|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Objectively cape of feinting was terrible and needed to be banned.
Spoiler'd for derail:
No, objectively it offered the possibility of a stun lock. Subjectively, a stun lock is something that is "terrible and needs to be banned".
I speculate that this community would be a far better place (and have far nicer debates) if gamers would accept that difference and own their opinions.
But that's just my subjective opinion on the matter. ;)
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature.
No requests for hostiles; gotta make them at least indifferent first. And that requires 1+ minutes of interaction.
Answers, as best I know/can find:
1)It says in the scenario(I read it afterward) that the spiders have 22 HP, but when we fought them it seemed they had near 40.
If memory serves from when I ran this, I think at that subtier they're just standard giant spiders, which (looking at the PRD) puts them at 16HP. Or maybe they had the Advanced template for an extra 6HP. Could be wrong, though.
2)Is it possible to be triple or quadruple webbed and have the effects stack?
I'm not sure what you mean by "have the effects stack". You can't be quadruply-entangled, but it's possible you'd need a separate escape attempt from each web before finally being completely free. I'm not sure.
3)We didn't have any large minis so the the GM made them medium but didn't make the stat changes
4)Since the Web attack is a ranged attack, does it provoke if in threatened squares?
5)We had a 4th lvl paladin with great Fort saves, no one at the table could remember him failing a Fort save(myself and him included) against the poison, but the GM insisted he had.
6)It doesn't list the webs having DR or anything but it was played that they did, and the webs already in the environment and especially the one they shot for free at the ladder were basically indestructible, this seems odd to me.
7)The explosive crated never went boom, and burning hands was cast...a looot, and wouldn't the burning hands, if cast through a PC's square who was webbed(with that players permission) hit ever instance of the web seperately as an AoE spell? Like if a character was Quadruple webbed the burning hand would damage each of the 4 webs not just one?
Ferious Thune wrote:
Is that broken or abusive? I don't know. I do think it's good they limited the classes with access to it. My reach Cleric would definitely like the ability to get three buff spells off in a round: Swift action drink a potion of Long Arm using Accelerated Drinker (walk around with it in hand)
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I believe AccDr makes drinking a potion of move action, not a swift action.
My point is not that every class must be mechanically similar (that's a terrible idea), my point is that they should be on-par power level wise
Or to perhaps put it another way:
How scared the party is of the BBEG should depend more on their estimation of his level than on what class he is. The WAYS in which the party prepares for combat should be different based on what class he is (i.e., prepare displacement against a fighter, dispel magic against a caster, etc), but HOW MUCH of a threat he is should NOT be a function of which class he is. The party should be equally scared of a 20th level fighter as a 20th level wizard, even if they'll approach the two with different strategies. But currently, that's not the case.
I think you did miss his point. I think that every single person who wants different classes to have their own strengths and weaknesses and thus require a party.
In fact, that's WHY people have issues with some of Pathfinder's elements: because currently, it's NOT the case that "everyone's got strengths and weaknesses". Rather, you've got Class X that has such-and-such a strength and also these other weaknesses, but then Class Y has that same strength only better, and then also has fewer weaknesses and additional strengths.
So if the ideal is something like "Everybody is strong in one or two areas, weak in another one or two areas, and moderately competent in the rest," then the argument from folks like the above is "Let's please get there, instead of having some classes that have strengths but no weaknesses while others have weaknesses but no strengths".
And somehow, lots of people (not just you) see that call for every class to have a unique assortment of both strengths and weaknesses and think, "Wait, you mean you want everyone to be the same?"
I'm still trying to figure out how that conclusion is drawn.
David Neilson wrote:
I would say "Who would be foolish enough to drink strange fluids" but this is the Pathfinder Society.
Kingdom of Loathing wrote:
You think back to what your mother told you about strange liquids found in caves. You're pretty sure she said, "Drink it! What's the worst that could happen?"
On the bright side, the PFS campaign focuses on levels 1-11, and most common complaints about the system (at least, that I've seen) tend to only show up (or be at their worst) at higher levels.
