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

Kyle Baird's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 5,829 posts (6,409 including aliases). 19 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 Pathfinder Society characters. 11 aliases.


1 to 50 of 5,829 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The oracle used to have a means to destroy it (spark I think?).

1) Find book.
2) Destroy book without regard for personal safety.
3) ????
4) Profit!


The swarms need the see in darkness ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Shel wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
I also died the night before during Stonelords.
I am happy.

So was I. I went back to my hotel room and got more beer and brought it back to the table to watch how it ended.


FWIW, I died in Bonekeep 3 about 10 minutes after that first guy. I also died the night before during Stonelords.


For the love of all gods, roleplay the roper and don't have it attack automatically at high-tier. It's a great opportunity to have flashes from each character's past show up on the walls of his little dome.

(I use a small metal mixing bowl to cover the roper up)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
shadowhntr7 wrote:
Question for the FAQ/upcoming update: Will the Poison Use rules be updated for Vishkanya characters as well?
Still hoping to make a Vishkanya paladin!


"Dammit, not again"

Or a Grippli paladin! It would be a shame to lose your paladin abilities while sitting inside a T-Rex.


andreww wrote:
would you accept joint second?



Rachel Hill wrote:
Your problem #1 is not just in seasons 0 and 1. It also appears in a recent adventure path. RAW. NPCs get to follow different rules sometimes.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowhntr7 wrote:
Question for the FAQ/upcoming update: Will the Poison Use rules be updated for Vishkanya characters as well?

Still hoping to make a Vishkanya paladin!


Galnörag wrote:
The Fun Sponge wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Scenarios like 6-01/02/03 reward characters who are well-rounded. If all you can do is one thing really well, you are hooped when that one thing doesn't work.
I vehemently disagree, these scenario's punish well rounded players, the technologist feat is a specialization, and without it, all the other well rounded skills become useless.
I'm going to take a wild guess that either you haven't played 6-03 or didn't really play 6-03.
My opinion and experience are coming from GMing and Playing 6-02 and having seen a table of 6-01 I haven't suffered 6-03 yet.

So your opinion that 6-03 punishes well-rounded players is based thoroughly being involved with one scenario and watching another one play? Okay then.


TOZ wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Sounds like all of you need to write more reviews.
Stars aren't everything.

Not following. Reviews = Feedback.

If someone has played all but 3 scenarios, their feedback comes from a uniquely valuable perspective.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like all of you need to write more reviews.


Zero star ratings are not 0-star ratings, they're null. Paizo's star rating system ignores them, as does mine with exception of using them to identify the popularity of the scenario.


Ron Lundeen wrote:

I just caught this list; thanks for compiling it!

Is there a meta-meta-list? Do I get an award for having a scenario in top 20, in bottom 10, and in most polarizing (and for being a most polarizing author?). Yay, I'm...famous?

I'm up there too! I'll probably update these again this weekend.


If they had shields they'd be immune to crits until the shield dissipates. Haven't read the scenario though.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

As an example from earlier this summer.

** spoiler omitted **

Rats of Round Mountain:

The dragon's initial tactics are to talk with the PCs and extort treasures from them for passage. If the PCs aren't willing to part with treasure or are just looking to murderhobo everything, these are her tactics:

Before Combat Before burrowing up to the landing, Xiangnuer suppresses her frightful presence and casts detect magic and displacement.
During Combat Should the PCs engage Xiangnuer, she no longer suppresses her frightful presence and immediately uses wall of stone to separate the party. She follows up with her breath weapon, and in later rounds she wades into melee using Power Attack liberally.
Morale Xiangnuer's primary goal is to add new treasures to her hoard. If reduced below 60 hit points, she realizes the PCs are no easy score and attempts to flee by flying away at full speed, finding a spot in the shadows, and burrowing deep within Round Mountain.

Hardly suicidal.


pauljathome wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:

Regarding a recent review (and several other similar reviews):

"We had little time remaining so the GM, perforce hand waved a lot of it."

The scenario specifically states that if the scenario is being run in a constrained time slot (i.e. you're only given X hours), that the final encounter begins with 90 minutes remaining (assuming the PCs haven't figured a way to bypass it from happening at all).

Fair enough.

As I said in the review, I'm actually GLAD that the GM spent time where he did. With our group that was the right decision to maximize enjoyment.

Changed review to reflect new information

No worries. I know some people really don't like having a scenario with more options detailed out than can be reasonably completed in a normal 4-5 hour PFS slot.


