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

Kydeem de'Morcaine's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,710 posts (10,497 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 9 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.

1 to 50 of 598 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrager 3, HP:3/31, AC:18, Touch:12, Flat Footed:16 F:+6, R:+4, W:-1, Init:+2, Perc:+7

Matt charges the last remaining dog thing with a might overhead stroke of his horse chopper...

horsechopper attack: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (18) + 7 = 25, if hits damage: 1d10 + 4 ⇒ (2) + 4 = 6

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:


I have been raged at by a few people because I didn't start out with a 20 in my class's main stat. I have been ridiculed by at least one person on this message board (in a thread that has since been closed) because I said I don't like to have astronomically high numbers. ...

I have had the same experience on the boards. Thankfully few people I have actually played with in person have had that extreme of an attitude.

However, I wouldn't suggest giving up on the game because of that (assuming you like it otherwise). Just try to ignore the jerks online.
I started going to PFS sessions. If someone is a jerk at the table, meh so I lost a few hours. I avoid them in the future. When I found someone that seemed to play the way I like, I would try to sit at the table with them a few more times, on both sides of the GM screen. We get to talking about home games and groups.

It seemed to be a pretty good way to build or find a gaming group. It has worked for me a couple of times anyway.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:


the difference between 16 to 20 is +2 or about 10% extra chance.

10 to 20 is +25% extra chance.

to me this is still just slightly above average in actual mechanical benefit.

Too simplistic. You are conflating % added to the die roll with chance to hit.

Say with a 16 you must roll a 16 to hit. That is 5 chances out of 20 to hit. With a 20 you only need a 14 to hit. This 7 chances out of 20 to hit. That is a 20% increase in chance to hit. I consider that significant.

For the same AC opponent your second example (with the 10 ability score) would need 18 to hit. That is only 3 chances out of 20 to hit. The 20 ability score is now a 133% increase in chance to hit. That is huge.

Edit: I hope that did not come out as sounding condescending. That was not my intention. I was just trying to explain the probabilities in simple terms since few schools teach much probability theory any more.

But it is more than that. With a high point buy you don't have just 1 good ability. They all are. So everyone almost always succeeds at everything. They make nearly all the saves. They are rarely hit and if they are, they survive it over and over. Everyone makes the perception check. Everyone makes the climb check. Everyone makes the ride check. Etc...

Yes, I know that is an exaggeration. But that's what it can feel like. I have been in campaigns where the only noteworthy memorable events were when someone actually failed at something even if it was minor. "Holy carp Gunder missed twice in a row!" "I can't believe Rance failed a will save!"


The GM adjusts everything. The NPC's also have 25 point buy. The creatures all have the advanced template (or better). The poisons are more difficult to resist, the traps are more fiendish, the shop keeper has a higher sense motive and appraise to detect that you are scamming him, the regent has a higher bluff to out lie your truth, etc... Ok, that works. But it is a lot of work for the GM. And it puts you [I]right where you were before all the changes![I] Why not just use a low point buy and keep everything where it was to begin with?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aasimar Oracle of Shaelyn AC:13, FF:13, Th:10, HP 27/27, F3/R2/W5, Perc +0, Init +0
Garret C. wrote:


I`ll start on 1st of August, and I´m looking for 5 players for each subtier.

It is only right that I should assist a fellow nobleman such as Skelg.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will also mention that almost all the people urging me to take quicken spell always mention it in relation to attack spells. Which almost none of the above suggestions are for attacks.

Now that it has been brought up, I can clearly see the use for the buffs and get away spells. Some of the first and second level buffs ARE useful at all levels.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is very difficult to get a sorc AC up to a useful point. I prefer miss chance or other defensive options. Mirror Image, invisibility, flight, dimension door, displacement, protection from X, stone skin, ablative armor, false life, etc...

My 11th level sorc usually runs around with his AC only at 15. Yet he is still rarely hit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most people think the summoner is already too powerful and are unwilling to give it anything else for free. Not certain I agree, but there it is.

I might allow a feat like boon companion. Just replace every mention of the companion with eidolon. And then drop it from 4 level max to 3 max.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This probably my most complicated build, and is actually for PFS PbP where a lot of the complicated builds don't work out.
Nagaji neutral-neutral
Dump int and wis
Max str
First level as Barbarian
Rest as unchained summoner
Eidolon is a small demon built as scout
Take many of the familiar feats from folio for a figment Lyrican Azata (decent diplomat).
Buy the intelligent magic ring from that early scenario.
I will have a demon and angel riding on my shoulders and a ring on my finger. All of which will be smarter than me and contantly telling me what to do.

Often in PFS we don't have either a face pc or a scout pc. Summoners in PFS are often considered OP and not appreciated at the table. This one gives up most of his feats for a familiar and his Eidolon doesn't fight. (I don't think many people could legitimately call him OP.)

If the table doesn't have a scout, I bring the demon and behave moderately nasty. When my demon scouts out a fight coming up, I dismiss the Eidolon, summon a fiendish monster, and wade in with my earthbreaker.

If the table doesn't have a face pc, I bring the angel and behave like a dumb nice guy. The angel will try to talk us past fights. When that fails, I summon a celestial monster and wade in with my earthbreaker.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
1/2E Sorc, HP:68 of 74, AC:15, Touch:15, Flat Footed:14, with mage armor 12hrs F:+11, R:+10, W:+15, Init:+1, Perc:+18

Ok, I always like to 'poll the table' before I try some types of tactics.

Also feel free to call out in character if you want a certain type of creature or buff from me. Lavode is really ok with suggestions. (Some of my other PC's don't take so kindly to others telling them what to do.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I was addressing most of those points.

I really doubt your wizard is 'sub-optimal' to the point of not being able to contribute. It sounds like you are trying to do the wrong things with him and that is why he feels sub-optimal.
One thing you could do is post the build so-far in a new thread asking for advice on what to do with him at this point. I've done that with a few of my characters and been much happier with them.

Totally different possibility, some people just don't like playing wizards. I happen to be one of them. I really dislike the prepared book caster. You will never get a wizard to play like a druid or barbarian, if that is what you really like playing.

Martial builds shine the most in levels 1-6. Especially if they are really optimized for just one thing and one type of combat. At higher levels some of the wierd environments and odd capabilities of the opponents start giving them troubles. Those are often things that a martial character will always find difficult if not impossible to deal with, but may be quite easy for a versatile caster.

