Sure, obviously there are small variations. But if you want to play, say, a lightly armored, finesse-based fighter, you have to pay feat taxes in order to make that concept work. If you want to play a fighter who overcomes his opponents through tactics and wit (example: Sherlock Holmes in the most recent film adaptation), there's no real mechanical way to represent that. Divorcing combat effectiveness from ability scores allows you narrative control to describe your character however you want without being hampered by the numbers.
One thing that annoys me is that, by the rules, you can readily have all the materials you need to bend the fabric of reality to your very whim in an easily-replenished 5 gp spell component pouch, but if you want to do something crazy like fight with a bow, then by gods you'd better be tediously keeping track of every single arrow and rolling a percentage chance to see if they break after you use them.
Tristan Windseeker wrote:
Any comment on the Globster's stat block being incorrect? This appears to be an error in Bestiary 3, but I am not sure if the error is the Strength score or the rest of the stat block...
You're probably right, either the Strength is wrong or the rest of the statblock is wrong. It should probably be errata'd one way or another in the future.
I was wondering about that too, and I just decided that the otyughs had been around this area long enough to adapt to dragging half of their body through the muck. It didn't really end up being an issue beyond the first round of combat, though, as both of them ended up staying pretty still.
My main confusion came from the second encounter, with the two urban rangers. I wasn't entirely sure where they were supposed to be positioned, so I had them poke their heads out of the pipe while the party was examining the statue. When they wiggled out, the positioning was such that there wasn't really anything stopping them from fleeing once the gremlin started making the statue glow. Overall that whole encounter was confusing, and I don't I did a good job of conveying what was going on.
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
I think so there is a standard across the board ... w/out the rule you'd have people with odd numbers and such .. this way it's even ... just think if you could switch on each scenario ... oops .. i died ... guess i'll be at full progression to get the money to rez and stuff .. and oh next scenario i'll go back to half progression cause i want to play more.
But you can already do that, just only for those scenarios when you're exactly at the level cutoff.
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
I always thought that was a silly rule..does anyone know why it's in place?
Seth Gipson wrote:
I tend to read the conclusion of the scenario to the players, though ocassionally I will ad lib it instead, but I always try to have something to say or do after the boss fight, just to help the scenario actually feel complete.
The problem is that a lot of scenarios don't really have a conclusion written at all.
Steve Miller wrote:
Can someone provide me with a link to an end-all be-all darkness adjudicating guide? Or a diagram? I'm thinking a Venn diagram with light, darkness, daylight, deeper darkness, and heighten daylight in prevailing light conditions of darkness, dim light, normal light, and bright light would solve the issue.
You'd think so, but the rules on darkness in general are a complicated, confusing mess that manage to confound some of the best DMs I know.
I tend to (try) to make rather powergamey characters, and I don't think I'd take that trait. I'd much rather have extra class skills, or a static bonus to prop up a weaker save. I don't remember the exact math on it, but I think a reroll of a d20 works out to something like a +3 bonus on average. Personally, I don't think that a +3 bonus on one roll per day is really that more powerful than a constant +1 bonus.
Where are you at in Michigan? I know there's games being run in Fowlerville and Mt. Pleasant on a regular basis. Check out the forums on www.michiganpfs.org and see if anything is happening nearby, or toss an email to your local Venture Lieutenant, Eric Clingenpeel, and he might be able to help you find some players.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Just a small reminder: edition warring isn't OK on paizo.com.
Really? Because there's still a pretty offensive post up there "4e is, was, and ever shall be an abomination that trampled the history and traditions of our game)." Is it only anti-Pathfinder edition warring that gets disciplined?
I'm not so sure that's correct. Under the creature's statistics, it does say
breath weapon (2 30-ft. cones, 8d6 fire damage plus spoor worm, Reflex DC 24 half, usable every 1d4 rounds)but it also says
Based on my reading of the second section there, I think it effectively becomes one breath weapon with double the damage.
Mark Moreland wrote:
The portal isn't necessarily a wall of flame from the Hell side of the doorway. The edavagor should be at the far end of the room, close to the gibbets. With darkvision limited to 60 ft. and no low-light vision, it's going to need a round or two to use scent and move closer to investigate. It's entirely possible for the PCs to enter the kennels and escape notice for a round or more, and once they have attracted the guardian's attention, they can always go back through the portal to get healing and other resources they'll need to beat it after they've seen what they're up against. The additional devil only tries to stop them if they attempt to take Zarta through the portal. There's no limit to the number of times they can activate the portal, and thus they can retreat through it and re-equip/regroup as necessary.