Your PCs can, however, use blood transcription during the scenario assuming they have an open slot. And despite no baleful polymorph, any alchemist playing this scenario should be extremely happy. :-)


Regarding a recent review (and several other similar reviews):

"We had little time remaining so the GM, perforce hand waved a lot of it."

The scenario specifically states that if the scenario is being run in a constrained time slot (i.e. you're only given X hours), that the final encounter begins with 90 minutes remaining (assuming the PCs haven't figured a way to bypass it from happening at all).

You are correct, the Georgia Bulldogs (that's Dawgs for some of you), can not win the Super Bowl.


Use the windows snipping tool.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here, I'll do mine:

#railroad #rats #dragons #swarms #deathbyathousanddarkstabbings #WTFGUGS #gimmeyourstuff

#scriptedsandbox #thetenarenotgoodaligned #chasescene #auction #caubomustdie

#sandyroad #freewayfinder #leavethehalflingalone #gcube #swarms

#railroad #demons #swarms #hopeyoudidnotdumpyourwisdomescore #funsponge #iwouldratherbepunchedintheface

#sandbox #mwangiexpanse #nantambu #ayaissmokinghot #gcube #notthatmanyrobots #blameitontheconsortium


I find GM stars to be helpful in making the decision. If it feels like a critical situation and I roll below an 8, I might as well reroll if I'm not confident in my situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David_Bross wrote:

Rerolls make the likelihood of a PC dying to an unfortunate saving throw much lower. They also make misfires at critically bad times a lot less likely and have other major scenario changing effects.

I think this is as intended, to keep the PCs winning, and to help tip the odds against their deaths.

That said, sometimes the dice turn against you, hard.

Whats even better from Kyle's story is if it'd happened now Joe's GM's stars would have saved him either way.

And that the PC in that story us now an NPC? :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is how GMs should handle saving throws.

What's missing from that story is how Joe *made* the save on a 4, but I asked if he'd like to use his reroll. I do that quite often when PCs barely make a saving throw with a moderately low roll. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
Would having a way of marking a review as helpful/not helpful mitigate the impact of these biased reviews? Might provide a useful heuristic of reviews that are inaccurate, at least.

Yep. Really, the Amazon review system in general would be more helpful.


Netopalis wrote:
The only reason that Hellknight's Feast doesn't feature in these top lists is because a bunch of players gave it a 1 star review after playing under a GM who ran it wrong.

That could be said for several scenarios, and it might even be true for some of them. That statement could go a little deeper though. Maybe the GM wouldn't have "run it wrong" if the style of scenario had been different or the information had been presented in another way.

There are so many interactions going on in any given PFS game, it's impossible for us to know which factors are the most significant.


Majuba wrote:
I haven't seen a scenario I'm willing to play yet.



2 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
Take 10?

Correction, Take 10 shirts.


I was using the balance and percentage of 1 and 5 star reviews for PI, in addition to a weight given for review quantity.

Next on my list is to do a quick number for reviews/scenario/months since release.


Surprising level of Parody, er parity across the playable levels:

3.61 Levels 1/2
3.57 Levels 3/4
3.59 Level 5
3.55 Level 6
3.53 Level 7
3.56 Levels 8/9
3.39 Levels 10/11

17.3 Levels 1/2
16.8 Levels 3/4
14.8 Level 5
11.4 Level 6
10.1 Level 7
8.1 Levels 8/9
7.5 Levels 10/11

58-60% of reviews are 4 or 5 star reviews across levels 1-9 (54% at 10-11). The only thing that changes as levels go up, is the replacement of 3-star reviews with 1-star reviews.

Check out this graph of the reviews style!


Parody wrote:

Hmm, where have I recently seen that name...



Thinking of making my first character since Garble. (yes, it's been a while).

Debating samsaran conjuration specialist with early summon monster access via mystic past life and the summoner spell list.


I still need to break this down by tier. I'm open to ideas on how to handle 1-5 vs. 1-7 vs. 3-7. Keep them separate? I wonder if that would slant the data too much based on season since 3-7 didn't exist and only a few 1-5's existed.


Belafon wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

For future scenarios, do you have a suggestion how an encounter like the BH could be adapted for 4 players at high tier? A pair of advanced little ones perhaps?