Most (but not all) PFS scenarios are relatively easy combat wise. In an area with a larger pool of players you never know what 4-6 players will be sitting at the table. So they are designed to be possible with pretty lopsided groups. I've been at table with no skills, no face, no casters, or no melee characters. We still usually managed to get a win.
You have a small consistent group, that does give you folks a consistent advantage. You have a good idea of what each others strengths and weakness are and how each other will react. So you are substantially more capable than PFS scenarios are really designed to handle. So yes, most of them will be likely to seem kinda easy. That is just a fact of life with PFS.

There are some that are extremely difficult even for a highly optimized and experienced group.

I don't know, maybe they are deliberately picking the scenarios that are combat heavy. There are some that are extremely social and/or skill heavy. There are some combat scenarios that a bunch of melee martials would find difficult in the extreme. Maybe read through some of the reviews (skipping the spoilers) and suggest/request some of the scenarios that have more skill, social, or otherwise non-standard challenges.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most of this has already been said, but I will reiterate and clarify a few.

1) Wizard is tough at low levels. You are just getting to the point where it really begins to shine. At 1st and 2nd level the infinite ray of frost is almost as good as anything else for mooks. And you can still have a few decent spells for the bosses. As the levels start to go up, you will rapidly get much more powerful.

2) The range touch build can be pretty decent. There are some nice debuff spells that are range touch. Might consider reach spell to make some touch into range touch. Some that don't have any save.

3) Unless you really build for it, it is really tough for a wizard to out damage (or even come close) to the damage of a martial class. It isn't impossible, but it is difficult. So don't try. I wouldn't bother with the fireball unless you have some reason to expect a large number of mooks that you will be able to hit at once.

4) Most of my caster combat spells are buff spells to make my allies fight better or debuff spells to make the enemy fight worse. Then I add a few SoS and damage spells into the mix.

5) Very often, the wizard is most able contribute by the non-combat spells. Especially as a wizard, you can leave a few spell slots open for the 'oh crap how do we get over there' moments. Detect secret doors, fly, dimension door, summon monster (that you can speak with) for special tasks, seek thoughts, spider climb, and things like that have literally changed a mission fail into an easy success.

6) Do NOT discount the value of the monster knowledge skills. Being able to tell that it has hardness 20/adamantine, is immune to mind effects, or has a horrible fort save can be incredibly valuable. Especially in the higher level scenarios with some of the really wierd opponents.

7) There are some scenarios (I couldn't even begin to guess the ratio) where being able to fight well is relatively unimportant. There are ones where you can't easily walk around with visible armor and weapons. What will those guys do in those situations?

8) Some of the high level scenarios I've played in recently, the martials had a really hard time even getting close to the bad guys to swing weapons. A flying, dimensional step, invisible caster was completely murderizing the party. My caster actually died, but he was also critical to the success.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes I get more than just a bit irritated with all the players that absolutely refuse to contribute if it isn't their specialty.

It's immune to sneak attack, so I just hide...

I didn't have any room for the feats, so I don't have a ranged weapon...

I got a boon for an Ifrit, so I only take fire spells...

mutters under breath for a few more minutes

Those daggers can still do some damage or maybe you could at least aid someone else.

With your 26 str, you could probably carry a few javelins or at least a free sling. I agree it won't be huge damage, but better than 'I ready my sword for an attack in case something happens to come within range' (for the entire fight). Heck pick up a rock and throw it. If you really are stuck on your 'melee' concept, maybe - just maybe, you should buy a few potions of fly so you can get to melee range. At 7th level, I think you can afford it.

Yes your Ifrit has a theme and doesn't want any ice spells, I get it. How about a haste or communal pro evil?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Lewis wrote:
My PFS Lavode De'Morcaine wrote:
B) Another was a party of all melee martial characters and a couple of encounters pretty much required ranged weapon or spells.
There's no excuse for this one. If you can't afford a bow or crossbow, then javelins and slings are dirt cheap.

I've always been amazed at the number of melee PC's who refuse to get any sort of ranged option since it isn't their specialty.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some of all 4 reasons in my opinion.

Book 1 of CC was intentionally fairly poor loot wise.
Some of the stuff was difficult to find. Not just high perception DC, but you had to be looking in odd places.
Some of it sounds like build problems.
GM probably could be a bit more generous with hints and stuff.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most of my PFS characters are quickly accumulating more prestige than they have any real use for.

Since 2 prestige will buy a wand with a level 1 spell, I think I'm going to start buying lots of wands. My reasoning is:

1) Even if I can't use them, there should be someone in the group who can active some of them. Most of my characters have UMD anyway.
2) Buff wands especially with a decent duration (so you aren't activating it every single combat) will usually last throughout a PFS career to level 12. Even if you offer to use it on other party members.
3) If I pick the ones with a 10 minute duration, or even better the hour duration, I should often be able to have them active in a combat without needing to waste my 1st round on a level 1 spell.
4) If I'm not using actions, even level 1 spells can provide some help at later levels.

So, I would like you folks to help me with a list.
I want to put together all the even sometimes useful level 1 spells that have a 10 minute duration or better.

The ones that immediately come to mind are things like:
Mage Armor
Endure Elements (no in combat effects, but a lot of scenarios are in arctic environments)
Comprehend Languages
Disguise Self
Undetectable Alignment (I'm not sure that has ever come up in a scenario though)
Obscure Aura (I'm not sure that has ever come up in a scenario though)
Magic Aura (I'm not sure that has ever come up in a scenario though)
Remove Fear
Silent Image
Unseen Servant

What would you add to the list as possibly worth while?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry sorry, typo. That is only 4.1k gps.
Click on the avatar, it has all his gear.

I'm not to worried about the weapon bonus. Arcane pool is almost always giving him another +2 to the weapon.

His AC is lousy, but he usually is at 15' reach and trips/disarms anything close.

Don't have the mage armor trick, so been considering a wand of mage armor and/or shield.

Forgot about the jingasa, thanks for the reminder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A couple of us were talking about trying to do something at least kinda unexpected. He almost always plays wierd things. A suli fire elementalist druid multi-classed with monk and crossblooded sorc. Things like that.

So he's thinking of making a single class human fighter (which most say is the most boring class) just to shock the group. Then spice it up with wierd powers and abilities as much as possible.

This might just be a thought experiment, but one of us also might actually try to run it and see how it goes.

So what were thinking is use the regular feats for some wierdness and the even the combat feats to be as wierd as we can make it. It still has to be at least decently effective, but not optimal. The group doesn't really optimize that much, but he won't want to be an anchor for the group.

