay for stuff? Sometimes, but not often enough.

4) And you're often blamed when something goes wrong or there is a grievance.

5) People often don't want to (or are unable) to share the GMing duties.

6) For me personally it's physically and emotionally exhausting. I can play slots a day as a player, no problem, but I am pretty dead after 2 slots as a GM. It's just easier being a player, it's like being on vacation.

So yeah, GMing is fun but it is time consuming. And when there is negativity around it or no appreciation, people would just rather do other things with their time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather they update what is happening in practice rather than have static gold. Gold is never static anyway, there is no guarantee you'll succeed or whether you will gain all the loot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like evil boons because:

1) They are too powerful.

2) They are more like a powergamer indicator than anything else, since all PCs will take them, regardless of character alignment. I guess everyone roleplays character alignment until the prize becomes something that is too good to refuse?

For example, the Krune boons. When I played one scenario, my barely non-evil CN half-orc was the only one that refused the evil boon, the rest of the party was "good" and took the boon immediately. How messed up is that?

3) Players cry (or cheat and avoid) if they suffer any repercussions for taking these boons. In the example above the other players already knew everything about the boon and whether there would be any drawbacks, and told me it was OK to take it.

I'd prefer that you don't include evil boons, but it really depends on how flavorful it is, how powerful, and how badly people will cheat to get it or avoid the consequences behind it.

Also, it needs to explicitly say that it cannot be taken by good characters. Conversely at some point you need a boon that says it can only be taken by good characters. Fair is fair. In this case you don't need to have any drawbacks behind the evil boon, besides flavor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

10 Con is fine for a backline character if you're conservative. You'll still get hit with AE sometimes. Personally I'd go with 12 Con.

Higher caster stats often mean everything, especially at high tier. 5-10% is a lot when it's save or die.

A 12 Dex compared to 10 Dex is meaningless, especially at higher tiers.

If you have no front liners it's a real problem at low levels period, even if everyone has 16 Con.

Often dying in scenarios has nothing to do with your Con, it has to do with crits, bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the three.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UndeadMitch wrote:
I prefer to go through Paizo to get singles, but if I have to wait an extra week or two for subscribers to get their product, then deal with a rush of people all trying to get limited quantities of the rare minis that people will tend to need to fill out their sets, I'd just save myself the hassle and purchase elsewhere, and end up cutting Paizo out of my minis purchases altogether.

The thing is, the bar dressing minis are all in high demand and are rare, and the worst problem is that customers want *multiple* copies of each bar dressing. There will be no single to purchase the rare bar dressings you are missing anywhere, or to get multiple copies yourself (unless you want to pay $40-50 in the aftermarket).

The real problem is that the bar dressings should have been uncommon, not rare. Stuff like Frost Giant Mage, Bugbear Tyrant, Flesh Golem, and some of the ghouls should have been rare.

The price of the single rares are also too low, at $6-8, especially if you are breaking open cases to get them.

Might need to do another set where some of these minis are revisited, they seem popular.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That sucks about the single sales, I just got a bunch for Christmas, won't be able to do that anymore. The singles aftermarket isn't that good.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So I've done a lot of conventions in a lot of different places, and while local games aren't any indication, by far the community has been very nice.

Baconology wrote:
Played my second organized pathfinder core game and walked out because of demeaning and ridicule from veteran players.

How exactly did they ridicule you?

Baconology wrote:
1) Help new players.

In #2,3,4,5,6,7 it sounds like they were trying to help you, but you have to be receptive to it as well.

Baconology wrote:
2) Have the new player experience FUN, not frustration because they dont know alllll the rules.

Learning new rules and taking directions from others is sometimes frustrating, especially if you don't like being told what to do.

How did the GM and other players make it frustrating as opposed to fun?

Baconology wrote:
3) Dont be cynical and tell new players what they can and cannot do, let the GM do that.

Veteran players are actually trying to help the GM. This is what the community does in general. Other players occasionally correct me and I have 38 years of experience. It happens and you don't let your ego get in the way.

Baconology wrote:
4) Please dont say..."I would recommend new players to NEVER start with spellcasters", in front of everyone, and at the end of the game. Real barn burner that one.

It's just a recommendation and I think you're being too defensive.

I also wouldn't recommend spellcasters for new players or casual players.

If you are going to take a spellcaster, you need to be prepared and know all the spells and spell rules beforehand, and not look much up during the session. As you level up, you gain more options which makes it even tougher. It's not for the casual player.