For instance, I recently played a scenario alongside an 11th-level rogue, and although the difference between him and the other PCs could be felt, it wasn't too bad and he could still contribute.
But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants?
Can't speak for everyone, but maybe even the drastic changes are (at least in the eyes of those clamoring for them) still smaller than going to a whole different game? I mean, theoretically, if someone wanted to change anything up to 49% of the Pathfinder system, then it's still "easier" (in at least some sense of the word) to change Pathfinder than to switch to a different game.
Or at least, that's my speculation.
This thread is a good illustration of why you should take the time to tell your friends/family/etc what you love about them instead of only discussing the things they need to do better. If someone can see discussions of how to improve a game and think it means it's unloved, how much more an actual person?
David Bowles wrote:
Because the table only has room for a quick snapshot rather than the full rules? That's why we have both: you can skim the table to get a quick idea of which skills are worth paying attention to without ranks and which ones aren't, and then you can look at the actual rules text to learn more fully how things actually work.
Check out the Handle Animal skill for another example.
John Francis wrote:
It defines what "Trained Only" means, rather than being an additional limitation on top of "Trained Only".
As per the rule I quoted, the only time a skill can't be attempted at all untrained is if it's listed as "Trained Only" and does NOT have an "Untrained" listing. Knowledge skills do not match these criteria, and are therefore able to be made untrained by ANY character as long as the specifications listed in the "Untrained" entry are met.
Bardic Knowledge, then, must be allowing something beyond that.
Or maybe you've misinterpreted the relationship between the "Trained Only" heading at the top of the skill and the "Untrained" entry in the skill description.
Untrained: This entry indicates what a character without at least 1 rank in the skill can do with it. If this entry doesn't appear, it means that the skill functions normally for untrained characters (if it can be used untrained) or that an untrained character can't attempt checks with this skill (for skills that are designated “Trained Only”).
As you can see, a skill being designated "Trained Only" does NOT completely prohibit its untrained use unless it ALSO lacks an "Untrained" entry in its description. If such an entry IS present, then said entry defines what exactly "Trained Only" means for that particular skill.
John Francis wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're saying that the Bardic Knowledge ability to make a Knowledge check untrained literally does nothing.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Pretty much what I figured you'd say.
Okay, technically still 11.2, but...
As of GenCon 2014 a couple of weeks ago, the two-year story of how Thomas the Tiefling Hero saves the world has ended. He fought the demonic hordes at [REDACTED] when the [REDACTED] failed; he persuaded political leaders to support the mustering of an army; he secured and activated a mighty weapon against demons; he rescued Cyphermages from Rahadoum and elven demon hunters from the Tanglebriar, as well as earning the friendship of a tribe of mammoth riders, securing their support in an assault on the Worldwound; he tracked down and killed/captured two treacherous villains; he opened the door to Jormurdun and helped repel the dark forces lurking within; and he even slew a demon lord.
Now, with the threat of widespread demonic incursion past, he's retiring from active duty as a Pathfinder field agent. Now, he'll be spending his time working as an understudy with Ollysta Zadrian of the Silver Crusade (perhaps one day he'll be her successor?) and going on private missions to protect the innocent, whether at the behest of the church of Iomedae or on his own initiative.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
If you honestly can't see the difference between "attend=use the most discreet method possible to liberate the oppressed" and "attend=take part in/give compliant approval to", then I don't know what to tell you. Physical presence is not automatically bad; that's like saying the Mendevian crusaders are evil because they agreed to commit acts of violence among demons in the Worldwound. Saying that helping innocent victims is icky just because it uses the phrase "attend the auction" is beyond ridiculous.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
a mission for the LG "holy warrior" arm of pfs that had players go and take part in a slave auction. they were told the optimal outcome would be that the slaves would be bought and no trouble would be had. for many people, this could have been their first taste of pfs. a slave auction.
Did you actually play that mission? I did, and it was NOT the "go buy some slaves" idea that you paint it as. It was "Go rescue these victims who are about to be sold into slavery, and do so without causing a riot or a bloodbath or anything because that's not good either". The whole idea was that the slaves were victims and the PCs were supposed to rescue them without murderhobo-ing the whole place.