So what are the wierdest powers we can get into a fighter?

Skill Focus and the Eldritch Heritage line - Some of the bloodlines like undead and storm give some pretty wierd powers that you wouldn't expect from a fighter.

Iron Will and the Familiar feat from the Familiar Folio - That book's options can give you a great scout, diplomat, or even flank combat buddy. Can you still take Improved Familiar without caster levels?

Seems like there were even some feats to give an animal companion, but now I can't find it. Am I mistaken?

For combat feats, the only fighting style that seems to never be used is throwing weapons. But I'm not sure that can be made even halfway decent. So I was thinking going for some of the really rarely seen weapons like scizore, terbutje, mancatcher, tepoztipilli, or urumi.

What do you folks think? Any other ideas for us?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually like Joe Holmes post more than I thought I would when I started reading it.

Yes if you 'puzzle' is a complex situation that might have several potential solutions, it would be more likely to be accepted. I can remember one where solving the puzzle was the safest way to pass the room, but certainly not the only way. You could just run through. Fight your way through the golems. You could try to figure out a way to drag the statues out of the room so they didn't animate into golems. Etc...

I will disagree with Orfamay a little bit. People that like the puzzle infused adventures are not, in my experience, vanishingly rare. Though I would say they are definitely in the minority.
Actually, in the 80's they might have been the majority. There seemed to be a time when they were pretty much expected in an adventure and people got disappointed if there weren't enough puzzles.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
The only reason anybody wants to play chaotic neutral or evil characters in a non-evil group is to disrupt the game, that's why those alignments are often banned.
I wish that I too had the power to read the minds of everyone who has ever or will ever do a certain action.
It's a pretty awesome power to have, I won't lie ;)

As I said before. I agree that some players really are jack-holes trying to disrupt the game. But I think (in my experience) more often it has just been players that just don't know any better. They really think they are supposed to play that way with those alignments.

Lately I have been putting the following 2 statements in my campaign intro.


A ping on Detect Evil does NOT justify unprovoked murder. A person/creature can be evil and not yet have committed any crime that warrants death. Also remember Detect Evil does not ping if a non-cleric under 5th level.
I would prefer this campaign to not include PvP or adversarial relationships between the PC’s (or players for that matter). I feel that a LG paladin and CE cleric of Rovagug are usually not appropriate in the same group. If you both decide you still want to do it, then the 2 players are in charge of finding a way for the 2 PC’s to get along in the same group. You need to find a way to make it work. That is definitely NOT my job to referee you personal relationships. If the 2 of you can’t come to an agreement, you should both make different characters. This is my version of the “Don’t be a jerk!” rule.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My current gear list for my level 11 sorc is as follows:

oil of daylight
potion of air bubble
potion of cure serious wounds
potion of darkvision
potion of fox's cunning (2)
potion of neutralize poison
scroll of breath of life
scroll of disguise self, levitate, magic aura
scroll of heal
scroll of lesser restoration
scroll of remove disease, remove paralysis
scroll of water breathing, water breathing used 1 today
wand of cure light wounds (4 charges)
wand of cure light wounds (50 charges)
wand of shield (50 charges)
wand of speak with animals (45 charges)
wayfinder of revelation
air crystal (3)
alchemical grease
antiplague (2)
antitoxin (4)
liquid ice (5)
dark blue rhomboid ioun stone
bag of holding i
cloak of resistance +4
handy haversack
headband of alluring charisma +4
page of spell knowledge (ant haul)
page of spell knowledge (vanish)
ring of feather falling
ring of sustenance
belt pouch
candle (2)
ink, black
jewelry to match nobles outfit (worth 150 gp, 0.5 lb), noble's outfit
sewing needle
signal whistle
spell component pouch
swim fins
trail rations (2)
wrist sheath
spring loaded
light horse (combat trained), feed (per day), military saddle, saddlebags
shadow lodge signet: +4 disguise as member (worth 150 gp, 0.1 lb)
1,672 pp, 1 gp, 7 sp, 4 cp

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scarletrose wrote:

I always hated to hear the words "your characters cannot be of X alignment".

I don't really get it that much.
I get "The party must be able to work together" or "Tour character must be able to behave himself up to some decent human standards"
I get it that there are people that really take some alignment to become a character impossible to play in a group. But that is what a bad player does, not what a bad alignment does.
Why do so many people let some bad actors define what alignment are allowed in their campaigns?

From the player perspective:

I would think most of it is because the player is NOT like that and actually has a hard time imagining what that would be like. Since he can't envision it, he falls back on some extreme stereotype as "that must be what it is."

From the GM side:
Some of us have a history that tells us that when someone puts CE or CN on their character sheet there seems to be about a 90% correlation with that PC only causing problems in the game.
Not just "bad players." Even people that are otherwise pleasant people to game with, often get lost down the rabbit hole as soon as they put those 2 letters on their sheet.

I personally try not to ban things from my games, but I can certainly understand the temptation. And I certainly have done it with some groups that just plain can't seem to handle it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:


Or for more fun, make auto-tourettes that magically hurl invective and insults at passers-by...


I so have to do this!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:
It is a system flaw to my personal point of view

My point is that this is an oxymoron.

That's why people react to you stating that there's something wrong with XYZ and you find yourself having to repeat the "just me personally" bit: there can't be something wrong with the system to just you personally, so when you say both, only one gets believed.

If you had just said "I prefer if everything remains realistic unless given a clear and specific exception", then you wouldn't have gotten the replies you did. Since you instead said "If things that aren't given a clear exception don't remain realistic, then the system is flawed and illogical and inconsistent and nonsensical... but, you know, just personally", well, people looked at the content instead of the disclaimer.

So, again: there's no such thing as "the system is flawed to me personally". Pick which one you want to stand by and say only that.

Uhmm. No that isn't an oxymoron. Yes, something can have a flaw from my point of view and not from another's.

There are certain things I would look for in a RPG game. In engineering/design terms that would probably be called the system requirements. If it doesn't meet all those system requirements, then it is flawed with respect to me and my requirements.
A different person will most likely have a different list of things he looks for in a game. A different set of system requirements. If it meets all of his requirements, it is not flawed with respect to him and his requirements.

But that's really kinda beside the point. I don't think it is possible to make any system that is absolutely perfect with respect to anyone. Every system has flaws, it is a matter of which set of flaws bother you the least in conjunction with which set of positive features are you most satisfied.

