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

Mattastrophic's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,509 posts (2,468 including aliases). 23 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


1 to 50 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see a new edition largely because I'd like to have something Pathfinder-related to buy again. The system has gotten so bloated and powercrept that new options are a detriment to the play experience, and the APs haven't been compatible with with the power level of the game since around Ultimate Magic or so.

It would also be nice to see a departure from certain outdated mechanics, like Challenge Rating's single-monster combat assumption and the four combats/day assumption. It would also be nice to see a well-functioning and well-supported higher-level game. But now I digress; we each have a laundry list of desired changes.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is "The Paths We Choose" considered the faction retirement scenario for all eight factions, meaning that we can GM it and apply the Chronicle received to any of our characters?

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TetsujinOni wrote:
I would wish to remove the class of players who call for the removal of character classes from PFS.

Given enough time, and enough terrible table experiences, this class of players will eventually leave the campaign. I would imagine your issue will likely solve itself, Oni!

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*bump*

I miss the old way. I wish PFS would have at least kept the old style in place in Seasons 0-4. I've only had bad experiences with Secondary Success Conditions, and I really enjoyed having a task all to myself every session, and how I could challenge myself to complete the task in a cool and clever way.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's no reason to worry. People who complain about Hard Mode not having additional rewards don't actually want Hard Mode. They just want to stomp everything in Easy Mode and brag about how easy they have it due to their their super-genius powergaming skills.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Neilson wrote:
Really, it sounds more like "Hey lets start the Illuminati!"

Golarion already has an Illuminati. There are (supposedly) ten members.

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That doesn't actually work as a contingency. The wall of force does not affect your person.

-Matt

Taldor ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So do critical hits at the dinner table.

-Matt

Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Inner Sea Pirate prestige class seems quite fitting.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyle Baird wrote:
How about a scenario where the PCs try to help one of the Society's 20th-level Seekers prepare for the test?

An entire scenario? I admit I am blushing; I did not know that I had such a distinguished admirer among the authors.

Best wishes,
-Lady Gabrielle d'Apcher

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the issues with the Rules forum, it would be nice to see some sort of mechanism for curation of rules questions and their answers. Like maybe an upvote/downvote system to promote the posts which answer the question. Sort of like Stack Overflow.

As it is right now, the Rules Forum is the place where good questions go to die, as well as clog up the search function for future users with rules questions. I wonder how many hours the Pathfinder community has wasted wading through so many useless and misleading posts in the Rules forum.

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's also entirely possible that the spread of the church of Sarenrae actually is a Qadiran plot to conquer Taldor without going against the wishes of central leadership. It's possible that Taldor had very good reasons to institute the ban.

Anyways, we really could use a new Taldor book. Hopefully, this interesting piece of shades-of-grey canon will be either reinstituted or replaced with some other really interesting shades-of-grey aspect of the country.

-Matt really enjoyed helping out the cultists while planning how to sell them out while playing in that PFS scenario.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David_Bross wrote:
Lessons of Chaldira is fine now though, it was nerfed to allowing you a reroll before the failure/success is revealed, which is far less powerful.

Okay, that's good news, thanks for that.

Alchemical allocation basically lets an Alch4 get the extract benefits of being an Alch7. And if the Alchemist can find a higher-CL potion on a Chronicle (ex: Ruby Phoenix Tournament), it really gets out of control. Also, there have been some items printed since Allocation which make it really spin out of control even more.

I'll have to think about the Pageant of the Peacock masterpiece. My off-the-top-of-my-head reaction tells me that Bards need a bone considering what's allowed in PFS these days. Either way, Pageant is definitely not the highest-priority option to remove. It would be silly to remove Pageant but keep Slumber Hex, for example.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of flying-pouncing monstrosities, I can make a few contributions to this list off the top of my head...

-Source severance
-Slumber Hex
-Lessons of Chaldira
-Summoner
-Gunslinger
-Bladed dash
-Alchemical allocution
-Clustered Shots
-The resonant power for the clear spindle ioun stone
-Emergency force sphere

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's my experience that chases are great when the GM goes for the abstract, highly-descriptive approach instead of the concrete "these are 30' foot spaces, here are the very-specific obstacles with very-specific ways to get past them" approach.

The players need to be on board, too, as they need to be willing to play along and be abstract and descriptive instead of bludgeoning every obstacle with numbers alone.