Story time. I've seen:
1) Wizards with low str and taking feats in armor and weapons. It was not a plan, the player later realized his mistakes, although we never corrected it.
2) That guy doing a 1d4+1 magic missile each round, even at level 4.
3) That guy taking 5 minutes per turn because he doesn't know his spells and never looked it up when it was someone else's turn.

In terms of not contributing, wizards are probably worse than rogues in terms of being underpowered in the hands of a new player.

So yeah, bottom line, it's a recommendation, but if you're not going to follow the recommendation you'd better do some homework, play a pregen, or get someone to help you.

Baconology wrote:
5)New people may think outside the box, so give them at least some consideration of style play, and not box them in preconceived notions of rule and opinions. This is a game of imagination if i remember correctly.

Well, this isn't a home game and everything must fit within the bounds of "reality" and the game system.

In other words (real example from a player), you cannot draw your bow (from your backpack), tie an arrow to that bow, tie the other end to your waist, shoot at a tree 200' away, swing on that rope, all the while firing more arrows using Rapid Shot, all in 6 seconds. Fun imagery, but if you're going to play like that you might as well be playing "The Window".

Do you have specific examples of how they stifled your imagination?

Baconology wrote:
6) Dont let a new player be the only person in the group not being healed, because the veterans dont like you. Rude.

They probably all had their own Cure Light Wounds wands and assumed one of the spellcasters would use it on them. They probably didn't explain that to you.

You know there's a flipside here too. They don't know you. Did you say you were new? It's possible they didn't even know (that you weren't getting healed).

If that wasn't the case what exactly happened?

Baconology wrote:
7) The game should be FUN! Its us against the monsters, not veterans against new people.

How were the veteran players against you other than what you've already raised?

Sorry you had a bad time, I'd give it another try after talking to organizer. Organizers don't want to turn away new players and they should know about this. Maybe even veteran players in the area need to be a little more diplomatic, aware, or sensitive.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BexLee wrote:

Meeting with them on different days trying to offer advice and teach them more about the game.

Even if in a situation where they have a skill they can use out of combat they won’t. The two of them have said many times “We are here only to fight and roll dice.” They get upset if you attack them or you try to make them do a skill check. Everyone has to make a check to get across into the next area. They just move their minis into the next area and want to move on. As the other player’s making the checks get upset if you just let them get away with it or have them get upset that they have to do it. They are the first ones to always run away leaving other players to die.

What are you waiting for?

1) Enforce the rules. If they don't want to make the Climb check, they sit in the pit for the scenario. Letting them cheat and having one set of rules for some players and another set of rules is a GM problem, not a player problem. Please consider that some players might have left not because of the couple, but because of the GMs catering to cheating and favoritism.

2) Stop soft balling. They get upset if you attack their character? Your GMs need to make things fair and if they avoid attacking the couple in favor of other players, they are part of the problem.

Ultimately, it a GM/leadership problem. GMs shouldn't allow players to cheat, ignore rules, and there shouldn't be favoritism. Favoritism kills tables in home campaigns, it kills tables in PFS venues also.

If your GMs were tougher with them, the couple would have left on their own already.

If they're disruptive and continue to ignore the rules and the GM, kick them from the table. If it happens again, feel free to tell them they're not welcome at the venue and report this to a VO. Problem solved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redneck GM wrote:
The husband always plays a rogue style character (ranged) and the wife a "healer" that is usually a Druid more concerned ooc with the survival of her animal companion than anything. Near zero contribution in combat, and NO contribution in social...

So if I'm reading this right, by "skill" you mean they play very non-optimal characters?

Someone probably should have explained things to them months ago. Everyone's character needs to do *something* somewhat effective. Offer to help them in item purchases, character building, and playstyle. Often people just don't know or don't have the time to learn.

If they dismiss all help then that's a different problem. Is it better to be all inclusive and kill your lodge or be "rude" and disallow 2 players?

I GM a home game and I'm in this process myself. The characters are almost level 7 now and things are getting a lot more difficult. As it is, I'm cherry picking weaker scenarios so they don't get crushed in combat. But I'm also teaching them better playstyles, better gear purchases (or rather to even use gold), character auditing (missing 10 hp on one character!), and feat suggestions. So far so good, but it's a process.

Also encountered this problem at a convention. Subtier 6-7, my brother and I basically needed to complete the entire scenario. Had one guy shooting magic missiles from a wand (1d4+1), another guy was a face character with no combat ability (even against a humanoids?), a healing cleric, and a druid with a defensive animal companion. 0 prestige, lucky to come out alive, would be dead with most other characters. Not sure what to do with groups like this except to let them die and hopefully they won't take you down with them. If they were local to me, I'd avoid them too. But really, someone should really be offering them help. You carry 1 guy that can't contribute in combat but not 3. Funny thing is, they probably thought of us as minmax munchkins and that we were the problem. And that's how it is!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blog wrote:
At the very least though, I’d love to see us move away from this mindset of “something traumatic happened, roll to see how crazy you go.”