For the most part, I am rather well satisfied with PF and with the way it is played by the majority of people that I have met. Doesn't mean I think it is perfect.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a problem with 'fantastical' things EXCEPT when it is so bizarre it interrupts my suspension of disbelief.

If you insist that something is non-magical, yet it is clearly not possible... Well let's just say that it is jarring to my OCD Engineering Mind.

There was some build a while back that had a gunslinger firing-reloading-firing 10 shots (I think) round after round. With no magic involved. Ok, that jumps out at me.
People without magic just don't move that fast. Besides, if you try to ram a muzzle loader that quick, I'm pretty sure either the friction with the barrel or the impact at the bottom of the barrel will set off the black powder. If nothing else the barrel will quickly get so hot that mere contact with the barrel would ignite black powder.
It doesn't make sense even in your fantasy world and that bugs me.
Now if you say something like A gunslinger begins to get the notice of the X god who is impressed and grants Y power... Ok, you have an in game justification for it that works within the physical universe set up for your game.

I once was in a group that all jumped off a cliff (several hundred foot high). One was in in full plate armor. They reasoned that the falling damage and resources expended would be less than what they would need to get down the possibly trapped/guarded path. Plus they were in a hurry to accomplish more that session. No magic involved.
They should have had splintered bones, been buried into the ground, gear bent/mashed, etc... Nope, nothing but a click stick afterward.
If you have something in your setting that says after killing 14k magical enemies even a swordsman begins to absorb some of their magical power and can now do Z...
But without it, it doesn't make sense even within your fantasy game.

Yes, I know there are people that are not bothered by that kind of thing. Their suspension of disbelief is nearly infinite. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or is logically inconsistent.
But there are some like me who are bothered by it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
I have never seen a PC character that was "an obvious liability". So what if my PC isn't DPR maximized?
I've seen a few. A caster Druid with 13 Wis, for one. For 7 levels he accomplished jack and all, and provided little of value to the party. Then he quit playing.

I've also seen a few. It was me once. (A particular specialized build just didn't work as well as I expected.)

An incidentally unoptimized character or two in the group doesn't bother me all that much. If it contributes halfway decently both in and out of combat, that is enough for me.
But I've seen a very few that were intentionally ineffective. For whatever reason it doesn't contribute and actually endangers the other characters for no real reason. That usually does annoy me.

However, it annoys me just as much when someone intentionally and knowingly optimizes for combat to a significantly greater extent than the rest of the group. If the GM tries to challenge that PC, Everyone else is unlikely to survive.

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:


I love optimization. I prefer to have a character that can dominate encounters and then hold back until there's an emergency. This has saved my party on a couple of occasions. ...

You ever played a team sport with a much better athelete who didn't really try and just putzed around, just waiting for you to be losing so he could 'save the day' and be the only hero? Did you enjoy that game? Most people don't. It is insulting and belittling.

But a powerful character that does work hard, puts extreme effort into helping the others, and that helps make it a team victory? That is greatly appreciated.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:


So the two survivors come back to the lodge to report. The dwarf tells their venture captain that he did all he could to save the necromancer, but the cleric stood there and watched their fellow pathfinder die. The society tells the cleric they can no longer work with them if they cannot be relied upon to cooperate with all their fellow pathfinders. Cleric is fired, character is reported as dead.
Of course, the GM should make it clear to the cleric player as the necromancer lies dying that they will be booted from the society for their inaction. The society is a neutral organization, they care not about the morality or religion of their members, only that they work together. Anyone who breeches these three tenants, explore, report, cooperate, is not going to remain a pfs agent.

Only if you are going to go the other way also.

The inquisitor healed the necromancer. The 3 survivors head back and report to the VC.
The VC tells the necromancer he can not be relied on to cooperate with all their fellow pathfinders. You agreed not create undead, then did so in direct violation of the that agreement, just because you thought it would be amusing. The necromancer is fired, character is reported as dead.
Of course, the GM should make it clear to the necromancer player as the he is getting ready to create a zombie that they will be booted from the society for their action. The society is a neutral organization, they care not about the morality or religion of their members, only that they work together. Anyone who breeches these three tenants, explore, report, cooperate, is not going to remain a pfs agent.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


My father used to be a shop steward (a union representative), one of about six shop stewards where he used to work. He was particularly successful in negotiating with management and getting the workers a good deal.

One day, he went into work to find that the others were having a shop stewards meeting without him. When he asked why, he was told that the meeting was about him. They thought he was too good at his job, and thought that this was suspicious.

In reply, my father got out a small book. "This is my Shop Stewards Handbook. I've got one, each of you has one, and they each say...

off topic:

Part of this was possibly a mentality state at many union shops held by many union stewards. No one at any level in any job was supposed to do anything better than the worst person in a similar position. In fact if you could keep your job and perform worse, that was what you were supposed to do so everyone could get away with doing less.

Teamsters and UAW were particularly vehement on this. I was threatened with physical violence and ultimately lost my job because I actually did the job the way I was told by the folks that hired me. Turned out 25 pieces an hour was easily doable by anyone walking in off the street with zero experience, even though the union had been claiming 18 an hour was the best possible my experienced workers.

Luckily, I don't think many unions have that much power in recent years.

No, I am not an anti-union crusader. Unions (or at least the realistic threat of unions) are very much necessary. If they didn't exist, management very clearly would revert right back to the abusive bad old days of doing whatever they could get away with.
But for a while, some unions simply had too much power and didn't care that they were doing much more harm than good.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Andrew Roberts wrote:
My PFS Lavode De'Morcaine wrote:
I certainly don't push them on anyone. We have had some difficulty a couple of times explaining the animal companion, TWF, oversized weapon, firearm rules to complete newbies before.

Just pointing out that, incidentally enough, all of those rules areas have a PFS pregen for them, so it's really not any different from handing them one of those pregens.

Lini: Animal Companion.
Valeros: Two Weapon Fighting.
Amiri: Oversized Weapon.
Lirianne: Firearm Rules.

I think that's actually his point: because several of the pregens have these complicated rules, he has a folder of characters that don't.

Side note: a "skill level rating" on the pregens could be handy, or even just a list of which pregens would you hand brand new players and which pregens you would never give a brand new player and why.

Exactly! They saw those precise pregens and were instantly set on running them. Even wanting to build their first actual character that way. But they just didn't understand the rules for those choices.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Randarak wrote:
And this way of thinking (disagreement=oppression) seems to be becoming more prevalent. Its troubling, to say the least.

In my opinion, at least some of that is the way it is handled. Especially on the internet.