Usually when I make a 4-player adjustment, I try to reduce the action economies for the bad guys as opposed to making them weaker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Discussed a running of this with a player recently and I came away with a this:

At high-tier the NPC Codex sorcerer in the warehouse has a wand of invisibility. The GM combined repeated uses of that with extra rounds buffing for the alchemist instead of engaging the PCs per the tactics. These tactics combined with the party make-up to cause the encounter to drag out and consume almost the entire slot.

This scenario is about drenching the PCs in Mwangi culture and providing the PCs options to do their investigation. Using the entire slot for a single encounter goes against the intent of this scenario.

As the GM, it's not your job to win, it's your job to tell a narrative with the PCs as the protagonists. You have a limited time to tell the story, don't waste it all on the first chapter.


Makes sense. Blame the writers. Been a lot of that lately.


Sounded like 7 hours well spent! (This is why the scenario has rules for running the game in a limited time slot)

Thanks for the report!


Belafon wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Belafon wrote:
The tactic of attacking when they were halfway across was deadly.
I'm not familiar with that as a tactic. On my phone, can you copy/paste the BH tactics? The only thing I remember is its tactic to drag under water.
In either subtier, however, the territorial animals attack the PCs as the Pathfinders approach the shore near the root they seek.

It's possible that the intention was "approach (either) shore near the root," but I interpreted it as "approach the shore near(est) the root" - in other words partway across the river.

** spoiler omitted **

I guess I meant to quote the sneaky part. I know there wasn't an intention on my part for that situation to be an ambush, but I also designed the scenario to give the GM a lot of flexibility so you can choose what makes the most sense to you. :-)


Belafon wrote:
The tactic of attacking when they were halfway across was deadly.

I'm not familiar with that as a tactic. On my phone, can you copy/paste the BH tactics? The only thing I remember is its tactic to drag under water.


Ascalaphus wrote:
I suppose in hindsight, given the importance of the book, you might wonder why we travelled to Nantambu by ship instead of teleport. In our game though, the bloodrager chick was also a pirate captain with her own man-o'-war, so the thought never occurred to us.

If the PCs question why they were required to travel by boat instead of using teleportation or other magical means of transportation, provide them for following answer, as though the question were asked in Absalom and answered by Kreighton Shaine.

“The city of Nantambu and the surrounding territory are under constant watch by the Tempest-Sun mages. While the Society’s presence in Nantambu is known, the existence of a lodge there must remain a secret. I fear that any fantastical means of travel may attract unwanted attention. Surely seasoned adventurers such as yourself can handle such a lengthy trip.”


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Updated after a week:

Added Ruins of Bonekeep—Level One: The Silent Grave
Fixed a couple of scenarios that had incorrect data (don't expect any of this to be perfect please)
170 new reviews in the last week! Thanks everyone!
New review breakdown: 12/12/29/66/51 – So mostly positive, but follows the cumulative breakdown almost perfectly.

Most New Reviews:
6 6-01: Trial by Machine
6 6-02: The Silver Mount Collection
6 6-03: The Technic Siege
5 5-11: Library of the Lion
5 5-22: Scars of the Third Crusade
5 5-99: The Paths We Choose
4 46: Eyes of the Ten—Part I: Requiem for the Red Raven
4 2-15: Shades of Ice—Part I: Written in Blood
4 5-06: You have What You Hold

Given that it's college football season, I'm moving up to a Top 25 KB Poll. After Week 1, here's the standings:

Top 25 Scenarios (min 10 reviews)
Rnk/Scenario/Change in Rnk
1) #2-03: The Rebel's Ransom (+0)
2) #4-03: The Golemworks Incident (+0)
3) #4-19: The Night March of Kalkamedes (+0)
4) #3-02: Sewer Dragons of Absalom (+0)
5) #3-01: The Frostfur Captives (+0)
6) #4-08: Cultist's Kiss (+1)
7) #3-03: The Ghenett Manor Gauntlet (+3)
8) #46: Eyes of the Ten—Part I: Requiem for the Red Raven (NR)
9) #5-08: The Confirmation (-3)
10) #3-20: The Rats of Round Mountain—Part I: The Sundered Path (+1)
11) #35: Voice in the Void (-3)
12) #2-01: Before the Dawn—Part I: The Bloodcove Disguise (+0)
13) #3-21: The Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment (+0)
14) #16: To Scale the Dragon (NR)
15) #5-13: Weapon in the Rift (-1)
16) #52: The City of Strangers—Part I: The Shadow Gambit (+2)
17) #4-09: The Blakros Matrimony (-2)
18) #5-07: Port Godless (-9)
19) #2-21: The Dalsine Affair (-2)
20) #3-15: The Haunting of Hinojai (NR)
21) #1: Silent Tide (-5)
22) #2-15: Shades of Ice—Part I: Written in Blood (NR)
23) #3-I1: First Steps—Part I: In Service to Lore (-4)
24) #3-18: The God's Market Gamble (-3)
25) #5-02: The Wardstone Patrol (-3)