In 40 years, I've personally never seen this, I somehow doubt she plays the game.

Blog wrote:
The realities of mental health just plain aren’t reflected by rolls on random tables.

No s**^. Real life also doesn't have Cthulu gods or monsters or magic that can make you go insane and want to kill your friends. It's a game.

I worry a little bit about people who try to make the game exactly like real life. This is just someone with too much time on her hands ranting, I'm not sure why you're giving her the air time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know Jones as a Marvel character, but I'm going to watch everything after these trailers. Looks amazing.

Hopefully Iron Fist soon!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding Solo Play
Once you get a basic understanding of the game, playing solo is the best way to become really good at the PFCG. You get more turns, more exposure to the game, and games are shorter.

I started introducing people to the game using 6-player groups and it’s just a disaster since everyone’s turn takes too long. There’s just too much sitting around twiddling your thumbs, which leads to more inattentiveness and apathy. 6-player games are great when the turns are completed quickly.

In fact, we found that larger groups tend to win scenarios a little more often than smaller groups.

I find the exact opposite. I can’t fail in 2-3 player groups (even with inexperienced players) and with the right character I can solo without failing as well (and without being in danger). Not only that, but we can finish a game in 20 minutes compared to a 2 hour 6 player game.

We fail all the time in 6 player games mostly based on time pressure. And it takes only 1-2 characters that can’t explore quickly (or inexperienced players) to make it so that you can’t beat the timer.

It's also easy to fail if you encounter too many banes that demand high difficulty checks or require everyone to attempt and succeed at a check (Demonic Hordes, armies), which is common in 5-6 player games.

Please also consider that if you lose a 6-player game, you’ve not only lost the game but you’ve "lost" 2 hours of playing time. If you lose a 2-player game it’s only 10-20 minutes "lost". If 6-player groups are more successful, maybe that’s not a bad thing? Promoting the game to more people (instead of supporting 1-3 player games) might be better for sales.

To succeed in a 6 player game you need characters that can explore very quickly, ideally without much healing aid. If you then bring a character like that into a game with 1-3 characters, the timer aspect is a complete joke and you have more resources to succeed at all of your checks as well (which decreases the difficulty).

Fast exploration is a powerful ability that should have been controlled more tightly. The three key abilities in this game are healing, hand size/restoration, and fast exploration. In OP you’ve obviously recognized the power of healing, but in Wrath you created Alain, which is just over-the-top in terms of exploration.

Remember that large groups have a much greater ability to succeed at "important" checks.

This was true in the past, but in Wrath the check difficulties are so high that most characters need a boost and there’s only so many blessings to go around. Most times we barely have enough blessings to be successful at defeating one army (we failed to beat 3/4 armies last game when we had 5 players), let alone helping people with other banes/boons or even other armies. In a 6 player game, telling someone to stop exploring because you've already encountered 1 army isn't really an option, you don't have the time.

Also since there are so many turns before you can get a turn again, these cards can drain your hand. If you encounter another "all character" bane in the same round, you basically have a 0% chance of completing any checks once drained. And you might not be able to do anything on your turn (except the free exploration which might be done without a weapon/spell, which potentially could further drain the rest of the party)!

There are many factors, but the biggest (I think) is the marvelous power of synergy.

Synergy is only a factor with concerns to getting blessing support to make important checks. Once you get 2-3 players, you have more than enough blessings to help at critical times. 6 players doesn’t help you any more than 2-3 players and is actually worse because you don't get to reset your hand as often (once you don't have further blessings).

Also, synergy is more of a factor where the synergy doesn’t require the characters to discard or recharge cards to help someone else.

6 player groups are punishing in several respects, I’m not sure why you want to make them more punishing. They were even punishing in Runelords.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure why your local group think Tarlin sucks, he actually rocks. (All of the clerics are actually very good). He's also my secondary character in Wrath.

Starting out with 4 cards sucks (period) and Tarlin especially needs to get armor upgrades to get armor out of his hand (which is a priority with a hand size of 4/5). He also needs hand size upgrades as a priority. His ally should be the Sage so he can recharge his cure spells and he should start with 3 cure spells in his deck.