In person I can have a discussion, even a heated discussion, on a topic such as E vs C and can expect it to be civilized and at least semi-rational.

On the internet, I can almost guarantee it won't be civilized and won't be rational (by either side). It will be full of viscous personal attacks as well as multiple people jumping in with walls of text to try and drown out anyone that disagrees with them. (I've seen at least a few cases on these boards where someone was posting with multiple aliases just to make it look like it was a bunch of people.)
If it doesn't get locked will probably eventually devolve into actual threats.

While agree that it is not, at times, that can certainly feel like oppression to some.

So now, even if I have a well thought out, reasonable, and supported decision; I won't get involved because it won't make any difference and I will at best be ignored. But most likely I will be vilified for disagreeing with some 'obviously' perfect point of view.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

will save: 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (13) + 6 = 19


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of betrayal - I will also mention. One time as GM over the course of a couple weeks I gave every single PC a secret contact that was trying to bribe them to sell-out, betray, or swindle the party. I tried real hard to make the offer good enough and the action not too horribly awful, so that it would be very tempting. To the point I wasn't really sure which way the player/PC would choose.

I was surprised that not one single PC accepted the offer. But what I thought was really hilarious, none of them flat refused either and none of them told any of the others about it, because they didn't want it known in case they changed their mind (even the LG cleric).

They were trying to keep the option open incase they changed their mind or the situation changed and they needed it. They were all astonished at the end of the campaign when they started talking about it found they had all been approached and none of them told any of the others.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sambo wrote:
I've heard that sorcerers are better casters than wizards, but from what I've seen it's almost the opposite in every way possible. ... Is there any reason to pick sorcerer over wizard? ...

It is very group, campaign, and GM dependant.

In my previous gaming group we had who almost never let me find out very much of what was going to be happening or who I would be fighting. The group never wanted to wait around while I filled an empty slot. Even if I talked them into waiting, the GM would rarely give enough uninterrupted time to do so. The campaign was a constant race against time so very nearly zero time to craft any magic items (I was only able to make a few low level scrolls over several levels). The group would get irritated when I was using game time to change my daily list of spells.
So I almost always had the same list of generally useful spells prepared. But what if I needed 3 fly spells that day? Too bad I only had 1 prepared. So I had the same list of spells each day like a sorc, but I couldn’t spam a spell if that was what I needed a bunch of right then. I struggled through 7 levels with my wizard being mostly fairly ineffectual. Most of the time he was less useful that the poorly built fighter run by the newbie. I retired him and made an oracle. Definitely not extremely optimized, but easily one of the most effective characters in the group (might have been edged out by the paladin, but close). In that campaign, with that group, and that GM – a prepared caster is at an extreme disadvantage. Spontaneous casters are substantially more effective.

The group before that was almost exactly the opposite in all respects. Detailed info was fairly easy to come by, the group had no problem taking time for preparation and detailed plans, and the campaign had plenty of down time for whatever we needed/wanted to do getting ready. So the prepared caster was almost always able to be ready with the very nearly perfect spell for each situation to really significant effect. Could make whatever magic items we wanted.
In that campaign, with that group, and that GM – a prepared caster is everything. They are virtually unstoppable and will make virtually any other type of PC look like second string support.

Most groups (including my current one) are somewhere in between. Both are effective. Both have strengths and weaknesses. I think it is actually best to have one of each in a group. A prepared caster to try and have the perfect spell when you know what to expect AND spontaneous caster that can spam pretty good spells like crazy when the smelly-stuff-hits-the-rotary-impeller! So maybe a druid and sorc or a wizard and oracle.

Then of course you get into all the issues of the spell book caster. Which spells do I have in my spell book? Which spells should I pay to get added to my spell book? How many / which ones of my spell books is my 5 str wizard trying to carry around? How many slots do I leave open today? I need to read/learn/ready about 6 times as many spells. Etc… Many players simply hate trying to deal with all that crap.

Additionally there are some (like me) that are just bugged by the whole Vancian prepared caster concept. I just have a hard time getting it to make sense in my head. The spontaneous caster (or even more so the arcanist) makes more sense and 'fits' with what I think a caster should be like.

Sambo wrote:


Separate question: My brother is GMing a campaign and he wanted to create a group of enemies that would mimic the party (in class choice as well as personality of each player) that would consistently be causing conflicts for the party. The enemies would probably be exactly the same level, so how would a GM keep one party from completely killing off the other after one fight? He wants to do it at around 5th to 10th level, so super high level magic is out.

Really, it is almost impossible with the PF rule set and the way most players behave (some degree of murderhobo-ish-ness). There’s only a few ways I’ve seen it work even slightly.

The other group is (also) working for a noble. There will be lots of problems if the party just kills them with any witnesses about. This also means the GM can’t have the opposition group go all out or the PC’s will think they have no choice but to kill them, regardless of consequences. Think Three Musketeers and the other groups working for the Cardinal.

Opposition group is very cowardly/careful about how they do things. They fire a few spells and poisoned arrows from the top of the hill then duck down. By the time the PC’s get there they have mounted their horses (with expeditious retreat) and are already racing to the horizon. Or the outfit and buff some brigands that they have do most of the attacking and dying. The of course run away long before they can get trapped.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to vary wildly.

Every once in a while everything just sort of comes together for me. Concept, mechanics, backstory, gear, plans, etc... Everything comes into may head about as fast as I can make the herolab selections and type. In those cases about 20 minutes. But that isn't my norm.

Usually, I take days to weeks. In odd moments I think about various concepts/roles. The different ways I can fulfill those. Then I start making a really rough concept. Check a guide or two. Make some changes. Post a half-ashed concept for critique. Refine it further with the feedback I get. Then spend a couple more days making minor tweeks and changes to get it 'just' right.

However, I do the above for way more character concepts than I have any opportunity to run. And I save most of them. So usually when someone wants me to make a new character I usually have something pretty close already built. So it seems like I come up with this really complex and fully developed character quite quickly.

Having said that, if a GM wants a character for a one shot and any of my 'stable' ideas don't fit, I can almost always come up with something in as quickly as 10 minutes. But it wouldn't be as 'rich and varied' of a concept as I usually like for something long running.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Since it is on these forums I will try to keep my examples within the realm of gaming, but it bugs me all the time.

A) GM complains the players won't role play, but he always skips right to the next fight if there is even the slightest delay.

B) Players are upset the campaign is a linear series of combats, yet they ignore every potential side trek and don't bother with anything except charging to the next fight.