Maybe do some fact-checking next time, eh?
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Is the point of the society to introduce people to pathfinder in hopes they will break off into groups and do adventure paths?
Being a "gateway" is one role of the campaign, but not the only role of the campaign. It's still a campaign of its own, whether people break off into other groups or not. But it is (as I understand it) supposed to introduce people to the game (among other things).
Is the target audience gamers in general? Or optimizers?
Gamers in general, but it's also got some (limited) "hard-mode" options for the optimizers.
Is the point of society play to make it so people can travel to different parts of the country and always have a game available?
Portability is one of the points, yes.
Are we meant to be welcoming to new players? Or adversarial?
Is there meant to be a story and roleplaying? Or just a series of combats and then random useless treasure?
If you think that combat and roleplaying are two entirely different and separate things and there's only room for one or the other, then you're not very good at roleplaying. Some of my favorite roleplay moments have been in the context of combat.
I ask this because I see a lot of gms on here who spend more time saying no to ideas than yes.
This could be a good or bad thing, depending on what's being said "no" to. There's definitely some "no" that has to happen to keep the campaign in such a state as to allow someone to (for instance) come home from active duty and expect the character they built in Iraq or wherever to function the same in Detroit. On the other hand, there's also a lot of "no" that happens when a GM wants the players to experience the scenario in a certain way. Look for keywords like "trivialize" or "challenge".
I also ask because I continue seeing scenarios where the only roleplaying happens when I decide to make the monsters speak languages they don't know and talk to the murder hobos that are tramping about.
If you think that fighting a monster instead of parlaying with an NPC means that roleplaying hasn't happened, then you have a small idea of what roleplaying means. And I say this as someone who has on MANY occasions prevented combat via diplomacy (not necessarily the skill, sometimes just talking instead of ambushing).
I just retired my favorite character, finishing the two-year story of how Thomas the Tiefling Hero saves the world. It involved many instances of talking and winning people over—including his own teammates—but also involved many instances of violence. Sometimes he'd stand empty-handed before a troop of archers with bows drawn, calmly assuring them of his peaceful intent; other times, he'd march forward and decapitate the demon lord without a word.
And it was ALL part of playing that role.
"Assault on the wound" goes so far as to reduce the party to I just their charisma bonuses for the first two thirds of the adventure, and then follows it up with a nonsense dungeon with a bizarre bbeg with bizarre tactics.
I agree that scenario has some issues, but the fact that it involved the violent culmination of several scenarios of exploration and diplomacy as part of a season-long narrative doesn't exactly indicate a lack of roleplay.
Why are there so many adventures where the only talking is during the box text at the beginning?
Because you don't engage in/encourage in-combat roleplaying, perhaps?
Is pfs meant to just be an organized open play tactical combat game? It often seems as if it is.
Only if you treat it that way.
Why is it acceptable for there to be "killer gms" in society? Is the management really ok with people openly trying to be mean to strangers? Are they not worried this reflects bad on the game itself? Are they unaware there is social stigma of the game?
They're aware, but (so far) GMs are not fitted with shock collars for campaign leadership to be able to zap people around the world. Unfortunately, many people's response to toxic GMing is to simply leave ("vote with your feet", "they'll soon find themselves without players", etc), which unfortunately doesn't work in PFS because there are so many fresh players available. They'll just get batches of fresh players and think they're awesome GMs because look how my table is always full! We should work to remove the stigma of talking to GMs directly or even *gasp!* reporting GMs' behavior to the higher-ups. A problem can't be fixed if you just walk away from it; it's just left there for someone else to suffer from.
And this is all more of a Campaign Setting topic than a PFS topic.
There's a relatively new FAQ that changes all our prior understandings about the difference between temporary and permanent bonuses, and is relevant to this topic:
As you can see, the current stance is that a temporary and a permanent bonus function identically. I'm not so sure this was always the intent, but it's pretty clear that it is now, despite how so many of us were used to playing. There's not really another way to interpret "just as permanent ability score bonuses" than that they're identical.