Tarlin's offensive ability is as good or better than most characters. If Tarlin has a problem, everyone has a problem (except for Alain :) ). Don't like Blood Demons? Then stack under a Banner of Valor, you won't even need a weapon.

Peacekeeper role is the best. So many good options to take. I'm almost at my role but so far I like:

1) Blessings of Iomedae recharge. With 4 Iomedae blessings, Tarlin won't have many cards in his discard pile and these blessings will get cycled into his hand more often (compared to healing them back to his hand). Allows him to explore faster.

Only downside is that I don't find Iomedae (Chr) buffs to be very useful compared to combat or Wis buffs. Mostly likely will be used for explorations.

2) Hand size 7. Hand size is a great power upgrades. More options and more opportunities to use blessings and pretty much everything.

3) Recharge weapons. I assume that with more 2H weapons I'll be able to use my heal ability more. I also assume I'll be discarding weapons to increase combat in AD3. I also assume that a hand size of 7 will let me have weapons "sitting in my hand" doing nothing without clogging up my hand too much. If that wasn't true, I'd get this much sooner since I sometimes discard weapons in AD2 to get blessings into my hand.

4) Other blessings heal friends. I'm already proficient at healing my friends, so this is only nice to have. Also, I find I'm using blessings on others a lot more than I receive in turn. :(

5) Exploration heal +2. You're still gaining cards overall and this is a great emergency heal.

6) Recharge armor to get a weapon. I don't think this is very useful for the simple reason that you NEED armor to protect your hand size of 7 and you only have 2 armor. Plus you can already recharge magical armor. More often than not I've buried 1-2 armors per game, no need to use them to heal myself when my healing abilities (from the prior powers) will already keep my discard pile empty. Already in AD2, I find that my discard pile is empty, with blessings of Iomedae recharging, weapons healing, and combat blessings healing me, I don't see self healing as a problem.

7) Recharge weapon to recharge an ally. Not very useful.

TLDR: Tarlin is awesome.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Characters: Agna and CD Kyra.

We completed adventure 3 and have the following feedback.

1) I really liked the story text. Good job! The names were initially a little confusing but it was great writing. More on this later.

2) "Things" are starting to get "real" in AD3. By that I mean that although we were successful, we were *barely* successful (ended with 10 blessings many times with only 2 players!). And we had some close calls with health. I think this AD will challenge a lot of players (including my 4 player group).

3) Although AD2 was punishing to large groups, I still noticed various mechanics that punished big groups in AD 3. Big groups are already punishing enough?

4) The Shadow Demon servitor demon was a complete non-factor in this adventure. There were so few abyssal locations, his main power of cold damage was ignored, so he was basically a combat 20 creature. While that's tough, we found the Blood Demons in the previous AD much more challenging.

5) I really like the cohorts and the story that went with them. Mechanically they were useful as well.

6) I used my Paizo t-shirt reroll for the first time in 25 scenarios and I needed to use it in each and every scenario. The increased difficulty combined with "high stakes" made it necessary. My partner didn't have rerolls, but I was exploring a lot more than she was.

7) Nice custom art (I assume) on the cards.

8) In general we had a lot of fun with this adventure.

Now for a review of the scenario. We finished with 12 blessings but weren't close to dying.

Grimslakes.... ugh. The Grimslake CON check is worse than the combat check! These things were fairly deadly and made me glad I picked Mythic Guardian instead of Marshall (used by D20 when we were out of blessings). I made all the Grimslake checks (thankfully!). I also liked the villain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope all the characters in this show die. Is that bad? I wonder if that was intended. Dislike them all.

Also don't like that all the characters that have seen zombies don't tell anyone else. Seriously WTF. Or that you couldn't figure out how to kill them after looking at 2 different clips on social media. Duh.

Also don't understand what took the Mom so long at school. OK she loaded some food for the little annoying kid. First of all, why, second how long could that have taken? And why the hell wouldn't she go out of buy an axe after killing the principal?

Having said that, I'm enjoying the stupidity of it all, but I wish the characters were a little smarter. The scariest movies are when the characters do what you would have done... and are still screwed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unless handled very well by a mature and competent GM and players, evil campaigns always end like this. There is no light hearted pvp unless it's a one session game.

My character would have fried him too, he tried to kill me. The player was obviously not prepared for this type of campaign, which is the GMs issue, not yours. You resurrected him, which is nice (or perhaps manipulative :) ) for an evil guy.

I'm just not sure your group is ready for evil campaigns. The angry player is certainly not.

2 people marked this as a favorite.