C) Player is upset that his PC's constantly fails will saves, his builds always dump wisdom, 2-3 classes with poor will saves, and never spends the money for anything to protect his mind.

D) Player/GM says combat takes too long, however never has anything ready and every time have to wait on their turn while they figure out what to do.

Grr!!! If you don't like it, stop doing it!

Sorry, had to get that off my chest before I said something inappropriate to several in-duh-viduals I interact with on a regular basis.

I'm sure you have more examples you can give.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know about everyone, but some people like to think of it as you get a couple of 'almost real missions' before you actually graduate. So they do something like Wounded Wisp, MoFF, then Confirmation. To them you aren't a really a PFS member until you are 2nd level.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ever had the contingency spell end up being a really bad choice? A friend and I were talking about some old games. The subject came up from some things that had happened to one of my characters.

Long time ago I had a character that was mostly just very hard to kill tank. Throughout most of his adventuring campaign he was rarely all that close to dead even when many the other were unconscious. At some point we found one of the old staves that would explode on breaking, but we didn't have anyone that could use it. At some later point someone offered to cast a few high level spells for each of us as a reward. I got a contingency to cast some powerful AoE spells on staff when my character died. We all figured everyone else would be dead or at least smart enough to move away from him in that circumstance and I would have a decent chance to take some powerful bad guys down with me. This was back when it was permanent until activated and could hold several spells. Then I promptly for got about it.
Several levels (and RL months) later, my PC agreed to trade his life to buy the release of some important hostages. (Totally in character for that guy.) Ended up taking place on ship board meeting between 2 vessels. The GM even had me make a couple of wisdom and intelligence checks for reminders. I rolled in the low single digits every time. Right after I put my head on the chopping block, the GM says "Ok, the axe is swinging down... Let me see exactly what you have written down for that contingency spell from last fall." Wait what?!?
The explosion/spells sank both ships, killed most of the bad guys, the hostages, most of our allies, and a few of the PC's.

More recently, had a character going into a very lethal situation. We certainly did not expect very many of the party to survive. Campaign BBEG, super secret stronghold, annex of Hades in our world, yadda yadda...
My caster uses a contingency and teleport. If PC dies, teleport to the chamber of the high priest of the sun goddess. Already paid him for a resurrection, heal, and what ever other condition removals are needed. I even left some backup gear with him just in case. Like I said, was expecting it to be lethal. Then I would be able to prep a little bit and pop back to aid my fellows. All planned out for the worst case.
Only it wasn't quite the worst case.
We are working through the lair. In his office We got a list of names that are traitors working with the BBEG. All good info for cleaning up after word. GM is still smirking though.
We're in a later fight with some sort of constructs and a bunch of 'dimension step' assassins. All of a sudden in the middle of the fight, my brain suddenly makes a connection. I recognize the 3rd name on the list at the same time as the GM is rolling the dice for the assassins flanking me. I don't have a chance to say anything before I died. That 3rd name on the list is the high priest of the sun goddess.
After a short while my character does teleport back to the others, but he is now a skeletal champion/sorcerer blasting his former allies with debuff/curse spells. Becoming the skeletal champion also removed most of the weakness that had been plaguing my sorcerer. I ended up being a tougher fight than the BBEG.

The group all threatened to immediately kill any of my characters that tried to use contingency after the second time.

You have any stories of contingency gone wrong?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gars DarkLover wrote:
Speaking of Players expectations and the like...

Lately I have seen some other recruitment threads giving more details on what they want from the group. I really like that! Thank you.

One said the GM was looking for the "5 man band" troupe. Not my thing. So I didn't have to waste a bunch of time (for both of us) on it with bad feelings on both sides.
Another said the GM was intending it to be a pretty lethal game. I actually sometimes like that, but not right at this time.
Another wanted a bizarre dysfunctional family vibe. Great! I jumped in with both feet.

Over the years I've accidentally gotten into some that had 'unadvertised' expectations.
One the GM really expected every PC to get into love/hate relation ships with other PC's or NPC's.
Another was basically upset that we weren't giving big long expositions of internal dialogue and emotional angst.
Sorry, I'm just not into those. If you'd said something about it in the beginning I would have avoided. Both seemed to feel that 'RP focus' covered their expectations.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"It would appear you are of two guts on the matter."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:

Guess I should add:

5) Can be affected by your history.
Some GM's tend to pick a small number of very powerful creatures. In this case, they tend to have a higher to hit bonus then even the monster melee machines and will rarely miss unless you have a really sky high AC.
Some GM's like large numbers of moderate opponents. In that case, your experience will tell you that a decent investment in defense can have a big payoff, but still leave you plenty for respectable offense.

I favor large numbers of moderate opponents.

... hoping defense will let you weather the storm is a terrible idea that leads to getting entangled, tripped, flanked and murdered by longspears and ranseurs. ...

Didn't say anything remotely close to 'hoping defense will let you weather the storm' in my post. I certainly didn't suggest ignoring good tactics.

However, let's assume we have a bunch of bad guys that do not have +367 to hit and 9132 hit points and are instead individually substantially less powerful than the PC's.
A very slight reduction in offensive might will often not significantly affect the number of hits required to take an opponent out of the fight.
Yet that very slight reduction in offensive focus converted to defensive options can make a pretty significant decrease in the number of hits received.

If you are say a 8th-10th level character (focused entirely on offense) wearing a mwk chain shirt and have a dex of 12, your AC is 15. Most of even the crappy opposition at mid levels will hit you almost every time.

I did not say focus entirely on defense, but at those levels it is relatively cheap to have AC of ~25 and say a 20% miss chance (or some other non-AC defense). Now a noticeable number of attacks will not be doing damage to your PC and your reduction in offensive power is probably negligible against those opponents.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a few things working together.

1) Preference: Think about a soccer team. How many people want to be the striker scoring goals and how many want to be the goalie stopping the other team from scoring goals?
Same kind of thing. Most people would rather be the one taking the enemy down, so that preference leads them to focus on offense.

2) Mechanics: The system as a whole tends to reward offense more than defense. There are more feats that effectively boost offense. There are more stacking buffs for offense. Offense is easier in this system than defense. You have to work pretty hard to get enough defense to make a significant difference.
A lot of people se virtually no difference between a AC=10 and an AC=25 at mid levels. Most any significant opponent is still going to hit the AC=25 almost all the time. So what did that gain you?

3) RL Time: If you have very many PC's with a bunch of defense (which means less focus on offense), often the fights will tend to drag on forever. Some people don't like that. They want it over in 2-3 rounds whatever the results.