When I ran this Sunday, the party's barbarian moved up to attack the edavagor and missed, then was on the recieving end of 5 attacks which killed him instantly. The rest of the party fought for a round or two, but then decided to retreat, and all managed to escape back through the portal. At this point, they wanted to go back to the Lictor and tell him what was going on, and try to get him to send reinforcements into the portal to help them. Realistically, that seems like a reasonable thing, you'd think that the Lictor would want to know about a portal to hell underneath his citadel and try to help, but I knew that that was outside of the scope of the adventure. Since time was running short on the con session anyways, I had the Lictor say that he'd have to launch an internal investigation, which would be a long, complicated, bureaucratic nightmare that would effectively mean it would be months before the Paracountess would ever be released. I hope this was a decent way to handle it, but I really felt like there should be something in the adventure for what happens if they ask for help.
What would be a more appropriate thing to roll?
That's not right, you're getting him confused with
Bedard, the Andoran representitive. Tancred was upset that Damian gave away Ostergarde as his dowry, since Tancred had been using it as one of his own bases.
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
I ran this tonight at the high subtier, and the party didn't have too much trouble with the edavagor. They managed to kill it right before his breath weapon was about to recharge in the 4th round. The 8th-level paladin doing the tanking had a 37 AC while smiting, and an alchemist throwing sonic bombs managed to whittle away most of its hp without too much trouble.
The roleplaying encounters went by pretty quickly, as I believe 4 or 5 of the 6 players were trained in Diplomacy. I really struggled with finding meaningful ways to make it more interesting than just "here's the evidence".
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
That was my impression as well, I'm really struggling with ways to drag each roleplay scene out into multiple skill checks.
I ran this twice at Winter Fantasy. Sadly it was at 8 am both times so I think some of the role playing suffered, but it seemed to go pretty well the second time around. For the first group, they seemed to mostly focus on making small talk and I had to nudge them into trying to make the Pathfinder Society look good. The second time, the group really got into the role playing, so much that we ended up running out of time before the final combat.
Daniel Luckett wrote:
Yeah, those guys were like the Harlem Globetrotters and my poor Lissalan cultists were the Washington Generals. They were still a blast to run for, probably one of my favorite tables at the con.
I've heard people say this before - what's the reasoning behind that? The only thing I can find in the rules regarding (D) is:
I'm also not sure how the Shadow Lodge is going to convince the rest of their party members to go along with their faction mission. "No really, let's let this elaborate twin-swap plan carry out, and just let the crazy Ulfen guy carry off the bride. It's for the better good, I'm sure of it." Ah well.
I'm reading this to prep for Winter Fantasy, and I'm finding it a little confusing. For instance, when the elaborately far-fetched kidnapping plot takes place, why is the groom's first instinct to talk to the PC's? Supposedly it's because the mother of the bride is watching him like a hawk? Wouldn't she be interested in the fact that the BRIDE IS MISSING? Why isn't the fact that the BRIDE IS MISSING causing more of a commotion? How does a bride manage to disappear from her own wedding reception without anybody noticing or caring?
You could arrive at 5 because you're not guaranteed to get 2 every time, since you could fail a faction mission.
Really sad we lost the vivisectionist, and I would like to hear why, from a mechanical standpoint, they are unbalanced. If they aren't, could we please have some other archetype of the alchemist that has sneak attack instead of bombs? That was an amazing idea, and I hate to see it go.
My guess is because of its potential when used as a dip for other melee builds. Throw 2 levels of vivisectionist on top of a barbarian and now you've got access to feral mutagens (stacks with rage) and enlarge person extracts. It gets to be pretty powerful.
Does the Axe Beak boon allow someone to buy an axe beak to use as a mount? I have a player who is playing a witch who wants to buy one now.
I've also seen a fair number of local players riding axe beaks on classes that don't get any sort of animal companions. By my reading of the boon, it simply extends the companion list to include axe beaks, it doesn't make them available to any character. Am I reading it wrong?
Peter Galdr wrote:
Heretical scum such as Oracles don't worship a deity so I don't see why a deity should bother listening to their pleas.
The oracle in my home game is a Shoanti tribesman with the ancestors mystery. His spiritual weapon is fluffed as actually summoning the spirit of one of his ancestors to fight on his behalf.