Painlord wrote:

For my 4pm slot, I lucked out and got into the first round of the 'The Open' ACG Tournament. There were 6 or 9 tables being run today and tomorrow, with 2nd round events happening on Saturday, and the finals on Sunday. The event was timed, based on points, and was.completely.nuts.

The cards were from every set. Every piddlespotting set. We had 4 prebuilt decks. My team Doc76, Pirate Rob, and Joe H. There were 6 locations and the scenario level was about 3...and our decks (at least mine was) were built pretty well, with a mix of fun cards and some power as well. Interestingly, the characters might have been from RotR or S&Shackles or might be interacting swashbuckling with mythic. Each Open Tourney table had a designer GM: ours was Tanis. She giggled every time I failed.

She giggled a lot.

In my first turn, I get hammered mercilessly (I get a 7 total from a d12, d10, & d4) and lose my hand. It's not a good way to start a timed and scored event. The rest of the team manages to close a location as they go around. On the next turn, I use most of my hand getting my butt handed back to me and pass the turn. The rest of the team closes another location.

The entire run had them carrying my laggardly body up and down the game board as I valiantly try to anchor them to the bottom. However, despite my best efforts, we finish early...and even finish the bonus surprise. We knocked up a good score and we'll see if we make the semifinals on Saturday. Our team name was "Don't trust Tanis!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My advice is the following:

1) Do some events that you're interested in (even if you find that you're interested at the convention!). For your first convention, 50-75% of your time maximum.

2) Just walk around for a few hours, especially on Saturday afternoon, soaking everything in and looking at stuff. Costumes/parade, Cardhalla, different booths

3) Spend time in the dealer hall walking around, doing game demos, buy some cool stuff. You could probably do this the entire convention without doing anything else.

4) Check out or participate in the zombie walk on Friday night.

5) Late at night in the convention halls, there are awesome games of "Are you a Werewolf". There are also free sessions to learn to play. Do it!

6) There are so many people at the convention, it's hard to randomly meet up with people you know who are there, even if you're always in the PF room. It's a big room!

7) Leave time for possible naps if possible.

8) Most of all get good sleep each night, go to bed at midnight. Gencon will take it's toll one way or the other and it's better to get quality sleep than to miss events because of naps or because you're sick.

9) There are lots of PF people at Scotties this afternoon, but none at night and people will be playing games at hotel rooms. I advise you look at the PFS "local play" thread for Scotties or go there are try to hook up with people.

Wish I could be there, have fun!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chad Brown wrote:
Without putting too big a spotlight on it, yeah, these scenarios turned out to be a little tougher than we had intended for the "natural second" scenario.

Just to be completely clear (since you quoted me), I have no problem with the difficulty in Wrath and I find it a refreshing change. When I played AD 1-2, we crushed it, although it was very close at times. We didn't fail in 13 scenarios, so for me, it could be a little harder.

I think the most important part of the game however is making cool and thematic stuff happen in the location and monster cards. So far I've liked what I've seen in AD 1-2.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Donny Schuijers wrote:
I do think that people are blaming Carrion Golem on totally wrong reasons.

The problem with the carrion golem is the discards from your deck before and after the encounter. That's how you kill characters, because you can't even judge your mortality anymore by your hand size and the cards remaining in your deck. It's kind of cheap. If it didn't make you discard, I think we would see far less complaints about this card, if any.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My bad, wasn't thinking.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had Pathfinder shirts on for all 4 days of Origins and didn't use a reroll once. Boooo! :(

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I went to Origins 2015 and my sample size is fairly low, but just for kicks will state my observations.

Jason S wrote:
How many players did you have at your table? Did you ever have a solo or 2 player table? How often did you have a 6 player table?

Most of the time I had 3 players at my tables, but occasionally we had 2 players or 4 players.

There was low attendance, so that's the reason for 2 players tables, as well as the fact that certain players needed certain scenarios.

Jason S wrote:
What level was the player skill? Better than expected? Less than you expected?

For the majority of players (and certainly the guys I hung out with most of the time), better than expected. They play fast, smart.

Was also surprised the more casual players didn't understand the basics of deck building.

Jason S wrote:
Did anyone roleplay? :)

Tiny bit, was funny. :)

Jason S wrote:
Did anyone at the table misunderstand a rule and then have it corrected by playing OP? (I think this is one of the greatest benefits of OP).

Only with a beginner player. Wrath is so new (and were beta testing adventure 2), we frequently asked questions.

Jason S wrote:

Were players teamwork orientated and did players discuss choices (at critical points) or did everyone "do their own thing"? Did players ask for blessings at critical points (or where they were in trouble) or did they just roll and fail without asking for help?