4) No Significant Consequences: Early campaign, it doesn't really matter how much you got hurt as long as you don't quite get killed. Wands of CLW are stupidly cheap and easy to procure. Mid campaign you don't even have to worry too much about death since raise dead becomes available. Late campaign the PC's are so rich that even the resurrections are a meaningless cost.

Taken together, these things push a lot of people to focus almost exclusively on offense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

You are a member of the pathfinder society: a lose collection of murderho..erm.. adventurer archaeologists, explorers treasure hunters, adventurers and vagabonds from across golarion. You make a character. Go on an adventure, get a sheet. Get three sheets you level up.


Have something you can do in combat, have something you can do out of combat: Talky face stuff, knowledge skills, sneaky rogue stuff.

I would like to emphasize the bolded portion from BNW.

Not all, but some home groups are perfectly ok with completely dividing things up. This PC only fights in melee. That PC does all the talking. This other PC does all the sneaking. At he just blows carp to pieces with magic. Etc... The PC's are all very specialized.
That level of specialization is not only not necessary in PFS, it can actually be very severe hindrance. A PFS table is usually a random collection of individuals who then need to learn to work together very quickly.
You might not have a super optimized combat machine that can handle all the fighting for you, so you need to be able to do something in a fight. Might be that, none of the guys at the table have a super diplomat bard with +467 in all the social skills, so you might have to help out when talking to others is necessary.

I try and get people to have an answer 4 for questions.
1) What is your primary role/activity in combat? I was planning to hit things with an earthbreaker. That’s good.
2) What is your secondary role in combat, when the primary doesn’t work? What do you mean? It might be a wizard on top of a cliff throwing lightning bolts at you. Oh, I will buy a good strength rated composite longbow. Works for me.
3) What is your primary role out of combat or in social situations? I was planning on ranks in survival so I can track bad guys. Certainly worthwhile in some situations.
4) What is your secondary role out of combat or in social situations? Uhmm… Well I have a little bit of wisdom, so I could put some ranks and a trait toward sense motive to tell when people are lying to us. Excellent. Might even be more useful than the tracking.

I personally, usually also have a tertiary role in and out of combat. But a primary and secondary is usually good enough for a successful career.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:


I'm no structural engineer so I can't tell you which ones would be load bearing based on that picture. However, a DC X know(engineering) could.

Also consider, it is unlikely the person that made that picture is a structural engineer. So I wouldn't rely all that heavily on analysis of the picture anyhow.

If collapse would inhibit the story, give it a high DC knowledge engineering check.
If collapse would promote the story, give it a low DC knowledge engineering check.

Claxon wrote:
Stone to flesh on some load bearing walls would make quick work. ...

I once had a group that used stone to flesh on a wall. Then set down to luch. Ewww.....

2 people marked this as a favorite.
redward wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:
I have been verbose, because I would prefer the policy to change.
To clarify, are you saying you want it to be explicitly allowed for players to read chronicle sheets so they can be aware of rewards prior to playing a scenario?

Hmm... That is probably stating it to strong.

I would prefer fore knowledge of chronicle sheet rewards to not be a thing that is addressed at all.

But particularly, I would like for someone to be able to say something like "Hey I heard there was spear that gives a shield bonus. Which scenario is that?" and get an actual answer rather than being verbally flayed alive.

I see nothing wrong with the lists that some people have started with items/boons that can be found in scenario whatever.
(I really disagree with the people that say knowing X item is on the sheet gives someone a tremendous advantage in the scenario. That is really reaching to try and find something wrong.)

I would like for people to not be looked down on and accused of cheating (at least in spirit), because they want to get something with the character that can use it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.


I've been rereading a few of my posts and I want to clarify a potential mistaken impression I may be giving.

I do understand that there is a policy against 'chronicle fishing.' I have not been so verbose in this thread to excuse my own 'chronicle fishing' activities. Ever since I learned of it, I have been trying to abide by it as best I can, given my current understanding of this rather nebulous 'bad' thing. Personally, I think I abide by it better than some of the most vocal people in my local area have done. I will continue to follow the policy as long as it is the policy.

I have been verbose, because I would prefer the policy to change. It at least slightly hampers my enjoyment of the hobby. I personally, would prefer to have my character win the XYZ of Koolness that he can make use of by his own actions.
"Ok, we were down to only 3 of us upright and I only had a little bit of life left. But I bullrushed the tyrant off the ledge, Jim kept the slope greased so he couldn't climb back up while Julie turned him into a pincushion. I claimed the XYZ as my share. It was close, but we managed to ..."
That is fun to remember and think about it.

Yes, I can GM the scenario to get the XYZ of Koolness. But to me, that doesn't have the same ring.
"Yeah, I wanted the XYZ for this PC so I ran it for some yahoos that really didn't know what they were doing. But whatever, I got the XYZ on this PC now."
Not so fun and memorable. Don't get me wrong, I GM when my schedule permits and enjoy doing so. But getting the XYZ in that manner makes it seem less not more special. At least to me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will say that I don't know what the best solution is, but I will say that some of the ones proposed seem like poor ideas.

I think the hints will not work, unless you make it so obvious that you might as well have just said it. I have 7 PC's so far with dozens of chronicle sheets. I usually only get a few minutes at best to decide which table I will play at and which PC will be used. The odds of a subtle hint reminding me that this one PC has a sheet with something that sound similar seems remote.

I would be careful about making this another convention only boon. Those are starting to really aggravate some/many players. At least in my area, most of the players even very active players simply do not attend conventions.
"Ok we realized this is an issue for lots of people so we have this solution. But the only way you even have a chance to get this solution it to attend a convention whether you want to or not. Even then, you probably won't get"
I go to a few local conventions and would have a chance to get it. But there are already bad feelings over some of the convention boons that a few players have but no one else can get.
I would rather see no solution than this solution. I can't say for sure if any would quit, but I'm pretty sure the response would not be positive.

I would rather just see it as something added to the guide. use the cost as suggested by another poster. Spend 2 prestige on the giving and receiving character to transfer a boon from one to another. The receiving character must also pay any associated gold or other costs directly associated with the boon. The boon can not be used until the receiving character is at least as high of level as the character that one the sheet.

I think that would make the cost high enough that it won't be done for just everything, but it is still possible to get the special X with an appropriate character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
and that sometimes means getting the uber-paladin-sword-of-uberness for your uber Paladin

Does this really actually happen? Most loot on chronicles is pretty terrible for the level at which you see it. It is very rarely something you probably couldnt just buy with fame anyway. Even if it is something unique to the chronicle often it is priced in a way which makes it far better simply to buy something standard out of existing resources.