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
But if for some reason you go for higher optimization (without even going for broken things) the rogues fall behing the other roguish characters, do we agree on this?

I won't disagree with that. I took the DPR challenge with Raquel, and she fell short of an Archaeologist10's DPR. However, the Archaeologist busted out a bunch of daily resources. At the same time, though, I never sat at a PFS table with a roguish character that outdid my Rogues.

So, if the daily resource use doesn't come up, the Archaeologist will win out. If the daily resources are an issue, Raquel is looking a lot better.

This right here is, IMO, one of the fundamental problems of Pathfinder. So much of the game is balanced around daily resources, yet there are no built-in mechanisms to enforce that restriction.

The Rogue and the Fighter have zero built-in per-day abilities. The board really dislikes the Rogue and the Fighter. I do not believe that this is a coincidence.

-Matt

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gelmir wrote:
So, in short, after 2,500+ posts the answer is NO, we CANNOT make the rogue "work" ... There will always be a class that can fill the rogue's role more effectively.

The existence of a more powerful option does not invalidate the less powerful option. You're basically saying that bicycles can't get you a mile down the road simply because cars exist.

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The problem being, of course, that applying a similar level of system mastery to non-rogues produces characters who can shatter published content.

I agree with you, Chengar. It's not very difficult to produce characters who blow through published material. The APs are designed for a party of four 15-point characters with very few non-Core options, meaning that adding in all the powercreep which has occurred since will smash things. The Rogue, I'll say, started off behind a bunch of other classes, and hasn't gotten the same powercreep boost that other classes have received.

That being said... Can we make the Rogue work in published content? Absolutely. The Rogue just doesn't turn published content into Easy Mode like several other classes (with their powercreep) do.

So, if you and all of your group enjoy Easy Mode, I can understand avoiding the Rogue. There's plenty of material out there for you and your group to build whatever Smashy McSmashersons you want. But if you or any of your group don't enjoy Easy Mode, the Rogue is a pretty good idea.

-Matt doesn't enjoy Easy Mode.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone mentioned source severance yet?

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the canon speaking of the current state of the Empire is in a place where the primary elements are all in the mind of the reader. Josh Frost spent quite a lot of his word count on Cassomir rather than on developing the Empire itself. Consider that this thread speaks more about Princess Eutropia than the canon's two sentences ever did.

The answer to the original poster's question is whatever you want it to be. We would need a new and well-done setting book to have any more to work with.

-Matt

Taldor ***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It is worth noting that Lady Gabrielle d'Apcher, the esteemed and talented aristocrat hailing from the Empire of Taldor, has reached 20th level.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that article has me curious and excited for what's coming this fall. I wonder what sorts of fresh ideas the three global admins are bringing to the table, and how both PFS and this Moonsea campaign can learn from each other as well as provide a good experience for a greater variety of players as a result of there being more content out there.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Rogues aren't actually a very good face because they don't get much to go into their face skills other than skill ranks and in class.

And that's kind of my point... skill ranks, the class skill bump, a decent attribute, and maybe some magic items... that's all you need. And once you can hit all your DCs, just like when you're spanking every combat you run into... any further improvement is unimportant.

It's not about achieving the highest modifier after expending a whole bunch of traits and daily spells. It's about being able to hit your DCs. I'd even say that the characters who can do that with the least resource expenditures are the "best" face characters.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Assuming that figure is correct, I'd say that the real question here is:

Why?

Why are so few games at Tier 7-11? Why are so many players dropping out of the campaign before they play Tier 7-11?

Even if the campaign were to add fifty Tier 1-5s a year, that would not address the issue of player retention that the Tier 7-11 figure is indicative of.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is likely an un-repliable thread. The people who are excited don't know enough to cite anything specific to be excited about, and the people who aren't excited would be accused of trolling if they posted.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's also the option of working things from the other end. If your players crave action and danger, kindly inform them that bringing Easy Mode PCs will deny them and their tablemates of the desired experience. PFS won't let you adjust the scenario to the PCs, but you can adjust the PCs to the scenario.

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Rogues get an at-will Dex-to-damage option in Flight Stunt; while clearly not a Level 2 talent, flight isn't exactly hard to pull off at higher levels.

Note that Rogues cannot actually take ranks in the Fly skill. On top of that, the flight stunt requires a Fly check against CMD, as a swift action, while charging from the air. That's not exactly at-will. But apparently it's so powerful that the extra damage needs to be precision damage.