Everyone was really awesome at teamwork except in one circumstance (where the player screwed me out of an upgrade for no reason).

The players who had their hands open at all times were the best at teamwork.

Jason S wrote:
Did players try to work as a group or did some players "go rogue" and start exploring locations that benefitted them in terms of boons (but perhaps they couldn’t close the location)?

Mostly as a team, I think everyone trusted that everyone knew what they were doing. Sometimes it made sense to stack, sometimes not.

Jason S wrote:
Did you ever have time to harvest locations for loot (by not closing a location on purpose)?

OH YEAH! (Mansion House, I'm looking at you!)

Jason S wrote:
Were there any characters archetypes that were played more than others? Were Seoni and Kyra really common? :) Were any class decks more common than others? Were any class decks rarely seen?

Did not see a single Seoni or Kyra oddly.

I saw a lot of Meliski's (3 in fact, in a small sample size). Thought this character was bad, but he's quite good.

Bard, Cleric, and Fighter decks were popular. Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, not as popular (1 character each). No wizards!

Jason S wrote:
Were healers frequent or were people flexible enough someone would play one if no one else was playing support? Were there ever too many support characters at a table? Did you ever play in a group with no support characters (and were you successful)?

There were so many people playing support, I was unable to play my support character. That's in over 4 days of gameplay. I was shocked.

Yes people were flexible but people also had characters they wanted to play.

Wrath almost demands you have a healer in the party, unless you have the Herald cohort available.

Yes, my first table had 2 support characters out of 3. Too many, but it allowed me to open up and play recklessly, which is fun.

Yes, I played several (4) tables with no support characters successfully, but Wrath almost demands support, and the only reason we were able to do this was because of the Herald cohort and/or the Sacred Prism loot item.

Jason S wrote:
I imagine players are very flexible with what characters they play in adventures 1+2, but in adventures 4+ do the trends in the paragraph above still hold true?

As you get into adventure 2, people are less flexible for the simple reason that they don't have a character of that tier.

Jason S wrote:
Was there anything else you were surprised by?

Was surprised that some people would stick to their group of 3 and never offer to take another player. Always thought the point of OP was to play with (at least some) players you don't usually play with.

In general though I was very pleasantly surprised by the majority of people I met and only wish they were around locally.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This week at Origins, something like 10 base sets were out at all times. And there's no way Tanis could have watched every box or even what we were doing at our tables.

Having said that, I think 99% of gamers are a good bunch and wouldn't steal cards.

You either need to trust them or play with them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did 1A 3 times on three different characters with week, at Origins. Was a piece of cake. Second game was with a player who had never played PFCG before.

Herald makes a huge difference, a support character isn't even needed.

At Origins this scenario was changed from "+1 damage" to "-1 damage". I can see how the "+1 damage" version could be hard.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Best moments.

Amaryllis beating a DC 18 demon to death using a hatchet (D6 STR). Halfling power!

Winning on the last turn of the last encounter of the last check. After failing her combat check, Katie used her Ivory Dice to pull out the lucky 50/50 win! Awesome!

Winning on the 2nd last turn with Rogue and Dan.

Watching Valeros (Dan) get eaten by 3 blood demons (nom nom nom) thanks to a Demonic Horde (right, that NEVER happens).

Farming the Manor House. Close this location, no way!

Everyone avoiding the Lava Core, lol. And crossing our fingers on the Torture Chamber.

Realizing surges put you over the top and that you don't need to be afraid of Wrath.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ron Lundeen wrote:
Put another way, are there conditions under which you can do either "trigger" action (gain a card feat, or complete an adventure) but not go up a tier?

Unless you complete all of the scenarios in an adventure, you have a choice if want to increase your tier.

I just finished both adventures 1 and 2, and believe me you WANT the rewards for completing each and every adventure. I don't think being gimped would be a wise move going forward, it's quite tough.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to thank Tanis and company for coming out to Origins and supporting OP there. For me, that was the perfect way to spend most of my week. It turned a horrible week into something very relaxing and fun. Thanks!

Also want to thank the guys I met while playing OP all weekend, Mike and Len (who I played through Adventure 1 with) and Rogue and Dan (who I played through Adventure 2 with). Loved playing with you guys, hopefully will see you next year.

Btw, 100% success rate! :)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

1) There are feats that are as good or better (when in combination with other chain feats) than don't depend on someone else.

2) Non-teamwork feats don't depend on someone else, so you're not stymied as often. It's like Magic the card game, why would you depend on a 2-3 card combination when you can get the same results from a single card? You're setting yourself up for failure.