Outside of higher caster level scrolls and potions or partially charged wands I have yet to see much worth the cost on a chronicle I couldnt already buy with fame.

Rarely for actual power reasons, but abit for theme reasons. Also there are a few that are very nice and/or have something that you just can't spend gold to get.

certain types of animal companions/familiars and unique items come to mind

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I admit. I didn't understand it at first either. But one of the designers at the time, specifically Sean K Reynolds, changed my mind with a post that is linked way above.

It shows what the designers intent was. Which in something that was slightly ambiguous was very important to me in how I decided to interpret things from that point forward.

Almost everyone I have talked to agreed with the interpretation we have all been using.

Until this thread, I had never seen or even heard of this post from SKR. Even then, that thread doesn't really say that is what the rule means. It sounds more like he is saying "I do it this way because it seems to work better." Actually I'm fine with that. But if that was really what they wanted the rule to say, put it in the errata / faq / or multiple re-printings of the book.
Obviously a heck of a lot of us are going to continue reading it they way many of us already have.

A lot of these posts are sounding like we are obviously horrible, mean, vindictive GM's. There is apparently no reasonable way anyone could think take 10 isn't allowed for almost anything. Because obviously we all should magically know SKR suggests handling it like this.

So, according to your interpretation, if I am understanding it correctly, you can never take 10 while swimming? After all, you are in danger of drowning if you fail your Swim check.

** spoiler omitted **

Try reading the conversation. I said I am now inclined to agree that take 10 is allowed if the danger is only on a failed result. I will try to remember to use that in the future.

However, I am offended by the attitude that I am a rotten person for reading it and getting the exact same understanding that the vast majority of people I have met got when they read it.
When even some of the people emphasizing there is no other possible interpretation are relying on a post (which actually doesn't exactly say that) most have never seen, rather than the 'supposedly clear' text being discussed.

Read the last couple of pages. Even people that agree on the fact that immediate danger does not include results of a failed check are still arguing about how to apply the rules to a fairly simple and common situation.
Yet the rule is so simple and obvious, that the only way I could possibly have used my prior judgement was the fact that I was intentionally being mean to the players. There is no possible way I (and most of the gamers I know) could have legitimately thought we were doing it right.

That attitude really bugs me.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I will point out a conversation I heard at the game shop yesterday on this very exact subject. I will not quote so as not to embarrass anyone. The 3 individuals involved had very obviously read this exact thread.

It basically boiled down to:
* Most of the people don't seem to consider it 'fishing' if you learned about it 'legitimately' (like GM'ing or playing a scenario) or accidentally if some mention/writes about it when you didn't ask.
* They're going to keep track of what they accidentally hear about.
* GM a few old ones they need for particular things.
* Make powerful, fast, easy Core PC's that they really don't care about.
* Grind through everything that is new for them in a Core game. GM a few on Core if no one else will.
* Then they can play the ones needed with the 'right' PC to get what they want on they character they want.

(Incidentally 2 of those 3 guys are absolutely horrible as GM's. They don't enjoy it and are pretty obviously just cranking through it as quick as they can. They brag about their multiple stars, but I would much rather not play than have them as my GM. I personally don't want more things encouraging them to GM.)

In my opinion, this behavior is much worse for the community than letting people know 'chronicle sheet X-X has the Halberd of Doom on it'

redward wrote:
... I like seeing people get excited when something especially useful or fun pops up. ...

I absolutely agree with everything you said in that post except this bit. Because it almost never happens.

It has never happened to me or as far as I've heard to anyone that I know that they just happened to have a character play a scenario with a character that can use the reward bangle. Not once. Every single one has been GM'd to get on the right sheet or they knew about it before hand and played the right character.
Yes, I'm sure across the world the odds have played out so that it has happened a few times. But the chances are astonishingly small.
The are umpteen bajillion possible combinations of builds and character concepts. It is pretty unlikely that you just happened to have a character with an animal companion for whom an Axebeak is thematically appropriate when you played that campaign for the first time.

Everyone was talking about it when that came out, so I did hear about it. So I said I was going to make a tengu cavalier specifically to get it. Everyone acted like I had the plague for saying that. Everyone knows that is 'wrong' to play for a specific reward. Building for it is even worse. So now there is this kool reward that I am unlikely to ever be able to make use of because it would be somehow nebulously wrong to do so.
Later I find out that many of those same people somehow have a build that it just somehow coincidentally seemed to work for. But oh no they didn't build for it, it just worked out like that. Yeah right.

The system we have is just promoting being stealthy about chronicle fishing, not actually dissuading it at all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This may be lack of sleep talking, but I think I just had an idea for what may just become my favorite character ever.

Fighter 1 / Summoner X
Dump both intelligence and wisdom (will take iron will and improved iron will to help with saves)
Give the eidolon the Ability Score Increase to intelligence and Wisdom as often as allowed
Make the eidolon small and looking like an angel, have it ride around on my left shoulder giving ‘good’ advice
Take the feat from the Familiar Folio to get a familiar (I forget the name) and improved familiar for the imp or quasit have it ride around on my right shoulder giving ‘bad’ advice
Run the scenarios with the intelligent items. I know there is a shield and I believe at least one with a weapon, but I don’t remember what kind off the top of my head.

He will literally have an eidolon, familiar, shield, and weapon that are all smarter than him and constantly telling him what to do.

It should be epically hilarious!

Any more ideas on what I should do to make this better?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:


I admit. I didn't understand it at first either. But one of the designers at the time, specifically Sean K Reynolds, changed my mind with a post that is linked way above.

It shows what the designers intent was. Which in something that was slightly ambiguous was very important to me in how I decided to interpret things from that point forward.

Almost everyone I have talked to agreed with the interpretation we have all been using.

Until this thread, I had never seen or even heard of this post from SKR. Even then, that thread doesn't really say that is what the rule means. It sounds more like he is saying "I do it this way because it seems to work better." Actually I'm fine with that. But if that was really what they wanted the rule to say, put it in the errata / faq / or multiple re-printings of the book.
Obviously a heck of a lot of us are going to continue reading it they way many of us already have.

A lot of these posts are sounding like we are obviously horrible, mean, vindictive GM's. There is apparently no reasonable way anyone could think take 10 isn't allowed for almost anything. Because obviously we all should magically know SKR suggests handling it like this.

1 to 50 of 598 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.