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Swim Stunt is great if you're playing an unterwater game, or better yet, if you're GMing a game where the PCs are forced to go underwater. It's situational, sure, but it's situationally deadly.

Do you know how many rounds, and thus how many dice of sneak damage, would have to be sacrificed for this talent to have any actual effect at all?

A 14-Con enemy can hold its breath for 28 rounds. We're looking at at least 20 rounds the rogue would have to strip away, by sacrificing 20d6 of sneak attack. Keep in mind that the Rogue can only make the attempt (which fails on a missed attack, might I add) once per round. And this stunt doesn't actually kill the target, it just forces the target to start making Constitution checks. Sneak attack damage, that does work to kill the target. Simple mathematics tell us that using this stunt actually makes the target live longer than it would if the Rogue rolled his d6s.

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheSideKick wrote:
i cant seem to find the quote, but you can always count as your own ally unless it says otherwise.

Here we go.

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sneak attack was nice in 3.5, when you could give a halfling rogue a ring of blinking and a sackful of acid flasks. In PF, it's not so good.

Though blink may not work so well for achieving ranged sneak attacks, tiny hut still does.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love how he's such a stock version of his class, with nothing from all the splatbooks that players have access to.

-Matt

Taldor ***

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Graham wrote:
Any scenario in the 7-11 range that lets my Gunslinger Kyrie put a bullet into Torch's head for good please.

Hmm... I wonder what Torch ever did that made him worth killing. I thought he was the good guy, waging a campaign of accountability with a side of vengeance against the well-deserving Decemvirate.

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm...

I wonder... does greater magic weapon actually stack with furious, or does it simply provide a "constant overwrite" effect of the weapon's enhancement bonus?

If the latter... then the greater magic weapon/furious/courageous combo doesn't really work, and courageous simply requires a CL 16+ casting of greater magic weapon to go nuclear.

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
King of Vrock wrote:
With courageous he still needs to make an attack with the weapon to gain the bonuses.

How does that work with Rage, Vrock? Do the barbarian's hit points, saves, etc. bounce up and down based on whether he is attacking? If so, when exactly does the barbarian stop attacking?

See the weirdness?

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TetsujinOni wrote:
I do not see a way to structure a card-based range-related chase which is both compelling and has any potential for entertainment past APL 7.

Off the top of my head, I'd say:

-Is there a reason why ranges can't be abstracted?
-Is there a reason why chases have to be conducted in six-second rounds?
-Why do the obstacles need to be ones which, as you say, don't stand up to ability scaling?

I remember designing a chase for The Golemworks Incident...:
meant to cover the case where Black teleports away. If I remember correctly (this was about eighteen months ago), the mod doesn't cover what happens next, because the text assumes that the players incapacitate Black. The chase scene I drew up for it had the players pursuing Black through investigation, making checks to track down Black's safehouse in the city before Black could burn his loose ends and get away. I basically came up with Law and Order on index cards. There, I abstracted both time and distance.

The chase scenes we have seen from Paizo have been low-level chases. That does not mean that adaptation past 4th level is impossible.

But that's for another day, and for scenario authors to consider, not so much for the GM running an existing chase.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Though this will never happen, it could make for a good discussion:

-Reduce PFS characters' point-buy down to 15, as well as sharply reduce the number of Additional Resources offerings which a given character can take, in order to align the power level of PFS characters with the power level that Paizo products expect.

In other words, if the APs assume 15-point PCs with little to no non-Core options, would PFS be better served if its PCs adhered to the same baseline?

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's worth pointing out that if we have table variation over something as simple as drawing or sheathing an item, based on the language of the Core book, a revision of the Core book is long overdue.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi everyone,

I stumbled across this earlier today. Looks like big changes are coming to the leadership of the Society! I was pretty blown away, but I'll let you guys read and find out about what's happening to the Decemvirate yourself.

Once There Were Ten...

-Matt

Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've updated the previous posting with a revised version of the illustration of Lady Gabrielle. The above link no longer works.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I recently commissioned a portrait of the lovely and elegant Lady Gabrielle d'Apcher. The Lady is pictured in an example of her adventuring garb.

-Matt

Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The top Lymnieris devotion boon, which anyone can get at super-high levels for one feat, allows limitless lowering of people's age categories with no apparent duration or reversibility.

Good call. The method I'm thinking of is not a player option, though, as in not related to a feat, spell, class feature, etc.