3) Don't depend on others. It would suck if that player didn't show up or left the gaming group.

Despite the drawbacks, not sure why they're not used *sometimes*.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Sure it can kill your character, but that just means your strategy needs to change, as it probably will with every adventure path.

What strategy do you use when you’re permanently dead by being one-shotted (through bad luck)? Raise Dead is tier 5.

PFACG isn’t a “one shot” game, it’s a campaign, and perma-death does more to destroy campaigns than anything else. That’s why there are “save points” in video games or there's no penalty in restarting. Even in Pathfinder Society, death is extremely rare and permanent death is even rarer. If perma-death isn’t rare in the APCG OP, it’s not going to be popular. Period.

Because of perma-death, I dislike any card that forces you to discard from the top of your deck, especially if it happens regardless of success.

Let’s face it, OP is already hard enough: support characters don’t get the cure spells they need (which is one of the many reasons Kyra is so popular), and other characters get non-optimal weapons and spells compared to campaigns. In OP, the odds are already stacked against us. We can’t “fudge”. Are we going to get mythic surges to help us with Wrath? So yeah, perma-death and not even being able to gauge your risk level (because of discards from the top of the deck) is not fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was just curious what people have seen, on average, with convention play for OP. (APCG developers can feel free to post anonymously on their alts :) ) Yes, this is probably colored by the players that attended, but nevertheless I’m just interested in what you’ve seen.

How many players did you have at your table? Did you ever have a solo or 2 player table? How often did you have a 6 player table?

What level was the player skill? Better than expected? Less than you expected?

Did anyone roleplay? :)

Did anyone at the table misunderstand a rule and then have it corrected by playing OP? (I think this is one of the greatest benefits of OP).

Were players teamwork orientated and did players discuss choices (at critical points) or did everyone "do their own thing"? Did players ask for blessings at critical points (or where they were in trouble) or did they just roll and fail without asking for help?

Did players try to work as a group or did some players "go rogue" and start exploring locations that benefitted them in terms of boons (but perhaps they couldn’t close the location)?

Did you ever have time to harvest locations for loot (by not closing a location on purpose)?

Were there any characters archetypes that were played more than others? Were Seoni and Kyra really common? :) Were any class decks more common than others? Were any class decks rarely seen?

Were healers frequent or were people flexible enough someone would play one if no one else was playing support? Were there ever too many support characters at a table? Did you ever play in a group with no support characters (and were you successful)?

I imagine players are very flexible with what characters they play in adventures 1+2, but in adventures 4+ do the trends in the paragraph above still hold true?

I'll be responding with my thoughts after Origins, which will be my first official session with OP with strangers.

Was there anything else you were surprised by?

Just curious. Please don’t take this post too seriously. Thanks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Not knowing your (modified) +Hit, damage, saves, and AC. Players should have a Q card with their most up-to-date stats imo. Makes life easier.

2) Not being ready for your turn and ready to drop the dice. Not paying attention during other player's turns.

3) Shaking your dice too long before rolling, or not rolling all/most of your dice in one roll.

4) Not knowing your spells and not ready to select one before your turn.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
He never got a chance to cast a spell or use an SLA. All characters, the BBEG included, were 9th level. After a 5 hour session and weeks of planning, this was how the story arc ended. I hated it.

The problem is simple, you have a 9th level party and you gave them an CR 8 encounter (9th level NPC). That fight is considered "easy", so it's not surprising that's exactly what happened.

Designing Encounters

Your BBG fights should have a CR of APL + 2 or even APL +4 (depending on your group's optimization).

1) Don't allow options if you find they're extremely unbalancing. 3rd party supplements tend to be unbalancing.
2) The PCs can't just run around beating up whoever they like, there are repercussions. They can be attacked/ambushed too.
3) Maybe less magic items or wealth is a good idea, but it's probably too late.
4) This is a home game, if you don't like a rule, change it.

I've never had a problem challenging my party or characters, if anything I have a hard time not killing them (RAW without home rules). It shouldn't be hard to challenge characters in Pathfinder.

Pathfinder is a great system. I recommend being a player in organized play for a different point of view and new experiences.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:

This is one of my favorite descriptions of alignment.

No no no. That very old description of alignment is part of the problem. It's the reason why so many people hate alignment and other hate players when they play certain alignments. I'd rather not play with alignment if that's how Pathfinder defined them. Luckily the game has improved since then.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's awesome! And we get to preview adventure #2 for Wrath too, wow, this is going to be great. I have every afternoon off to play PFCG at Origins, looking forward to this.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

When I was growing up, I always used a GMPC, but I made sure that:
1) I never favored him or put him in the spotlight or made him “special”.
2) I never made him more powerful than everyone else.