Top 10 PFS Authors (min 2 credits)
1) Michael Kortes (+0)
2) Jason Bulmahn (NR)
3) Jim Groves (-1)
4) Alex Greenshields (+0)
5) Tom Phillips (+2)
6) Matthew Goodall (-3)
7) Crystal Frasier (-1)
8) Dennis Baker (-3)
9) Adam Daigle (-1)
10) Larry Wilhelm (NR)

Season/Cumulative Avg/PI/Reviews per Scenario
0 - 3.50 (0.6) (14)
1 - 3.66 (0.3) (10)
2 - 3.59 (0.6) (8)
3 - 3.86 (0.5) (15)
4 - 3.64 (1.1) (14)
5 - 3.43 (2.1) (16)
6 - 2.89 (0.7) (12)


This is great guys, thanks for this!


Muser wrote:
Vescavor Enema

Been a while since I literally laughed out loud at a post around here. Thanks for that!


Ascalaphus wrote:

We played this yesterday and it was awesome. The crowning moment was when we had the Oracle Silenced and a fight to stop her from using Alchemist's Fire, and the Sorcerer Feebleminded the Bloodrager.

Turns out that feebleminding a bloodrager doesn't stop him from ripping you apart with claws :D

The fights were fun and challenging, and we felt that our earlier choices really helped shape the final confrontation. We went for aggressively seeking out and confronting the TL agents wherever they were, and as a result when the final conflict came we were at a bit of an advantage. Although that sorcerer really gave me the willies with the kind of stuff he was throwing at us.

I love asking for a fort save, then pausing a moment and asking for a will save. :) Sounds like you had a great time, thanks for the report!


David Bowles wrote:

Suboptimal tactics are one thing. But super suboptimal builds are hard to swallow.

More gunslingers. More summoners. More full BAB classes with high to hit numbers. Classes than can actually present a challenge to a party.

More complicated classes that can be brutal if run by over zealous GMs or pushovers by GMs new to the game?

A better solution is to ignore "hard" CR math and build well rounded encounters that can play out in various ways based on PC actions without getting lost in an over abundance of niche rules.


Janzbane wrote:

My group just played 6-3, The Technic Siege and we ran into this dilemma. More accurately my friend and i fretted over this more than the GM thought we should.

** spoiler omitted **

My friend and I hung a near dead prisoner from the ceiling, and I (as Ezren) wrote a very clever suicide note. All this was done stealthily while the LG Cleric's back was turned.



gnoams wrote:
The biggest issue I've found with pfs scenarios, especially the newer ones, is that the writers don't trust the GMs. If the writer trusted the GM, they'd give each NPC a set of motives and goals. Then each GM would be able to play out the encounters to react to their players' approach. Instead, scenarios are written with rigid instructions, npcs are forced to attack the players in obviously stupid situations. Only in pfs would two bandits think it a great idea to try robbing 6 heavily armed individuals, and fight to the death.

It is inaccurate to place that blame solely on the authors and to claim that we don't trust GMs. Authors, Developers, and GMs share the blame for your issue with poorly written tactics.

Some authors, especially those new to PFS, may write tactics like that.
Some developers change tactics that end up like you describe. Developers are trying to make scenarios designed for the average (somewhat casual) PFS player.
Some GMs have abused open tactical situations and Campaign Management have had to react by limiting GM freedom. See the rules for Coup de Grace as an example.
Some NPCs are given "suboptimal" tactics because it fits better with the NPC motives, and we *are* trying to tell a story after all.
Some NPCs are given "suboptimal" tactics as a way to balance the CR of the encounter or provide a more enjoyable experience. Sure the NPC could lead off with spell X, but would it be a more interesting encounter to lead off with spell Y and use spell X if the PCs start getting the upper hand?


If you take the time to read through a scenario in detail, you will notice that not all of the "not always available items" show up on chronicle sheets these days. Are there still things that show up that *most* PCs will have the fame to purchase? Yep.


Woo, Season 6 just got its second 5-star review! Interesting that the scenarios have 18/12/6 reviews for the Tier 1-5/3-7/5-9 respectively.

1 to 50 of 5,829 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.