Anyways, I'm really glad to see that we've moved well beyond "Doesn't work in PFS. Sorry." and we are coming up with ways for the original poster to accomplish his goal.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is only sometimes in my nature to be mysterious. This is one of those times. Call it a PFS Mystery, and perhaps a goal for your character?

To rule a few options out, the method I am thinking of is not a class feature.

-Matt

Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is always a pleasure to learn of another of the shining examplars of etiquette which serve to define our renowned society. They are the public face which drives our glorious reputation throughout the world.

-Lady Gabrielle d'Apcher

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fourth Horseman wrote:

But ... It was permanent. You got better?

Yep! I can read your post right now! The 50% miss chance on all keystrokes was a real pain there.

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:

This is a point I have been trying to make for a while. The real problem players never cheat. Why would they? They can already secure themselves nearly unlimited power/advantages by playing strictly by the rules. The hardcore min-maxers LOVE the rules. They love RAW. They know that playing by the rules allows them to go on flagrantly abusing the system unhindered. It is for this reason that I encourage behavior that emphasizes personal responsibility over rules following. When people have morals, they don't need rules (and oddly enough, beyond a certain point rules actually seem to erode morals). But for this to work, the higher ups would have to take some kind of definite moral stance when it comes to min maxing, which they seem reluctant to do.

I guess I just wish they'd get off the fence.

Well said. One could argue that RAW is too-often used as a mechanism for absolving oneself of any social responsibility. "It's legal, so I deserve to play this superpowered character. It's not my fault that I'm steamrolling scenarios and soloing everything, it's the campaign's fault!"

-Matt

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand...

Why do some classes get two good saves and other classes only get one? It would be more balanced if every class got one Good, one Moderate, and one Poor save. Except the Monk, because three good saves is their thing.

-Matt

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is actually why I try to avoid using alignment at all. The players who are able to treat it as a roleplaying aid don't need the crutch, and the players who are not able to often use it as an excuse to cause social conflict.

Alignment is just more trouble than it's worth.

In fact, let's examine the story that spawned this thread once more, with more objective language and stripping out references to alignment and the poster's character class, which the OP has also cited as justification for his actions...

Unaligned Clone of OP wrote:

So our Paladin fell and got arrested for trying to seduce the princess. They decided to keep him in the lowest dungeon of the town. So we find a way to break in and spring him. We find that he has basically been stripped of the ability to move properly, having had all his bones broken and been subject to torture.

This prompts my PC to snap. In the ensuing chaos, my PC kills the prisoner NPC. The DM says "What do you say to the guards when they come down?" My response: I pull out my Enlarge Person potion and Bull's Strength potion. Hold person fails. I kill the guard's mage. We slaughter the remaining guards. I charge their leader, and naturally critical. He's dead. I continue a cleave and kill his top mook. The following round we slaughter all the guard and burn their corpses after combat.

We make it out the town guard has found our mercs above ground. The sorcerer goes invisible and a brief dialogue ensues. They demand that we all return and stand trial.

Ensuing is another fight, as I kill a few more guards. The sorcerer breaks stealth and casts an empowered, intensified Fireball on myself and the guards. I take some damage. Guards are mostly dead. The arrogant prince arrives and challenges me to a one-on-one duel to see if we are allowed to go free. We count to three. On two, I turn around and charge him after the mage casts silence on me. I kill the Prince.

His mooks get involved and we slaughter them as well. The DM looks *REALLY* pissed off.

There we go. Based on this version of the tale, is the GM worthy of being called a bad GM?

-Matt

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

48. Just as every Runelord knew about the power of Divination, so do I. I will not be caught unaware of the meddling adventurers. I will make sure I know when they are coming, and I will cast my buff spells right before they do, just as I know they are casting theirs right before they meet me.

49. I will commission dispel magic traps in my sanctum, which will target those up-to-no-good Pathfinders.

50. I will always have a way to escape. I know that the Pathfinders are coming, and they always kill anything with a statblock (and some things without!). I will not trust them when they say they don't mean to kill me, because they do.

Taldor ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

14. I will pray to the gods every day, begging that my stat block be written by Alex Greenshields.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
I am not really seeing how that is true. A group of 4 or 6 pregens is going to be crushed in many scenarios, especially 5-9 or 7-11's.

If that is actually the case, then it is a problem of the campaign not adhering to the expectations it has set for itself. The standards are still in place.

-Matt

1 to 50 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.