Yes, it’s more fun to have a “PC” of your own, it’s like you’re playing too. No one objected because I did it right and it was more fun for me at the time, but I realize now that the game is better without a GMPC.

I don’t do it anymore because:
1) Your “turn” as GMPC takes away from turns from other characters, and the GMs turn is already too long with the bad guys.
2) Conflicts between your GMPC and other PCs.
3) NPCs can’t talk to your GMPC without it being really weird and boring the other players, which makes it hard to reveal plot.
4) You have an entire world of NPCs, including recurring NPCs, to play. Some of these NPCs can tag around for a limited amount of time with the party... which is recommended! But really, there’s no need for a GMPC.
5) It can be hard to wipe the party if you’re too attached to the GMPC. The other players might even feel protected by this fact.
6) GM already has enough to worry about.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Anyone else have a Scrappy alignment at their table that's not Chaotic Neutral?

There's nothing wrong with either chaotic good or chaotic neutral, just the way people portray them.

In D&D video games, you'll note that many of the most beloved and enjoyable characters are chaotic alignments. In Baldur's Gate 2, Minsc (and hamster), Korgan, Jan, all chaotic. And all playable.

Most players don't really understand alignment anyway, it's not meant to be a straight jacket or a way to typecast a character's each and every moment of their life, it's just a short hand for their GENERAL attitudes.

I play both chaotic neutral or chaotic good quite often at PFS tables. Apparently not many people know how to do it well. Chaotic doesn't mean crazy. Sigh.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
adembroski wrote:
Jason S: Yes, I could sit down and rewrite the entire system to suit my needs. I could. But then I'd be a game designer.

I'm pretty sure you don't need to be a game designer to implement a few of your suggestions, like using 3d6 for ability scores or removing feat prerequisites.

I agree that high level play should be revised, the question is revised to what? That's a thread on it's own.

I'm actually more on board with what Bugleyman is saying. Simplify, simplify, simplify wherever possible.

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone has an opinion on how the game could be more tailored to their personal tastes. The good part is you're free to make up whatever house rules you like.

You realize feats without trees are what actually make it possible to have OP combinations right?

I'm pretty happy with my library of APs, scenarios, and not feeling like I need to relearn a new system.

We're still 5-10 years off from a new edition at least (I hope). The entire reason I like and respect Paizo is that they're not trying to edition me to death like other companies.

Unchained is likely a beta for what it could look like. But I'm a lot happier that it's just an option right now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Why do people do this? I don't understand.

He actually explained it perfectly to you. He was bored and he's kind of an a-hole.

I can see where your campaign style might not be for everyone but he doesn't have to ruin it for everyone else.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Didn't like the finale:

Doesn't make sense to me a surgeon, no matter how drunk, would try to kill Rick, a trained combatant, with a sword, in a fair way. And especially not in front of the community. It's a lose-lose situation. The doctors I know... are not even 1% that stupid. Thought that was unrealistic.

Didn't like how weak and "humane" Glenn has become. Seriously, letting Nick live after another attempt on your life after killing your friend and leaving you for dead? This is getting ridiculous trying to prove how humane the group is becoming. In real life, this just gets you dead.

Didn't like how Deanna got only Nick's side of the story and not Glenn's after being portrayed and being wise (and thorough) before.

Hopefully the wolves are more than 2 guys.

Morgan going from a normal dad to some kind of bo staff wielding ninja. Come on... that takes training, you can't just pick it up, and who would provide that training? And how could you make mistakes when one mistake against zombies costs you your life? "Good tv" (because people love that stuff), kills the realism for me.

Didn't like how they didn't show Glenn getting out of a certain death experience and then tried to be dramatic by letting him somehow snuck up on Nick in the woods when being wounded.

Although it was a different kind of ending compared to the formula ending, it felt anti-climatic and didn't feel like a season finale.

Although I loved season 5, I wasn't a fan of the writing for the finale.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
My understanding is that Jensen tweeted that there was going to be an eleventh season, but there hadn't been any official confirmation yet.

Really? They've been saying all season (even at the fan festival), that this would be the last season.

I guess we'll see. All things have to end, but I really like this show...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Highly doubt it will be better. If it's as good as #3, I'll be happy. Have no faith in JJ and I'm not impressed with the CGI compared to model starships (looks fake).

1 to 50 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.